Mr Richard Jackson

By email: whatdotheyknow.com

Charity Commission Direct

PO Box 1227, Liverpool L69 3UG

t: 01823 345090

f: 01823 345002

Your Ref:

Our Ref: 697172.MJS.LT

Date: 26 November 2008

Dear Mr Jackson,

Request for Information - Decision Review

I have undertaken a review of the Commission's decision dated 29 October 2008 not to disclose the information you requested in your email of 6 October 2008. The result of this decision review is that the original decision against disclosure of the information is upheld. The reasons are set out below.

You asked for full unredacted copies of invoices made available by the Commission in response to an earlier Freedom of Information request. The invoices relate to training courses provided by Common Purpose Charitable Trust to employees of the Commission.

The Commission considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and a response was sent to you on 29 October 2008. The names of individuals were withheld on the grounds that they were exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act.

I have taken into account the representations you made in your email of 29 October 2008. You say that data protection exemptions should not apply to the redacted information as staff members attended the courses in a professional, rather than a personal capacity, and that there is a compelling public interest in knowing who has attended these courses. However, you have not explained why you consider there is a compelling public interest and I cannot see that there is any legitimate public interest in knowing the names of individuals.

The main concern is fairness and that involves a balancing exercise. Having carefully considered the factors relating to fairness, I consider that that the exemption under section 40(2) has been correctly applied and the names of staff are exempt from disclosure under the Act.

Section 40

Section 40 (2) states that any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if -

The information withheld is personal data of persons other than the applicant. The names of staff fall within the definition of personal data in the Data Protection Act 1998, which is information from which a person can be indentified.

Any processing (which includes disclosure) of personal information must be fair, lawful, and in accordance with at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2. The Commission has considered whether the release of this information would be in accordance with this, and has concluded that it would not be in accordance with any of the conditions in Schedule 2.

The disclosure of names is not in accordance with any of the conditions in Schedule 2 and it would be a breach the first data protection principle of fairness.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has produced practical guidance on when names of staff should be released in response to a request for information. The guidance confirms that the main consideration is whether it would be fair to identify an individual and this must be considered on a case by case basis.

The personal information relates to employees of the Commission, past and present, who have attended training courses. The training was undertaken by individuals in their capacity as employees of the Commission. It is not information involving executive or administrative public functions of those individuals in the course of their employment. An individual would not generally expect information of this nature to be subject to public scrutiny.

Neither would individuals expect their names to be released in this way, in response to a request for information. The terms and conditions of the employment of Charity Commission staff provide reassurance that personal information will not generally be given to third parties without the permission of individuals. The individuals have not consented to the release of the information. However, the Commission does acknowledge that it cannot evade its responsibilities under the Act and it must consider whether disclosure is fair and lawful, whether permission is given or not.

The ICO guidance recognises that the presumption is in favour of protecting privacy and release of personal information is only fair if there is a genuine reason to disclose. You say that there is a compelling public interest in knowing who has attended these courses but have not explained what that is. Although you might be curious to know the names, as may other members of the public, it is difficult to see that there is any legitimate public interest in knowing the names of individuals attending specific training courses.

Neither is it possible to see that any legitimate interest, you may have, can only be met by the disclosure of personal information. I cannot see that the names of individuals add any value to the information contained within the copy invoices. Any interests you may have seem to be adequately met by the provision of copy invoices with names redacted. It is not evident that the value of the information is reduced by the redaction of individual names.

Even if you had some legitimate interest to pursue, it is likely to prejudice the rights of the individuals concerned to release the information to you. The individuals may be subject to unwarranted attention and there is a risk of detriment to their privacy. The Commission has received a number of queries concerning the charitable status and activities of the registered charity, Common Purpose Charitable Trust. We are aware that recently the charity has received criticism, which has been posted on the internet, from a range of sources about its aims and objectives. However, the Commission has not received any evidence to suggest that it is engaged in anything illegal or in any activities that would lead us to question its charitable status.

If it is of concern to you, I can assure you that existing employees, who attended the training courses identified in the copy invoices, have not been involved with any communications or decisions relating to the Common Purposes Charitable Trust. Neither is it evident that past employees have had any involvement.

If you are remain unhappy with this response you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision under the Act. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK95AF. (Tel: 01625 545 745. Fax 01625 524510. Email: [email address])

You have made complaints in connection with the Inquiry Report published by the Commission and those complaints will be dealt with by the Commission's Customer Services Department, who will contact you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Marion Shanley

[email address]

&** (this line will not print)

page 3 of 3