Dear J Cassidy
RE- FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST
I acknowledge your four requests for information received on 29 May 2009 and respond
as follows.
(1) Can you please email me an electronic copy, including attachments, of all the
email correspondence received and sent by Helen Johnston helen.johnston@
londoncouncils.gov.uk, including carbon copy CC and blind carbon copy BCC
functions - not just To and From, with regards the following email
addresses/individuals, over the last 12 months.
Jerry.Harland2@ homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Simon.Bentley3@ homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Keith.Lambert@ homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
brian.kinney3@ homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
(2) Can you please email me an electronic copy, including attachments, of all the
email correspondence received and sent by Helen Johnston helen.johnston@
londoncouncils.gov.uk, including carbon copy CC and blind carbon copy BCC
functions - not just To and From, with regards the following email
addresses/individuals, over the last 12 months.
John.Donaldson@ glasgow.gov.uk
Zena.cooke@ islington.gov.uk
cspencer@ hillingdon.gov.uk
Steve.Liddicott@ croydon.gov.uk
Olvia.fellas@ islington.gov.uk
nicola.rea@ manchester.gov.uk
NStock@ northamptonshire.gov.uk
Judith.Dennis@ RefugeeCouncil.org.uk
Karen.goodman@ kent.gov.uk
mrogers@ solihull.gov.uk
rross@ solihull.gov.uk
(3) Can you please email me an electronic copy, including attachments, of all the
email correspondence received and sent by Helen Johnston helen.johnston@
londoncouncils.gov.uk, including carbon copy CC and blind carbon copy BCC
functions - not just To and From, with regards the following email
addresses/individuals, over the last 12 months, concerning the subject of asylum
and unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
d.barnes@ wmlga.gov.uk
naomi.alleyne@ wlga.gov.uk
Ian.Beattie@ eera.gov.uk
lucy.ellender@ lga.gov.uk
Emma.Jenkins@ lga.gov.uk
d.newall@ wmlga.gov.uk
emily.warren@ wlga.gov.uk
Helen.Murray@ lga.gov.uk
In relation to your three requests above, I enclose copies of the requested e-mails with
some sections redacted as they are exempt from disclosure under Section 40 (2) (third
party personal information) and Section 41 (breach of confidence). I note that these
emails are indexed in the attached Appendix A which was prepared in response to the
third part of your fourth request (noted below).
Section 40 (2) (third party personal information) has been applied as disclosure of
personal data would breach the First Data Protection Principle (fair and lawful
processing) as there is no expectation by the individual concerned that this personal
data, including names and work contact details, would be disclosed in response to a
FOIA request, which requests we have to treat as being in effect a disclosure to
everyone and anyone ie. it becomes fully public information: and further it is not possible
to meet a Schedule 2 condition for processing the personal data. This is an absolute
exemption and is not subject to a public interest test. Therefore information detailing
those people below the level of Director whose names are not in the public domain, have
been removed from the attached e-mails. The e-mail addresses, phone numbers, fax
numbers and further details of individual’s names within the e-mails, have also been
removed.
Section 41 (confidential information) has also been applied. This exemption is being
relied upon as certain information was provided to London Councils in confidence, it
continues to have the necessary quality of confidence in that it is not otherwise
accessible and is more than trivial in nature; it was imparted to London Councils in
circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and it is considered that disclosure
of the information would give rise to an actionable breach of confidence. Therefore the
last two lines of the e-mail dated 14 April 2009 at 13:14 from David Barnes to Ian
Beattie; Helen Johnston, Subject: RE: UASC Reform - Next Steps have been deleted in
light of the fact that it is information provided to London Councils in confidence.
(4) With regards the UKBA UASC reform programme [1] Can you please
email me an electronic copy of the following:
1) Copies of any notes, minutes of any meetings you hold in
connection with Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children and the UASC
reform programme and the work of any UASC Reform Steering Group and
sub-groups (post-18 & 'front end' issues)
2) A copy of any reports, briefings, memos you hold in connection
with Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children and the UASC reform
programme and the work of any UASC Reform Steering Group and
sub-groups (post-18 & 'front end' issues)
3) A summary of all the information you hold on the UASC reform
Programme
In relation to the third part of your fourth request, a summary of all the information held
on the UASC reform Programme is attached within ‘Appendix A’. For ease of reference
in responding to the first and second parts of your fourth request we have made
reference to the Appendix.
With reference to the first part of your fourth request, certain documents are disclosed in
full as noted in the attached Appendix A and are numbered 1-5. We confirm that London
Councils does hold further documents that fall within your request (these documents are
numbered 6-7) but these have not been disclosed relying upon section 36 (prejudice to
effective conduct of public affairs) and section 41 (confidential information). The
arguments for these exemptions are set out below.
With reference to the second part of your fourth request, certain documents are
disclosed in full as noted in the attached Appendix A, and are numbered 8-12. Again we
confirm that London Councils does hold further documents that fall within your request
(these documents are numbered 13-26) but have not been disclosed relying upon
section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 41 (confidential
information).
Section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) has been applied to certain
documents as they reflect ongoing policy development and discussion on lobbying the
Home Office for local authority funding for unaccompanied asylum seeking children. If
released, this information would prejudice the free and frank provision of advice and
exchange of views within the context public policy development on sensitive issues,
which policy remains unresolved. Negotiations with the Home Office have been
reopened recently and London Councils has contributed to ensure London's case has
been considered.
In developing policy Government will engage with interested parties on such matters,
including London Councils, which represents the interests of London local authorities,
other local authorities and representative bodies. Dialogue between the parties is
encouraged and is predicated on the basis that there is a need for private space
between the Government and important influencing groups, such as the affected local
authorities, to consider and develop policy options. Views are exchanged on the basis
of a relationship of trust and disclosure of these documents would also give rise to a loss
of trust between London Councils, the Home Office and other bodies which have
engaged in this process.
In addition, in this particular instance, government officials need to be able to think
through all the implications of particular options, and in particular they need to be able to
undertake rigorous and candid assessments of the risks to particular programmes and
projects confidentially. Furthermore, as this issue is still under consideration, it is
particularly important that the information is not disclosed to the public at this point in
time as premature disclosure of preliminary thinking may, for example, end up closing off
better options of policy development because of adverse public reaction or have adverse
financial implications for the bodies involved leading to a disproportionate impact upon
local taxpayers.
Whilst there is a public interest argument for the documents to be disclosed in light of
‘open policy making’ and increasing transparency in the way in which public money is
spent; that may lead to increased trust and engagement between citizens and local
government; it is our view that the public interest test does not outweigh the arguments
against disclosure of the documents in this case.
The public interest does not weigh in favour of disclosure as there is ongoing policy
formulation, there is a strong public interest in the value of government being able to test
ideas with informed third parties out of the public eye and in knowing what the reaction
of particular groups of stakeholders might be if particular policy lines/negotiating
positions were to be taken Further, there is a strong public interest in the ongoing
engagement between all parties and the communications, including confidential
negotiating positions of the parties, remaining closed. If the documents are released,
disclosure would discourage government officials from providing frank advice and
opinions and Ministers will be less likely to work with London Councils collaboratively
whilst a long term funding solution for unaccompanied asylum seeking children is
sought. This is not in the public interest. (Refer: EA/2007/0072).
Section 41 (confidential information) has also been applied with regard to certain
information provided in confidence. This exemption is being relied upon as certain
information was provided to London Councils in confidence, it continues to have the
necessary quality of confidence in that it is not otherwise accessible and is more than
trivial in nature; it was imparted to London Councils in circumstances importing an
obligation of confidence; and it is considered that disclosure of the information would
give rise to an actionable breach of confidence.
If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me.
Please note that London Councils holds the copyright in some of the documents
containing this information. The supply of these documents under the Freedom of
Information Act does not give you a right to re-use the documents in a way that would
infringe that copyright, for example, by making copies, publishing and issuing copies to
the public or to any other person. Brief extracts of any of the material may be reproduced
under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
(sections 29 and 30) for the purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private
study, criticism, review and news reporting, subject to an acknowledgement of the
copyright owner.
If you wish to make a complaint about the way we have handled your enquiry under the
Freedom of Information Act, please make your complaint in writing to John O’Brien,
Chief Executive, London Councils, 59 ½ Southwark Street, London SE1 OAL, telephone
020 7934 9575, or email john.o’xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.
Alternatively please telephone if you need assistance in making a written complaint.
If, having used the London Councils complaints procedure, you are still dissatisfied; you
may request the Information Commissioner to investigate. The Information
Commissioner is a Crown appointment, responsible for monitoring compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act. Please contact: Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: (01625) 545700. You may also
like to visit the website of his Office at: www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely
FOI, Complaints Business Planning and Performance Officer