communication between DWP and minsters

The request was partially successful.

Disabled people against Cuts

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
The DWP have been quoted as saying ‘“We strongly reject the allegations made by DPAC” in reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons ongoing inquiry process into grave and systematic violations and the retrogression of disabled peoples’ rights in the UK .
This quote has now appeared in a number of media . It suggests a breach in confidentially re submitted documentation and key issues raised by Disabled People against Cuts (DPAC) through an external government body.
As a result we are requesting:
Any communications between the DWP and ministers that mention DPAC
between Jan and Oct 2015

Yours faithfully,

Disabled people against Cuts

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request.

You can expect a reply by 16 November unless I need to come back to you to clarify your request or the balance of the public interest test needs to be considered.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

DWP Strategy FoI Team

show quoted sections

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #297529 email]

Is [DWP request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Department for Work and Pensions? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Please see the attached reply to your Freedom of Information request

Yours sincerely

DWP Strategy FoI team

show quoted sections

Disabled people against Cuts

Dear DWP Strategy Freedom of Information,

Your response is very confusing
We are requesting any communications between the DWP and ministers that mention DPAC between Jan and Oct 2015

Which specific section of Section 27 on International Relations are you seeking to apply here?

Yours sincerely,

Disabled people against Cuts

John Slater left an annotation ()

S.27 is a qualified exemption and yet the DWP made absolutely no mention of carrying out the public interest test.

Information covered by S.27 is also subject to the prejudice test which means that a public authority cannot withhold information unless its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the international relations or interests of the United Kingdom or its interests abroad.

The prejudice test does not apply if the information is confidential but the public interest test still does.

The DWP needs to explain why it believes the requested information is confidential. If it can't do that it then needs to address the prejudice test. Either way it then needs to explain why it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. Given that the UK is the first country to be investigated I suggest that the public interest in disclosure is overwhelming.

DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request.

You can expect a reply by 10 December unless I need to come back to you to clarify your request or the balance of the public interest test needs to be considered.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

DWP Strategy FoI Team

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your right to complain under the Freedom of Information Act

If you are not happy with this response you may request an internal review by e-mailing [DWP request email] or by writing to DWP, Central FoI Team,
Caxton House, Tothill Street, SW1H 9NA. Any review request should be submitted within two months of the date of this letter. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office for a decision. Generally the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our own complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF
www.ico.org.uk/Global/contact_us or telephone 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745

show quoted sections

Disabled people against Cuts

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Work and Pensions's handling of my FOI request 'communication between DWP and minsters'.

The DWP is saying that this information in not available under the Freedom of Information Act as the exemption contained in Section 27 on International Relations applies.
From the ICO guidance on S27, I don’t see how disclosing the requested information could harm the activities covered by these parts of S.27 (1) of the UK abroad, without DWP identifying the specific applicable interests that would be prejudiced within S.27 and also the nature of the prejudice that is being claimed. Therefore the engagement of the prejudice test needs to be justified by DWP.

. Step 1
The prejudice envisaged must be real, actual or of substance.
The disclosure must at least be capable of harming the interest in some way, ie have a damaging or detrimental effect on it. If the consequences of disclosure would be trivial or insignificant there is no prejudice. However, this does not mean that the prejudice has to be particularly severe or unavoidable. There may be a situation where disclosure could cause harm, for example to commercial interests, but the authority can mitigate the effect of the disclosure, perhaps by issuing other communications to put the disclosure in context. In such a case, where the severity of the prejudice can be mitigated, the exemption may not be engaged or we may still accept that the exemption is engaged but then consider the effect of these mitigating actions as a factor in the public interest test.

Step 2
There must be what the Hogan Tribunal called a “causal link” between the disclosure and the prejudice claimed.
The authority must be able to show how the disclosure of the specific information requested would or would be likely to lead to the prejudice. Although there must be a causal link, the prejudice test relates to something that may happen in the future, if the information were disclosed. Therefore it is not usually possible to provide concrete proof that the prejudice would or would be likely to result. Nevertheless there must be more than a mere assertion or belief that disclosure would lead to prejudice. There must be a logical connection between the disclosure and the prejudice in order to engage the exemption. Establishing the causal link means that the prejudice claimed is at least possible, ie there are circumstances in which it could arise.

Step 3 - the likelihood of prejudice
The prejudice-based exemptions (with the exception of section 24(1)) use the phrase “would or would be likely to” prejudice (or inhibit or endanger). If the authority cannot show that the prejudice would or would be likely to occur, then the exemption is not engaged.

The causal link shows the circumstances, or the chain of events, that could lead to prejudice. It may be possible to show that prejudice would occur even if those circumstances would only occur once or affect one person or situation. However, the more frequently those circumstances arise, the more likely the prejudice is to occur. So, while the chances of prejudice occurring in any one case may be low, if the number of cases in which it might arise is high then it may be possible to say that prejudice would or would be likely to arise.

The DWP is also saying that ‘the scope, nature and process of the UN inquiry is confidential. That confidentiality should be respected by all parties’.
S.27 (2) and (3) defines what confidential information is:
Information is also exempt information if it is confidential information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an international organisation or international court.For the purposes of this section, any information obtained from a State, organisation or court is confidential at any time while the terms on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidenceor while the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State, organisation or court to expect that it will be so held.

DPAC is not asking for any information of this nature but general information held by DWP. Therefore disclosure can still take place with the confidential information, names etc. redacted if necessary. It is worth pointing out that because of leaks, the nature of the inquiry has been extensively covered in press, as well as the presence of investigators in the country to gather evidence.
The ICO guidance states: “If information requested of a public authority is already in the public domain, partially or fully, it is unlikely to be confidential although exceptions are possible and a question about the inquiry was raised in PMQs which is televised as well as recorded in Hansard

I therefore request that the DWP justifies the engagement of the prejudice test and determines based on the ICO guidance whether the information held is covered by the confidentiality clause

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

Yours faithfully,

Disabled people against Cuts

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

Thank you for your Freedom of Information review request.

Please note that it is our internal target to answer reviews within 20 working days unless I need to come back to you to clarify your request, or the balance of the public interest test needs to be considered which we will keep you informed about.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

DWP Strategy FoI Team

show quoted sections

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #297529 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Please see the attached reply to your Freedom of Information request

Yours sincerely

DWP Strategy FoI team

show quoted sections

John Slater left an annotation ()

Looks like another one for the ICO!

Disabled people against Cuts

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Work and Pensions's handling of my FOI request 'communication between DWP and minsters'.

The DWP is saying that this information in not available under the
Freedom of Information Act as the exemption contained in Section 27
on International Relations applies.
From the ICO guidance on S27, I don’t see how disclosing the
requested information could harm the activities covered by these
parts of S.27 (1) of the UK abroad, without DWP identifying the
specific applicable interests that would be prejudiced within S.27
and also the nature of the prejudice that is being claimed.
Therefore the engagement of the prejudice test needs to be
justified by DWP.

. Step 1
The prejudice envisaged must be real, actual or of substance.
The disclosure must at least be capable of harming the interest in
some way, ie have a damaging or detrimental effect on it. If the
consequences of disclosure would be trivial or insignificant there
is no prejudice. However, this does not mean that the prejudice has
to be particularly severe or unavoidable. There may be a situation
where disclosure could cause harm, for example to commercial
interests, but the authority can mitigate the effect of the
disclosure, perhaps by issuing other communications to put the
disclosure in context. In such a case, where the severity of the
prejudice can be mitigated, the exemption may not be engaged or we
may still accept that the exemption is engaged but then consider
the effect of these mitigating actions as a factor in the public
interest test.

Step 2
There must be what the Hogan Tribunal called a “causal link”
between the disclosure and the prejudice claimed.
The authority must be able to show how the disclosure of the
specific information requested would or would be likely to lead to
the prejudice. Although there must be a causal link, the prejudice
test relates to something that may happen in the future, if the
information were disclosed. Therefore it is not usually possible to
provide concrete proof that the prejudice would or would be likely
to result. Nevertheless there must be more than a mere assertion or
belief that disclosure would lead to prejudice. There must be a
logical connection between the disclosure and the prejudice in
order to engage the exemption. Establishing the causal link means
that the prejudice claimed is at least possible, ie there are
circumstances in which it could arise.

Step 3 - the likelihood of prejudice
The prejudice-based exemptions (with the exception of section
24(1)) use the phrase “would or would be likely to” prejudice (or
inhibit or endanger). If the authority cannot show that the
prejudice would or would be likely to occur, then the exemption is
not engaged.

The causal link shows the circumstances, or the chain of events,
that could lead to prejudice. It may be possible to show that
prejudice would occur even if those circumstances would only occur
once or affect one person or situation. However, the more
frequently those circumstances arise, the more likely the prejudice
is to occur. So, while the chances of prejudice occurring in any
one case may be low, if the number of cases in which it might arise
is high then it may be possible to say that prejudice would or
would be likely to arise.

The DWP is also saying that ‘the scope, nature and process of the
UN inquiry is confidential. That confidentiality should be
respected by all parties’.
S.27 (2) and (3) defines what confidential information is:
Information is also exempt information if it is confidential
information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or
from an international organisation or international court.For the
purposes of this section, any information obtained from a State,
organisation or court is confidential at any time while the terms
on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidenceor
while the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable
for the State, organisation or court to expect that it will be so
held.

DPAC is not asking for any information of this nature but general
information held by DWP. Therefore disclosure can still take place
with the confidential information, names etc. redacted if
necessary. It is worth pointing out that because of leaks, the
nature of the inquiry has been extensively covered in press, as
well as the presence of investigators in the country to gather
evidence.
The ICO guidance states: “If information requested of a public
authority is already in the public domain, partially or fully, it
is unlikely to be confidential although exceptions are possible and
a question about the inquiry was raised in PMQs which is televised
as well as recorded in Hansard

I therefore request that the DWP justifies the engagement of the
prejudice test and determines based on the ICO guidance whether the
information held is covered by the confidentiality clause

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

Yours faithfully,

Disabled people against Cuts

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

DWP Strategy Freedom of Information, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Please see the attached reply to your Freedom of Information request

Yours sincerely

DWP Strategy FoI team

show quoted sections