Overarching child sexual abuse inquiry at present with Fiona Woolf as chair

Cathy Fox made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by Home Office of their handling of this request.

Dear Home Office,

Please could you state when the due diligence was carried out on Fiona Woolf for being chair of the overarching child abuse inquiry? What did it comprise of?
Woolf appeared to say in the HASC that the due diligence was not carried out until after Theresa May appointed her,after September is this correct?
Please could you send me a copy of Fiona Woolfs appointment letter.
Please could you say how much the each of the panel are being paid.
Please could you tell me the estimated budget for the panel and the estimate of how long the panel is expected to be in operation before it produces its final report.
It apears unclear if survivors are to give evidence or whether is just a systemic review, please could you state if survivors are going to give evidence.
What mechanism is available to enable the inquiry to get to the truth about allegations of MI5 and other secret services covering up child abuse, allowing child abuse to go ahead for nefarious purposes under the guise of national security?. I enclose a link http://t.co/tzjDid4o3O

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the Home Office FOI Requests mailbox.

The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 provides public access to
recorded information held by the department.

If you have a general immigration enquiry, or require an update on a
specific case, yuo shoul;d contact UKVI directly, contact information can
be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... and
https://www.gov.uk/visas-immigration

If you have submitted a valid FoI request, we will acknowledge your
request within 48 hours, and aim to provide the information requested
within 20 working days as specified under the FoI Act.

Other ways of contacting the Home Office with non- FOI queries can be
found here: [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request. This has been assigned FOI Ref 33354. We will aim to send you a full reposnse by 24/11/2014, which is Twenty working days from the date we received your request.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate in contacting us

Thank you

FOI Requests
Home Office

show quoted sections

FOI Requests, Home Office

2 Attachments

Please find attached response to your FOI request.

 

Home Office

2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF

[1]www.gov.uk/home-office

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/home-office

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 Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'Overarching child sexual abuse inquiry at present with Fiona Woolf as chair'.

The response was 5 months past the date that the Home Office was supposed to answer by statute. I wish to know whose responsibility it was to answer, why no one puts their name or job title to the reply and why it was answered so late. It would appear that this answer was deliberately given, not only late when the answer was less topical, but also when parliament had finished and so any follow up could not be put to an MP. This is a disgusting disregard to the statute law that public servants are duty bound to carry out. Who was responsible?
Furthermore many of the questions have been deliberately avoided or evaded. I do accept that some of the following is clarification of the answer.

Q1 asked WHEN due diligence was carried out ie dates and no answer was given. Due diligence you state were the checks on her background and interests. What did the checks comprise?
Q2 You mention that checks started before Woolfs appointment, is it then correct to say that due diligence was not finished by time her appointment letter on 17 October?
Q3 Thankyou for the letter sent, however I would also like the formal letter of appointment with terms and conditions referred to in this letter. I cannot understand why it was not sent previously.
Q4 I asked how much the members of the panel were being paid. I still wish to know how much the original panel were paid, it is not a correct answer under the FOI Act to delay the answer to a question until the position has changed and then adapt the question to that. As well , in the interests of transparenc,y please could you tell me what the pay is for public inquiries, and also specifically how much the people you mention are being paid - that is for the new inquiry.
Q5 Please could you state what you mean by "appropriate" funding and what you meant by a "cost sharing arrangement across government". Which departments and how that has been agreed. Statements like this are meaningless unless explained. Has there been really been no discussion of an estimate of the budget? I find this hard to believe and irresponsible if so.
Q6 The question on whether survivors are to give evidence was avoided. Are survivors going to give evidence to the Inquiry itself, ie not the survivors panel?
Q7 The answer to question 7 asking what mechanism is available to get to the truth about MI5 covering up child abuse, states "We've promised ..." How can the Home office promise something on behalf of someone else? Who is we? Is a Home office promise a legal contract that is enforceable across all of HM Governmetn adn otehr agencies? Is this not a meaningless statement? The question asked for a mechanism to get to the truth. The woolly reply mentioned "give evidence with lawful authority""not a bar to giving evidence" these statements miss the point and do not answer the question.
The mechanism must be one that enables the whistleblower to give evidence, with a guarantee by a person with the authority to give it, that they will not be prosecuted under the OSA for giving that evidence. Is such a mechanism in place?

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

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the Home Office FOI Requests mailbox.

The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 provides public access to
recorded information held by the department.

If you have submitted a valid FoI request, we will acknowledge your
request within 48 hours, and aim to provide the information requested
within 20 working days as specified under the FoI Act

PLEASE NOTE

If you have a general immigration enquiry, or require an update on a
specific case, you should contact UKVI directly, contact information can
be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... and
[1]https://www.gov.uk/visas-immigration

General enquiries should be directed to
[2][email address]  

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/visas-immigration
2. mailto:[email address]