FOI case number 41739

Dear Mr Sittampalam,

Following your message of 25 January 2010, I regret to say that we have so
far failed to find the original case file holding the information
previously released under 41739 on BBC Derogation.

Please note that we do not count requests for copies of previous releases
as freedom of information requests. However, as we have not managed to
locate the file within 20 working days, if you agree, we will treat this
as a new request, examining again the public interest test arguments
applied, under the following original terms:

"Request for information on the background to the BBC's derogation from
the FOI Act for purposes of journalism, art or literature, including
information relating to:
1. consideration by government of the relevant policy issues which were
ultimately determined by enactment of the derogation;
2. communications with the BBC and/or Channel 4 and/ or other persons
outside government regarding the relevant issues;
3. the relevant issues in so far as dealt with during the passage of the
FOI Bill through Parliament;
4. Home Office memo to Lord Williams 0f 9.8.98."

We have given the above request a new case number (136925), and I am sorry
for the inconvenience this may have caused.

If you require anything else or if I can be of further assistance please
let me know.

Regards,

Stephen Bell
Freedom of Information Team

Public Engagement and Recognition Unit
Department for Culture, Media and Sport |2-4 Cockspur Street |London |SW1Y
5DH
* [1][email address] |' 020 7211 2304|;
[2]www.culture.gov.uk
DCMS aims to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and
sporting activities, to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion
the tourism, creative and leisure industries.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Sittampalam
I am writing in response to your emails of 23 January and 27 February to
my colleague Stephen Bell.
You requested a copy of a previous case file (41739) on the BBC's
derogation from the FOI Act.
Stephen Bell emailed you on 22 February to say that he had not so far been
able to find a copy of the papers from case 41739, but suggested that if
you agreed, we could look at your request for information as a separate
case, carrying out a new search for information. You were advised we have
had difficulty in locating the file. However, I am pleased to say that I
have now found copies of the full documents released under case 41739,
which are now provided to you. I apologise for the time it has taken to
respond.
Please note that this information appears redacted in places as it was in
the version given out in case 41739. Some parts of the redactions in case
41739 were made under the exemptions set out in the Freedom of Information
Act and other parts of the documents had been removed because they were
not about the BBC's derogation from the Act and were not relevant to the
request.
In response to the point made in your email of 27 February about the
information not being attached to the publication scheme, I would like to
explain the intention of publications schemes. They are meant to list the
types of information that public bodies will routinely make available and
to show where this information is available. Public bodies are not obliged
to attach to the publication scheme every document they have released in
response to freedom of information requests, and (like many other public
bodies) our Department takes the view that it would take a
disproportionate cost to attach every single document released to the
website.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Halpern
Freedom of Information Team
DCMS

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Sittampalam,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 23 March to my colleague Daniel Halpern.
Your case was referred to me for further consideration.

I have found that in his email of 22 February, Stephen Bell advised that
we do not treat requests for copies of previous requests as freedom of
information requests. However that does not mean that we do not provide
the information; it means that we log it on our system as general
correspondence.

The Information Commissioner's Guidance for public authorities on handling
freedom of information requests states that `it is very important to draw
a distinction between [freedom of information] requests and routine
correspondence. Requests for information that can be provided without any
question - such as recruitment brochures, leaflets, press releases and the
text of public speeches - should be treated as business as usual.' As
requests for copies of previous releases do not involve any decision
making process, we log them as standard correspondence, but the requester
will receive the same response whichever way the request is registered.

Having looked at all the correspondence there is no any further
substantial point that could be considered as part of a formal internal
review. The information has now been provided in full, and the only other
issue would be the time it took to identify the file. Daniel Halpern's
response of 22 March apologised for the time it had taken to locate the
file. I can only apologise again.

Yours Sincerely

Catharina Reynolds
Head of Operations and Public Engagement
Public Engagment and Recognition Unit (PERU)
Department for Culture, Media and Sport |2-4 Cockspur Street |London |SW1Y
5DH
[1][email address] |' 020 7211 6921 |;
[2]www.culture.gov.uk
DCMS aims to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and
sporting activities, to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion
the tourism, creative and leisure industries.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Sittampalam

I am writing in response to your emails of 23 and 26 March to Daniel
Halpern and myself respectively, regarding the handling of your request
for information for a previous case file (41739) on the BBC's derogation
from the FOI Act. Here is the response to the issues you raise:

1. Late response to request for papers from a previous FOI case

I can fully understand your frustration that due to misfiling of paper
documentation we were not unable to provide the documents you requested on
26 January for case 41739 until 22 March. Whilst this is regrettable this
type of occurrence is unusual and explained by that the fact the papers
dated from the late 1990s - a period in which there was a much higher
reliance on paper filing systems. I am satisfied that since both the time
of the papers and the date of the original freedom of information request
in 2006 we now deal with correspondence electronically and regularly scan
documents sent in response to FOI requests , unless in cases where there
are a large number of hard copies of documents involved.
I did explain that we did not treat your original request under the
Freedom of Information Act and I apologise again that even after several
thorough searches we unable to the locate the information you required
until a later date.

2. Failure to make information available in line with your own
publication scheme

Daniel Halpern's email of 23 March explained that public services are not
required to publish on their websites every document released under the
Freedom of Information Act. In previous years we did choose to attach the
large majority of information released under the FOI Act to our website.
However we do not consider it the best use of resources to upload every
such document.

3. Request for internal review under the FOI act

For the reasons I have set out under point 1 I do not consider an Internal
Review under the FOI Act is applicable in this case. Since you now have
all the information available and I have apologised again for the error in
our filing system I hope this is now acceptable to you.
However if you wish to take this further then you can complain to the
Parliamentary Ombudsman. Contact details are available at
[1]http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/ .

Yours sincerely

Catharina Reynolds
Head of Operations and Public Engagement

Catharina Reynolds
Head of Operations and Public Engagement
Public Engagment and Recognition Unit (PERU)
Department for Culture, Media and Sport |2-4 Cockspur Street |London |SW1Y
5DH
[2][email address] |' 020 7211 6921 |;
[3]www.culture.gov.uk
DCMS aims to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and
sporting activities, to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion
the tourism, creative and leisure industries.

show quoted sections

From: WELLS DEIRDRE
Sent: 16 December 2010 15:03
To: [Ganesh Sittampalam]
Subject: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Dear Mr Sittampalam,

I am writing in response to your complaint to the Information Commissioner
and previous correspondence seeking papers released under the Freedom of
Information Act.

First of all, I though it may be helpful to explain why the case was
previously handled as general correspondence. In treating your request as
general correspondence, we had drawn on a guidance document which had been
available from the Information Commissioner's Office called `Freedom of
Information and Environmental Information Regulations - Hints for
Practitioners'. This said `It is very important to draw a distinction
between requests and routine correspondence. Requests for information that
can be provided without any question... should be treated as business as
normal...as a rule of thumb, if any information requested is held and
needs to be actively considered then the request should be formally
treated as a request for information.'

Your request for copies of a previous FOI release did not require any
level of decision making, as we have no grounds for withholding documents
that have already been released. That is why we previously thought that
your request should be treated as general correspondence. However, the
Information Commissioner's Office have confirmed to us that this guidance
has been replaced, so we now agree that your request should have been
treated as a freedom of information request, and I regret that we did not
notice this change in guidance earlier.

I also accept that the response did not meet the statutory deadline under
the Freedom of Information Act, or for that matter our deadline for normal
correspondence. I understand that colleagues at the Department have
written to you previously apologising that a response was not sent to your
request within 20 days of receipt, and I can only apologise again. At the
time of your original request, the papers appeared to have been filed by a
member of staff who had left the Department, and although efforts were
made to identify the documents as quickly as possible, it proved very
difficult to find copies.

Your complaint to the Information Commissioner made a point about the
papers not being on the website, given that our publication scheme said
this would happen where it was practical to do so.

Previous correspondence from DCMS officials explained why we do not place
every item released under freedom of information online. The Freedom of
Information Act does not formally require public bodies to do so, although
the Information Commissioner's guidance does note that it is good
practice. Our staffing resource for loading FOI documents online has
decreased in the last two years and the Department is undergoing further
and more major cutbacks, with 50% of posts due to be lost. We therefore
consider it no longer within our capacity or practical to upload every
item released under freedom of information to our website. Information
released is now listed in a disclosure log and available on request.
However, I accept that at the time of the original request about the BBC's
derogation in 2006 our standard practice was to place information online
unless it was particularly difficult to do so, and that the papers in this
case were not so numerous that it would have been impractical to upload
them. Again it is regrettable that it was not placed on our website in
2006, which I think would most likely be because access to departmental
scanners was more limited in previous years and the papers relevant to
this case were only on record in paper format.

Yours sincerely

Deirdre Wells

Head of Public Engagement and Recognition Unit

DCMS

show quoted sections