Consultation On The Leveson Inquiry And Its Implementation: Foreword By The Culture Secretary And Home Secretary: the facts.

The request was successful.

Christopher Whitmey

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

In their joint Foreword the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary said:

A. "Nearly £50 million of public money has so far been spent to ensure that the transgressions of the past cannot be repeated, and that victims of press intrusion have justice."
1. What are the component parts of the 'Nearly £50 million'?
2. How much has been spent on each component part?

B. "We have seen arguably the most significant changes to press self-regulation in decades.”
3. What changes are being referred to and when did they take place?
4. Why were they 'arguably the most significant'?

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Whitmey

FOI Mailbox, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Thank you for your email which is now being dealt with by the Freedom of
Information Team at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 
You will receive a response to your information request within 20 working
days of receipt.
  

Christopher Whitmey left an annotation ()

I've asked the same questions to the Home Office.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Christopher Whitmey left an annotation ()

For background see HackedOff: http://hackinginquiry.org/comment/the-go...

FOI Mailbox, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Dear Mr Whitmey,

Thank you for your information request of 15 November regarding the
consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation. You asked:

“In their joint Foreword the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary
said:

A. "Nearly £50 million of public money has so far been spent to ensure
that the transgressions of the past cannot be repeated, and that victims
of press intrusion have justice."

1. What are the component parts of the 'Nearly £50 million'?

2. How much has been spent on each component part?

B. "We have seen arguably the most significant changes to press
self-regulation in decades.”

3. What changes are being referred to and when did they take place?

4. Why were they 'arguably the most significant'?”

We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  I can advise that the information you have requested is exempt
from disclosure under section 21 (information available by other means) of
the Act. This is because the information is available in the consultation
document on the [1]GOV.UK website, at the following link:

[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...

 

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team

 

Department for Culture, Media & Sport

4th floor, 100 Parliament Street

London SW1A 2BQ

 

Tel: 020 7211 6395

[3]www.gov.uk/dcms

 

Complaints and comments

As is customary in our replies, I would like to explain that if you are
dissatisfied with any aspect of our response to your request for
information and/or wish to appeal against information being withheld from
you please send full details within two calendar months of the date of
this email to:  [4][email address]

You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to
investigate any aspect of your complaint. Please note that the ICO is
likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted
before beginning an investigation.

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://gov.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...
3. http://www.gov.uk/dcms
4. mailto:[email address]

Christopher Whitmey

Dear FOI Mailbox,
Thank you for your reply of 13 December and the link to the consultation document. I had read it before posting my questions. Please can my questions and your answer be referred for an internal review.
Reasons:
I discussed your reply and the consultation document with the ICO. They pointed out that section 21 refers to ‘reasonably accessible’ and referred me to ICO guidance: Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means (section 21) 20130515 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

Concerning question A. "Nearly £50 million of public money has so far been spent to ensure that the transgressions of the past cannot be repeated, and that victims of press intrusion have justice."
1. What are the component parts of the 'Nearly £50 million'?
2. How much has been spent on each component part?
I have searched through the document to list the component parts and amounts spent on each. With respect they are not ‘reasonably accessible’. Furthermore past investigations that are listed at [51] at £43.7m do not seem relevant ‘to ensure that the transgressions of the past cannot be repeated’ nor how these ensure that future victims of press intrusion will have justice.

Concerning question B. "We have seen arguably the most significant changes to press self-regulation in decades.”
3. What changes are being referred to and when did they take place?
4. Why were they 'arguably the most significant'?”
With respect the answers to questions 3 & 4 are not ‘reasonably accessible’. As no national newspapers have signed up to IMPRESS and IPSO is not recognised by the PRP these cannot be 'most signifiacnt changes'. The consultation author(s) may have had ideas in their heads as to which changes and why are ‘arguably the most significant changes to press self-regulation in decades’ but they are not ‘reasonably accessible’.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Whitmey

FOI Mailbox, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Thank you for your email which is now being dealt with by the Freedom of
Information Team at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 
You will receive a response to your information request within 20 working
days of receipt.
  

FOI Mailbox, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Dear Mr Whitmey,

Thank you for your email of 7 January where you ask for an internal review
to be carried out into the department’s response to your Freedom of
Information (FOI) request dated 15 November where you asked the
following:  

 

“In their joint Foreword the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary
said:

A. "Nearly £50 million of public money has so far been spent to ensure
that the transgressions of the past cannot be repeated, and that victims
of press intrusion have justice."

1. What are the component parts of the 'Nearly £50 million'?

2. How much has been spent on each component part?

B. "We have seen arguably the most significant changes to press
self-regulation in decades.”

3. What changes are being referred to and when did they take place?

4. Why were they 'arguably the most significant'?”

The Department responded to you on 13 December, as follows:

“Thank you for your information request of 15 November regarding the
consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation.

We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act). I can advise that the information you have requested is exempt
from disclosure under section 21 (information available by other means) of
the Act. This is because the information is available in the consultation
document on the [1]GOV.UK website, at the following link:

[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...

 

You have now requested an internal review, as follows:

“Thank you for your reply of 13 December and the link to the consultation
document. I had read it before posting my questions. Please can my
questions and your answer be referred for an internal review.

Reasons:

I discussed your reply and the consultation document with the ICO. They
pointed out that section 21 refers to ‘reasonably accessible’ and referred
me to ICO guidance: Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by
other means (section 21)
20130515 [3]https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisation...

Concerning question A. "Nearly £50 million of public money has so far been
spent to ensure that the transgressions of the past cannot be repeated,
and that victims of press intrusion have justice."

1. What are the component parts of the 'Nearly £50 million'?

2. How much has been spent on each component part?

I have searched through the document to list the component parts and
amounts spent on each. With respect they are not ‘reasonably accessible’.
Furthermore past investigations that are listed at [51] at £43.7m do not
seem relevant ‘to ensure that the transgressions of the past cannot be
repeated’ nor how these ensure that future victims of press intrusion will
have justice.

Concerning question B. "We have seen arguably the most significant changes
to press self-regulation in decades.”

3. What changes are being referred to and when did they take place?

4. Why were they 'arguably the most significant'?”

With respect the answers to questions 3 & 4 are not ‘reasonably
accessible’. As no national newspapers have signed up to IMPRESS and IPSO
is not recognised by the PRP these cannot be 'most signifiacnt changes'.
The consultation author(s) may have had ideas in their heads as to which
changes and why are ‘arguably the most significant changes to press
self-regulation in decades’ but they are not ‘reasonably accessible’.”

 

In order to ensure cases are looked at afresh, internal reviews of freedom
of information decisions are carried out in our Department by officials
unconnected to the handling of the original request. I was therefore asked
to conduct the internal review.

I have considered your request carefully and can advise the following. As
mentioned in our earlier response, the information you requested is
available in the consultation document on the [4]GOV.UK website. As you
referenced the consultation document in your request, we considered the
information contained in the document to be reasonably accessible.

However, I hope the following will be helpful:

In response to question A:

Paragraph 60 of the consultation document sets out that the criminal
investigations into phone-hacking cost £43.7m and Part 1 of the Leveson
Inquiry cost £5.4m.

[5]https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...

In response to question B

Following the Leveson Inquiry, the government established a new system of
press self-regulation. The first two paragraphs of Box 2 on pages 9-10 in
the consultation document detail this new system.

[6]https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF

Yours sincerely

Heather Batchelor

Head of Ministerial Support Team

Department for Culture, Media & Sport

4th floor, 100 Parliament Street

London SW1A 2BQ

 

[7]www.gov.uk/dcms   

 

References

Visible links
1. http://gov.uk/
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...
3. https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisation...
4. http://gov.uk/
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...
7. http://www.gov.uk/dcms

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org