Dear Mr Walker

Subject: Request for information - Internal Review

Thank you for your email, dated 2 April 2009, in which you requested an internal review of the decision on your Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 22 June 2008.

I have now completed my review and can confirm that I am upholding the original decision of 2 April 2009. However, I do accept that a further section of the FOI Act should have been quoted in that response.

On 22 June 2008, you requested the following information:

1 - the date when Common Purpose first occupied these premises;
2 - how much rent Common Purpose has paid for these premises, together with copies of all invoices;
3 - who first authorised the use of HMP facilities by Common Purpose;
4 - details of what these Norwich premises are used for;
5 - copies of all correspondence (ie letters, emails and attachments and transcripts of telephone conversations) between HM Prison Service and Common Purpose regarding the use of the Norwich facility; and
6 - copies of all correspondence (ie letters, emails and attachments and transcripts of telephone conversations) between HM Prison Service and Common Purpose regarding the use of any other HM Prison Service facility.

The Department responded on 2 April 2009, advising you that no information was held in relation to elements one to five of your request, and that to answer element six would exceed the cost limit under the terms of Section 12 of the Act.

During my review, I have determined that no recorded information is held in respect of elements one to five of your request. As mentioned in our response of 2 April 2009, the decision to allow Common Purpose to use facilities at HMP & YOI Norwich was taken by a former Governor and was a verbal agreement. Therefore, I am satisfied that the original decision in respect of these elements was correct.

I am also satisfied that the cost limit would have been exceeded in answering element six of your request. However, I do accept that a specific subsection of Section 12 of the Act should have been cited, and that a demonstration of how the cost limit would be exceeded would have been beneficial to you.

In element six, you have asked for copies of all correspondence (ie letters, emails and attachments and transcripts of telephone conversations) between HM Prison Service and Common Purpose regarding the use of any other HM Prison Service facility. In order to answer this question, it would be necessary to contact 138 HM Prison Service locations.

Section 12(2) of the Act, exempts a public authority from its obligations under Section 1(1) - the duty to confirm if the information being requested is held, if to provide that confirmation alone would exceed the cost limit.

A number of HM Prison Service locations were asked to estimate how long it would take to conduct reasonable searches at their location. Responses range from 20 minutes to one hour. It was felt that 30 minutes would be an acceptable average time for conducting these searches for cost calculations. Applying the quickest time for conducting searches would also exceed the cost limit as is demonstrated below.

138 locations to be searched at 30 minutes per location = 4140 minutes (69 hours).

138 locations to be searched at 20 minutes per location = 2760 minutes (46 hours).

The cost limit is set at £600, which represents one person spending 3.5 working days in locating, extracting and collating the information being requested, or, for the purposes of Section 12(2), determining if the information being requested is held.

You also raised further questions in your request for an internal review, which are being treated as new requests for information and will be responded to separately.

If you are dissatisfied with the findings of this review, you have a right to apply to the Information Commissioner. The address for the Information Commissioner is:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Internet: http://www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Stephen Hunt

1

2