IR 34839 McIntyre Response 2.pdf

Corporate Services
020 7035 4848

Directorate
(switchboard)

2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF
www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Dr TJ McIntyre
By e-mail to:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx



10 July 2015

Dear Dr McIntyre

Freedom of Information request (our ref: 34839): internal review

Thank you for your e-mail of 27 April 2015, in which you asked for an internal review of our
response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request about the role of the Extremism Analysis
Unit.

I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant papers, and have consulted the
policy unit which provided the original response. I have considered whether the correct procedures
were followed.  I confirm that I was not involved in the initial handling of your request.

My findings are set out in the attached report.  My conclusion is that the original response was
correct.

Yours sincerely

B Dorrington
Information Rights Team

Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FoI)
Act 2000 by Dr TJ McIntyre (reference 34839)

Responding Unit:
Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT)

Chronology

Original FoI request:
23 March 2015

OSCT’s response:

22 April 2015

Request for internal review:   27 April 2015

Subject of request

1.  The request asked for information about the role of the Extremism Analysis Unit.  For the full
text of the request see Annex A.

The response by OSCT

2.  The response confirmed that the information was held, but that the information relating to
question 1 was exempt from disclosure, by virtue of the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act, pertaining to the formulation of government policy. It also neither
confirmed nor denied whether any further information within the scope of Dr McIntyre’s request
was held, by reliance on sections  23(5) (information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing
with security matters).

3.  Question 2 was interpreted by HO as seeking information on how the EAU will be tasked, and
how it will identify extremist individuals and organisations, not as specifically asking for
recorded information. Therefore, in an attempt to be helpful, OSCT provided an answer in the
form of an explanation. However, the requester has confirmed a wish for recorded information
in relation to question 2. Having double checked our records I can confirm that OSCT did not
hold any recorded information that would directly answer question 2. As stated in the response,
this is a very new area and the policy and procedures are still developing.

4.  Question 3 was also interpreted as not asking specifically for recorded information and an
answer was provided to the question posed.  For the full text of the response see Annex B.

The request for an internal review

5.  The internal review request stated that the Home Secretary's speech on 23 March 2015 makes
it clear that the Extremism Analysis Unit "is already up and running". Dr McIntyre felt that the
request therefore relates to the implementation rather than formulation of policy. Dr McIntyre
also questioned the use of section 23(5). For the full text of the internal review request see
Annex C.

Procedural issues

6.  The Home Office received request via email on 23 March 2015.

7.  On 2015 the Home Office provided Dr McIntyre with a substantive response, which represents
20 working days after the initial request. Therefore, the Home Office complied with section
10(1) by providing a response within the statutory deadline of 20 working days.

8.  Dr McIntyre was informed in writing of his right to request an independent internal review of the
handling of his request, as required by section 17(7)(a) of the Act.

9. The response also informed Dr McIntyre of his right of complaint to the Information
Commissioner, as set out in section 17(7)(b) of the Act.

Consideration of the response

Use of exemptions

10. The response informed Dr McIntyre that the requested information was held, but was exempt
from disclosure, by virtue of section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy).

11. The Extremism Analysis Unit is a new and evolving organisation and although “up and running”
at the time of the FOI request, their remit was (and remains) subject to ongoing policy
discussions and thus relates to Government policy which has yet to be formulated.

12. As explained in OSCT’s original reply, divulging to the general public how the Unit operates at
present would be pre-emptive of decisions still to be made by Ministers, and undermine the
integrity of the policy making process.

13. The response also neither confirmed nor denied whether any further information within the
scope of the request is held, by virtue of section 23(5) (information supplied by or relating to
bodies dealing with security matters). To explain why section 23(5) was cited could in itself
divulge information as to whether or not we hold any further information relevant to the request.

Conclusion

14. The response was sent within 20 working days; consequently the Home Office complied with
section 10(1) of the FOI Act.

15. Section 1(1)(a) was complied with, as the response clearly stated that the requested
information was held.

16. Sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) were complied with, as the response specified the
exact exemption in question it relied upon and provided sufficient detail as to why that
exemption was applied.

17. The response complied with the requirements in section 17(7)(a) and 17(7)(b) as it provided
details of the complaints procedure.

Information Access Team
Home Office
[Date]

Annex A – full text of request

I understand from comments made today by the Home Secretary that an extremism analysis unit
within the Home Office is now "up and running". I would be obliged if you could now provide some
further information on that unit.

1.      What is the role of the unit? Is there a document setting out its remit - if so, could you please
provide a copy?

2.     Today's comments stated that the unit will "identify which individuals and organisations are
extremist and should not be engaged with". Could you please provide more details as to what this
entails? In particular, how will individuals and groups be referred to the unit, with whom will these
determinations be shared and what effect (legal or other) will they have?

3.      How will the extremism analysis unit engage with material hosted on the internet? Is it
proposed to seek the removal or blocking of material determined to be extremist?

Annex B – full text of the response letter

Thank you for your email of 23 March 2015, in which you ask for information about the Extremism
Analysis Unit (EAU). You specifically asked:

1.  What is the role of Unit? Is there a document setting out its remit  – If so could you please
provide a copy?
2.  Today’s comments stated that the unit wil  “identify which individuals and organisations are
extremist  and  should  not  be  engaged  with”  Could  you  please  provide  more  details  as  to
what this entails? In particular, how will individuals and groups be referred to the unit, with
whom will these determinations be shared and what effect (legal or other) will they have?
3.  How  will  the  Extremism  Analysis  Unit  engage  with  material  hosted  on  the  internet?  Is  it
proposed to seek the removal or blocking of material determined to be extremist.

Your  first  question  has  been  handled  as  a  request  for  information  under  the  Freedom  of
Information Act 2000.

We can confirm that the Home Office holds information on the role of the EAU. However, following
careful consideration, we have decided that this information is exempt from disclosure, by virtue of
the exemptions at section 35(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, pertaining to the formulation of
government policy.  Section 35 of the Act is a qualified exemption, and requires the consideration
of  the  Public  Interest  Test.  We  have  balanced  the  public  interest  considerations  for  and  against
release  of  the  information  you  request,  and  found  that  the  public  interest  falls  in  favour  of
maintaining  these  exemptions.  Further  explanation  of  this  decision,  including  the  Public  Interest
Test, are set out in the attached Annex.

In addition, we neither confirm nor deny whether any further information within the scope of your
request is held, by reliance on sections  23(5) (information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing
with security matters. Please note that reliance on section 23(5) should not be understood as
a confirmation or denial that any further information within the scope of your request does,
or does not, exist or is, or is not held by the Home Office.

Question 2 and 3 of your request did not ask for recorded information and have not been handled
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Question  2  sought  information  on  how  the  EAU  will  be  tasked  and  how  it  will  identify  extremist
individuals and organisations.  The EAU has been established to provide analysis of extremism to
Government.  The  focus  of  the  EAU  will  be  extremism  in  this  country  and  overseas  which  has  a
direct  impact  on  the  UK  and  UK  interests.  The  EAU  is  a  cross-government  resource,  with
Government departments able to commission research and analysis. The EAU will use the agreed
Government definition of extremism: “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values,
including  democracy,  the  rule  of  law,  individual  liberty  and  the  mutual  respect  and  tolerance  of
different, faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as
extremist.”

In regard to question 3 of your request, which seeks information on how the EAU will engage with
material  hosted  on  the  internet,  we  can  confirm  that  the  EAU  does  not  seek  to  remove  or  block
material hosted on the internet that is deemed to be extremist.

If  you  are  dissatisfied  with  this  response  you  may  request  an  independent  internal  review  of  our
handling  of  your  request  by  submitting  a  complaint  within  two  months  to  the  address  below,
quoting reference 34839. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why
you are dissatisfied with the response.

Information Access Team
Home Office
Third Floor, Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
e-mail: xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx

As  part  of  any  internal  review  the  Department's  handling  of  your  information  request  will  be
reassessed  by  staff  who  were  not  involved  in  providing  you  with  this  response.  If  you  remain
dissatisfied  after  this  internal  review,  you  would  have  a  right  of  complaint  to  the  Information
Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

FOI Team

Annex C – full text of the internal review request

Dear Home Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of the Home Office's handling of my FOI request
'Extremism Analysis Unit'.

Question 1

As regards question 1 the response misapplies section 35(1). The Home Secretary's speech on 23
March 2015 makes it clear that the Extremism Analysis Unit "is already up and running". The
request therefore relates to the implementation rather than formulation of policy. I note in particular
that the response has not attempted to label the current work of the Unit as a pilot scheme. The
assertion that "divulging to the general public how the Unit operates at present would be pre-
emptive of decisions still to be made by Ministers" is a non-sequitur. It is always the case that
policy might be changed in future. This does not, however, entitle the withholding of information
regarding the implementation of existing policy.

The response to question 1 also refers to section 23(5). However it does not attempt to provide any
explanation as to why a document on the role of the Unit should contain any information of the sort
referred to in that section. It is inherently implausible that a document setting out the function of an
administrative unit should contain information supplied by security bodies.

Question 2

As regards question 2, it is extremely surprising that there is no recorded information regarding
what appear to be basic matters regarding the work of the Unit. In addition, the response does not
address the most important aspect of the question i.e. "with whom will these determinations be
shared and what effect (legal or other) will they have?" There must be some documentation in
place regarding the sharing of information by the Unit and the effect which decisions of the Unit are
intended to have, and I ask that you reassess this.

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

Yours faithfully,

Dr TJ McIntyre

Annex D – complaints procedure

This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied with the
response to your FoI request, you have the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner at
the following address:

The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF