Internet Watch Foundation audits

Reference : T25841/8

Thank you for your e-mail enquiry of 10/12/2008 1:26:40 PM

A reply is attached.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen

I am writing to you in response to your request for an Internal Review
(time Complaint) request sent 13/01/09. In your original request you
asked:

I have been informed that the Home Office was involved in the
appointment of auditors to look at the Internet Watch Foundation, on
more than one occasion.

Please supply the following information, for each of the audits:

1) the criteria for selecting the auditors
2) the names of the auditors selected, together with a short
summary of their background (a link to web sites which have such
a summary will be fine)
3) the objectives of the audit
4) copies of the audit report

Please note that "replies" which involve attachments in proprietary
file formats are not acceptable. A reply which is not in plain text
format will be deemed to be a refusal to answer. However, as the reports
are presumably computer files Acrobat format will be acceptable for
these.

The case number for this request is CR10837 and in accordance with our
Internal Review procedures the 40 working day deadline for a response is
10/03/09. I will be in touch again shortly, but please do not hesitate
to contact me if you have any queries about the handling of your request
in the meantime.

Many Thanks

Martin Riddle | Information Rights Team
Information Management Service | Financial and Commercial Group
4th Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London
SW1P 4DF
Tel: 020 7035 4252 | Fax: 020 7035 0739

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen

We are aware that the ICO considers that a reasonable time for
completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the
request for review and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40
working days. The Home Office policy on this point is that all
substantive review responses should take no more than 40 working days
after a complaint is first received in line with the statement published
on the Home Office website. Despite this published target we will
complete all reviews as quickly as we are able to, and bearing in mind
the ICO best practice, we aim to complete straightforward cases within
20 working days.

Many Thanks

Martin Riddle | Information Rights Team
Information Management Service | Financial and Commercial Group
4th Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London
SW1P 4DF
Tel: 020 7035 4252 | Fax: 020 7035 0739

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen

Please find below the response to your internal review request followed by the original response in the proprietary format you requested.

Many Thanks

Martin Riddle | Information Rights Team
Information Management Service | Financial and Commercial Group
4th Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office | 2 Marsham Street | London SW1P 4DF
Tel: 020 7035 4252 | Fax: 020 7035 0739

Information Access Team
Shared Services Directorate
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: [email address] Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Mr David Hansen Our Ref: 10837
Date: 10 March 2009
[FOI #4666 email]

Dear Mr Hansen,

I am writing further to my letter of 19th January 2009, regarding your request for an internal review of the response to your Freedom of Information request.

I have now completed a full review of the handling of your request and of the reasons behind the decision to inform you that the Home Office does not hold the information that you requested about the auditing of The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF).

I have considered your comments regarding the Home Office's failure to supply information in a format other than a proprietary one. I have found that the Home Office was in breach of section 11(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which states that as far as is reasonable we should supply information in the format requested by the applicant. I offer my sincerest apologies for this mistake and have included along with this response a copy of the original response in the required proprietary format. Please see Annex A below for the full text of section 11.

Furthermore, I have reviewed the original decision to inform you that the Home Office does not hold any of the information that you have requested in your original questions about each of the audits carried out -

1) the criteria for selecting the auditors
2) the names of the auditors selected, together with a short summary of their background (a link to web sites which have such a summary will
be fine)
3) the objectives of the audit
4) copies of the audit report

. I can confirm that I am upholding the original decision to inform you that no information is held by the Home Office in regard to questions 1 and 4. In relation to these two questions I confirm that the Home Office complied with its obligation, under section 1(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to say whether or not it holds information.

However in regard to question 2 I have found that the Home Office does hold information relating to the names of the auditors involved in one audit carried out by the Internet Watch Foundation. This was that carried out in 2004. Information held by the Home Office indicates that this was carried out by "Dave Armond and David Wall (academic)". This is the only information that the Home Office holds in relation to your second question. Although I have provided you with this information out of courtesy, I should add that I am not obliged to do so as it has already been made available by the IWF on their website. The relevant information can be accessed at:

http://www.iwf.org.uk/corporate/page.121...

It says in relation to the 2004 audit:

Independent inspection of the IWF
Police Commander David Armond (Met Police) and Professor David Wall (Leeds University) undertook an all day inspection and review of our operational procedures and appeals and reinstatement policies on behalf of the Home Office. 

Furthermore I have also found that the Home Office holds a very limited amount of information in relation to your third question. The basic objective of the audits is "to provide reassurance that IWF practices and records stand up to scrutiny and that IWF operate within applicable laws". The Home Office holds no other information in this regard.

As a result the Home Office was in breach of section 1(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the answers to questions 2 and 3, and for this error the Home Office apologises.

In conclusion, the Home Office notes and apologises for the failures referred to above and those in respect of sections 1(1)(a) and 11(1)(a) of the Act. Every effort will be made to ensure that these errors do not occur again. The department takes its responsibilities under the Act seriously and the findings of this review have been communicated to the relevant caseworkers for their future reference.

Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review you have the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner, as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. You can write to him at:

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Martin Riddle
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections