Information Access Team

Financial and Commercial Group

4^th Floor, Seacole Building (NE)

2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF

Direct Line 020 7035 1024 Switchboard 020 7035 4848

E-mail [email address] www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Our Ref 10641

Your Ref

Date 24 March 2009

Dear Mr

When I wrote to you on 6 February acknowledging receipt of your request for an internal review to be carried out into the decision to withhold a presentation given to Internet Service Providers last year, I said I had been asked to carry out that review. I also confirmed that I was not involved in the consideration of your original request for information. I have now completed my review and the purpose of this letter is to let you know the outcome.

In order for me to fully consider your request for an internal review, I consulted the policy area where your original request was considered and obtained the relevant documentation. I have carefully considered all the points raised in the original reply you were sent and also your request for an internal review and have decided that the Home Office should continue to withhold the presentation in its entirety. My considerations of this are attached at the annex.

I understand that the consultation on Communications data mentioned in the reply you were sent on 27 January is due to be launched shortly.

If you are not satisfied with this response, you have a further right of complaint to the Information Commissioner who can be contacted at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmore

Cheshire

SK9 5AF.

www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Steve Kirk

Annex A

Section 35(1)(a) Information held by a government department is exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of government policy.

Application of the exemption

The Interception Modernisation Programme's purpose is to ensure we can retain a comparable level of capability in a changing technological environment, in order to investigate crime and protect the public. It is therefore a programme whose information directly relates to the formulation and development of government policy.

Arguments favouring disclosure

As in all considerations favouring disclosure of information there is the position of favouring openness and transparency in government. Greater transparency should lead to a deeper public knowledge of particular subjects which in turn should encourage the public to become more involved in the process of policy development and debate. This should ultimately improve the standard of policy that is produced.

The Intercept Modernisation Programme's (IMP) purpose is to maintain the Government's interception and communications data capabilities during this time of great technological change. The issues surrounding IMP are therefore of significant public interest. There is a large amount of speculation about the options which may be under consideration with little firm information in the public domain. Increased openness with regard to what the programme is considering and regarding the content of discussions and presentations would increase understanding and transparency in this area and inform the public debate.

Arguments favouring non-disclosure

The presentation that you have requested was given by a Home Office official to a closed forum at the Internet Service Provider's Association under the Chatham House rules. The information contained in the presentation served as an introduction to a panel discussion on the possible impact any IMP solution may have on ISPA members. Those discussions and the presentation that preceded them were based on what might be contained in the Communications Data consultation document. The media and public were not invited to the ISPA so that confidential and speculative discussion could take place to help inform Government policy.

It is not in the public interest to compromise the Government's ability to discuss and formulate policy options in private with specific individuals or groups. It is important in the early stages of policy formulation for the Government to be able to consider and discuss a variety of options. To reveal at this formative stage the nature of what proposals have been considered or the conversations that have taken place with would prematurely reveal information about the policy formulation process and the options under consideration. Those involved in policy formulation would be likely to be less candid with their views and unlikely to propose new and challenging ideas if they thought that they would be released prematurely. Those outside of Government who may be involved in discussions about policy would also be less likely to engage if they believed that their views would be made public. This in turn would result in poorer quality decision making.

Balance

Having considered the arguments both in favour and against releasing the information, I am of the view that the public interest can best be served by withholding the information you have requested. I believe that the need to protect the space in which government policy can be discussed and formulated, without premature disclosure overrides the factors in favour of disclosure. Furthermore the Government will be addressing the public interest in this issue by bringing forward a consultation paper in the near future.

Section 24(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Application of the exemption

Section 24 is being applied to a small amount of information within the slides which, if released, would could be damaging to national security.

Arguments in favour of disclosure

I am aware that the Interception modernisation Programme is of great public interest as there is a large amount of speculation about what options may be under consideration. The release of the information would allow the public to know what options are under consideration and could contribute to the quality of public debate.

Arguments in favour of non-disclosure

The disclosure of the presentation you have requested could give those with the right sort of knowledge the opportunity to identify techniques used to protect national security and could be advantageous to those who wish to harm the national security of this country.

Balance

Having carefully considered the arguments in favour and against disclosure of the presentation, I am of the view that the strong public interest in safeguarding national security far outweighs any benefit that the public may gain from it being released.

2

BUILDING A SAFE, JUST AND TOLERANT SOCIETY

G:\My Documents\Word\Home Office Letter Template.doc

Mr Michael Bimmler

[email address]