Information concerning interactions between the Times Educational Supplement and the Department

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please can you provide
me with information concerning interactions between the Times
Educational Supplement and the Department for Children, Schools and
Families ("the Department") in the period from 1 January 2007 to 15
January 2009.

In this request, references to the Times Educational Supplement
should be considered to extend to its owners TSL Education/Exponent
Private Equity, and employees thereof, and references to the
Department should be considered to extend to its ministers, civil
servants and any contractors employed by the Department.

Specifically:

1. Details of any meetings held between the Times Educational
Supplement and the Department in the period from 1 January 2007 to
15 January 2009, including dates, attendees, agendas and minutes.
2. Copies of any correspondence between the Times Educational
Supplement and the Department (ministers and civil servants) in the
period from 1 January 2007 to 15 January 2009.
3. Copies of any briefing notes prepared by the Department in
relation to contacts with the Times Educational Supplement in the
period from 1 January 2007 to 15 January 2009.
4. Copies of any emails sent internally within the Department or
sent to or from the Department from other Government departments
relating to contacts with the Times Educational Supplement in the
period from 1 January 2007 to 15 January 2009.

Yours faithfully,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

In relation to my request earlier today, I should be grateful if,
for the period from 1 January 2007 until the establishment of the
Department for Children, Schools and Families, you could provide a
response in respect of the former Department for Education and
Skills.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your response; I understand that the volume of
information may be excessive and therefore break the cost limit.

In such circumstances, the guidance from the Department for
Constitutional Affairs is that under section 16(1) you should
consider discussing this with the applicant and see if the question
could be refined to a more manageable level, or resubmitted in
part, to bring it below the appropriate limit.

It may help if I explain the reason for my enquiry, and from this I
hope to significantly reduce the effort required for you to respond
(hopefully to below the appropriate limit). I am currently
researching an article on whether and how the Times Educational
Supplement has influenced the development of the Schools
Recruitment Service, in response to a rumour that they have been
lobbying senior personnel within the Department. In order to see
whether there is a story here, I am seeking copies of
correspondence, emails and briefing notes concerning interactions
between this publication (and its owners and senior personnel) and
the Department in relation to the Schools Recruitment Service.

I understand that there may have been informal contacts which were
not recorded, and hence you will not be able to provide details of
these. However, I also expect that there will be some documentation
in the form of briefing notes, emails within the Department, emails
to the Department from other parts of Government etc, which should
be readily and quickly searchable.

To make the process easier, I also expect that the team responsible
for the Schools Recruitment Service will either hold copies of the
relavent material or will be in a position to inform you of who in
the Department might hold such material.

Would you be able to provide me with the following information
within the cost limit:

- Copies of any correspondence between the Times Educational
Supplement and the Department concerning the Schools Recruitment
Service.

- Copies of any briefing notes prepared by the Department in
relation to contacts with the Times Educational Supplement
concerning the Schools Recruitment Service.

- Copies of any emails sent internally within the Department or
sent to or from the Department from other Government departments
relating to contacts with the Times Educational Supplement in
relation to the Schools Recruitment Service.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to my request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, to which you allocated reference number
2009/0008126.

I am writing to advise you that the response for this is now
overdue. By law, your response had to be prompt but no later than
24 February 2009, which was yesterday. As you have failed to
respond, I understand you are now breaking the law.

I should be grateful if you would give this matter your urgent
attention.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am very disappointed that you still have not responded to my
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (ref
2009/0008126), despite a response now being a week overdue. As you
should be aware, and indeed I mentioned it in my last
communication, the law states that you must respond PROMPTLY and
WITHIN 20 WORKING DAYS.

Please can you advise me by return whether you are about to provide
a substantive response to this request (which is what I feel I am
entitled to after waiting this long). In your response, I expect to
be advised of the current state of your response to me, together
with a firm date for when you will respond (which should be
imminent).

I shall be most disappointed if after all this time you try to
determine that such a request is inappropriate. I would remind you
that there is a precedent for such a release of information, namely
the Department of Health release concerning interactions between
Bernie Ecclestone and that Department, so I am expecting a
substantive response to my request.

If I do not hear further from you by Friday, I shall assume that
you are deliberately failing in your responsibilities under the
Freedom of Information Act, and I shall make a formal complaint.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Mr Howard

Thank you for your reply. I am disappointed that it was not until I
raised a formal complaint that any notice was taken of this, and I
would remind you that this request is already well past the
deadline under the Freedom of Information Act, and that I am
expecting a comprehensive response to this in the very near future.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Mr Howard

It has now been another week since you asked me to "bear with you a
little longer" and 35 working days since I made my FOI request. As
you will be aware, the Freedom of Information Act requires you to
respond promptly and within 20 working days.

Please can you advise me by return:

1. That this request is receiving your attention and is being
worked upon.
2. The progress of your search and collation of the required
documents to fulfil my request (where have you searched, what have
you found, what are you planning to do next etc).
3. The expected date when you will comply with my request.

I look forward to hearing from you without delay.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Children, Schools and Families's handling of my FOI request
'Information concerning interactions between the Times Educational
Supplement and the Department'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/in...

The reasons I wish this to be reviewed are as follows:

1. The processes adopted by the Department in this matter were
shambolic. After having my initial request rejected as it would
take too long to produce a response (with no attempt to try to find
a way to provide a partial answer), I clarified my request on 27
January significantly limiting the scope. I clearly indicated at
that time that your team should contact the School Shared
Recruitment team, yet this did not happen. After waiting for 20
working days, I sent a reminder on 25 February which was ignored. I
sent a second reminder on 2 March which was also ignored. Finally I
complained on 6 March following which someone actually looked at
this. I understand from the latest response that the request was
not passed to the appropriate team until 5 March. Paul Howard asked
me to bear with you a little longer on 10 March, then ignored a
chaser I sent on 17 March and finally has responded today, 39
working days after my initial request. Whilst he was apologetic,
your Department has an obligation to put processes in place to meet
your LEGAL OBLIGATIONS under the Freedom of Information Act; these
processes are clearly insufficient and inadequate and need looking
at.

2. Paul Howard in finally responding to the request has refused to
provide the information, saying that it is covered by a s36
exemption. Given the shambolic handling of this request to date, I
would not be surprised if Mr Howard had decided to apply this
exemption himself, rather than this determination being made by a
"qualified person", who I believe to be the Minister. Please can
you confirm whether or not the s36 was correctly applied following
due consideration by the Minister.

3. Paul Howard has not indicated upon which sub-section of s36 he
is relying to deny me the information. I am guessing s36(2)(b)(ii),
the free and frank exchange of views. I consider it unlikely that
the release of the information requested would inhibit the Times
Educational Supplement from liaising with the Department in future;
indeed, I understand from the initial response to my query that
there are very regular interactions between the paper and the
Department, and indeed the TES is heavily reliant on the Department
for content.

4. I have it on good authority, from someone who was present at a
supplier's meeting addressed by Mr Howard, that the TES had been
putting significant pressure on the Department at Ministerial level
to change the way the procurement proceeded. If there is no
evidence that this happened, despite the statements clearly made by
Mr Howard, then there would have been no need to apply s36; the
response would have been that no information existed. The fact the
Mr Howard is applying s36 to prevent the release of this material
would seem to indicate very clearly that there is a smoking gun
here, and that (as Mr Howard reportedly said at that supplier's
meeting) the TES did bully the Government into changing the way the
procurement proceeded. If this is the case, I find it very
difficult to accept that the public interest test was satisfied in
the application of s36. The guidance on s36 states that even where
likely prejudice can be demonstrated, it is still necessary to
consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the public
interest in withholding the information outweighs the public
interest in disclosure. Only if that is the case should the
information be withheld.

5. As I outlined to the Department in my email of 2 March, there is
a clear precedent for the release of information of this nature.
Last year there was a release of extensive correspondence between
Bernie Ecclestone and the Department of Health, including a number
of documents marked "Confidential", outlining the way he
(successfully) meddled in the application of a ban on tobacco
advertising in Formula One. I am sure that there were similar
considerations to my case about whether this affected the frank
exchange of views from Mr Ecclestone and others, but there was
clearly a public interest which outweighed this and led to this
disclosure. I find it surprising that Mr Howard makes no reference
to this in his denial of the release of the information to me.

I should like this whole matter to be reviewed by someone with a
better grasp of the Freedom of Information Act, to determine the
following:

a) Why did it take such an inordinate amount of time to come to a
determination that you would not provide the information?

b) Was the s36 exemption applied following a review by the Rt Hon
Ed Balls, as the appropriate qualified person?

c) Which sub-section of s36 is being relied upon? Is this
appropriate?

d) Does the information requested exist (as is implied by Mr
Howard's statement that it is being withheld)?

e) Had the public interest test been properly applied?

f) How does this case differ from that of Mr Ecclestone and the
Dept of Health?

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

*** NOTE TO THE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS TEAM ***

This is a chaser for a request for an Internal Review (Complaint)
concerning the poor handling of a Freedom of Information Act
request. Please can you ensure it is correctly routed to the person
who deals with such reviews, and that it is actioned asap. Please
can you also send a copy of this to your complaints team as this
seems to elucidate a more timely response. Thank you.

**********************

I refer to my request for an internal review of the handling of a
Freedom of Information Act request (your latest reference
2009/0027361), which was submitted to you on 23 March.

Whilst I appreciate that there is no mandated timescale for
internal reviews, your acknowledgment suggests you will work to a
20 working day target, and DCA guidance suggests 2-3 weeks for
simple reviews and a maximum of 6 weeks for complex reviews.

As nearly six weeks have now passed, I should be grateful if you
could confirm to me without delay that this is being independently
reviewed and the expected date when you will provide me with a
response.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Sir or Madam,

Yet another week has passed with no response from you.

In case you have forgotten, I originally tried to get this
information from you on 15 January, and then cut down my request on
27 January when you said it would cost too much to process.

You then took almost eight weeks (and way past the statutory 20
working days) for you to refuse the request, and I only received
this response after chasing you FOUR times.

I immediately asked for an internal review of the decision, and
your acknowledgment said I should get a response within 20 working
days. After five and a half weeks I chased you up, asking clearly
for someone to respond to me WITHOUT DELAY with the status of the
internal review and the date when I should expect a response.

Yet still you cannot even afford me the decency of a reply to this,
even just saying that the review is ongoing and when you expect to
respond.

I am left feeling that your entire Freedom of Information process
is a complete and utter shambles.

So, I ask one more time ...

1. IS SOMEONE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THIS INTERNAL REVIEW OR HAVE YOU
LOST IT IN YOUR SYSTEM SOMEWHERE LIKE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST?

2. WHEN WILL YOU GIVE ME THE RESULTS OF THE INTERNAL REVIEW?

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Mr Howard,

Thank you for your response.

I must confess I am somewhat surprised and concerned to have
received a response from you, as the idea of an internal review is
that an independent person reviews the handling of the request and
the decisions made, and clearly you were involved in the original
decision.

However, I await with interest the results of the review next week,
and do hope that I shall not have to raise the matter with the
Information Commissioner following that.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Mr Howard

Ref: 2009/0041211

On 8 May you indicated that the Internal Review of the handling of
my Freedom of Information Act request had been ongoing for a number
of weeks, and that you expected it to be concluded the following
week.

As you have now had over eight weeks to conduct this internal
review, I should be grateful if you could provide an update on
progress to date with this.

If you are not in a position to provide the results of the review,
please can you furnish me with the name of the senior official
within the Department who is conducting the review, so I can chase
him or her directly.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker

Dear Central Allocation Team

Did you bother to read my email before sending a standard response?
This is not a new request, it is chasing up what is happening on a
Freedom of Information Request originally made back in January, and
on which I was told a response was expected last week.

Telling me that I will get a response within 15 days is ridiculous.

Please can you actually read this, find out who is handling the
Internal Review for my Freedom of Information Act request and send
it to them rather than just sending pointless acknowledgements to
me.

Yours sincerely,

Janine Baker