POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s*)

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

please could you disclose to me the contents of the folder POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary Questions, Treat Official Correspondence)

I understand from an earlier request (handled by Birgitte Charles) that the folder & files currently sit within the Ministry of Justice filing system, TRIM (*).

Yours faithfully,

P. John

(* https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...)

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

concerning my FoI request entitled " POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s*)" I have not received your response, nor even an acknowledgement of my request.

According to the law, DCMS should have responded promptly, and no later than 25 April 2016.

If the information requested is not provided in the next 48 hrs a complaint - direct to ICO - will follow.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

Dear P. John,
I have searched our records and our FOI inbox.
We received an FOI request from you on 6th December 2015, and responded to
that on 11th February 2016. 
Our inbox shows no further emails from you.
As you may be aware, an acknowledgement response is automatically
generated and sent out upon receipt of an email to our inbox. Therefore, I
worry that the request you are chasing did not reach us.
Could you please check to see if you still have the email you sent to us.
If the response was due no later than 26th April, the original request
would have been sent to us on 29th March. If you still have the request
email, please forward it to us right away.
Thank you.
Freedom of Information Team.

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

thank you for your note concerning my FoI request "POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s*)".

You will find details of my request here;
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

In December I asked you to list for me all documents you held concerning the Phorm affair. In your response you listed several files, the first of which you included in its entirety your response.

The files were;
1. POL/034/002/006/8 - Phorm Infraction closure (already disclosed)
2. POL/034/002/006/2 - Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s (topic of this request)
3. POL/034/002/006/3 - Phorm Top lines to take
4. POL/034/002/006/4 - Phorm Briefings/Submissions
5. POL/034/002/006/4 - Phorm Infraction

In this present, subsequent, second request,.. I have asked you now to disclose the second file listed in that response; "POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s*)"

Please will you expedite the response to this now (very overdue) FoI request?

Yours sincerely,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

Dear P. John,
I will log your second request shortly.
You have entitled the email "internal review", but you have not asked for
an internal review or set out what you are asking to be reviewed. In this
and a previous email on 3rd May, you are referring to this request as an
FOI request. Can you please confirm if this is an FOI request or an
Internal Review request?
If it is an internal review request, please set out what it is you would
like us to look in to.
Once you have answered the above, I can then get the case logged as an
FOI/Internal review, and work can begin on it right away.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team.

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

thanks for your note concerning my request " POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s)"..

The reason the request is flagged for Internal Review is that the request was first made to you on 26 March 2016 and should have been addressed promptly and not later than 25 April 2016.

Instead, that request went completely unacknowledged & unanswered until 3 May... so I requested an Internal Review.

See;
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

So the present status of my request is indeed at the Internal Review stage, prior to an ICO complaint..

I would be most grateful if you would promptly disclose the information I first requested on 26 March.

To recap I asked you to disclose to me the contents of the folder POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary Questions, Treat Official Correspondence).

Yours sincerely,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

Dear P. John.
Thank you for your response.
Please take this email as confirmation that I have now logged two request,
as follows:
1) FOI Case 283707 - "Please could you disclose to me the contents of the
folder POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary
Questions, Treat Official Correspondence)"
2) Internal Review Case 283708 - Internal review in to the delay/handling
of FOI Case 283707
* You chased up the request for the contents of folder
POL/034/002/006/2 on 3rd of May. 
* You then sent a link to that request on 10th May, which was received on
11th May, this was our first sighting of the request having not received
the original request on 26th March. 
Therefore, I have set the logging date as 11th May for both requests. 
The deadline for the FOI request and internal review will be 9th June.
This allows the Department 20 working days from having received the
requests. However, the Department will of course aim to have them
completed as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Team.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Mailbox,

while waiting for your response to my request, and internal review... I have obtained the logs tracking the successful delivery of my request from WhatDoTheyKnow.com to your mail server on 26 March 2016 at 8:30am, addressed to [email address];
-------------------------------------
2016-03-26 08:30:16 [10369] 1ajjbr-0002hF-Uf <= [email address] U=foi P=local S=2043 id=[email address] T="Freedom of Information request - POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC\342\200\231s, PQ\342\200\231s, TO\342\200\231s*)" from <[email address]> for [email address] [email address]

2016-03-26 08:30:16 [10373] 1ajjbr-0002hF-Uf => [email address] <[email address]> F=<[email address]> P=<[email address]> R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp S=2091 H=cluster2.gsi.messagelabs.com [62.208.159.157]:25 X=TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128 CV=no DN="C=US,ST=California,L=Mountain View,O=Symantec Corporation,OU=Symantec.cloud,CN=mail221.messagelabs.com" C="250 ok 1458981016 qp 40351 server-8.tower-221.messagelabs.com!1458981016!46182548!1" QT=1s DT=0s
-------------------------------------
Note the "250 OK" signal sent by your Californian (!) email server, in effect accepting delivery of the message.

Perhaps this will help you track down the reason my request was unacknowledged? It would seem the request was successfully delivered to you on 26 March... thus your response is overdue.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

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,

Dear P. John

 

Thank you for your email of 11^th May 2016.

 

You have asked for an internal review to be carried out, into the
Department’s handling of the Freedom of Information (FOI) request that you
submitted on 26^th March.

 

Your request on 26^th March was:

“please could you disclose to me the contents of the folder
POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary
Questions, Treat Official Correspondence)

I understand from an earlier request (handled by Birgitte Charles) that
the folder & files currently sit within the Ministry of Justice filing
system, TRIM (*).”

You then followed this up on 3^rd May, as follows:

“Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

concerning my FoI request entitled " POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s,
TO’s*)" I have not received your response, nor even an acknowledgement of
my request. According to the law, DCMS should have responded promptly, and
no later than 25 April 2016.

If the information requested is not provided in the next 48 hrs a
complaint - direct to ICO - will follow.”

The Department responded to you on 4^th May, as follows:

“Dear P. John,
I have searched our records and our FOI inbox.

We received an FOI request from you on 6th December 2015, and responded to
that on 11th February 2016. Our inbox shows no further emails from you.

As you may be aware, an acknowledgement response is automatically
generated and sent out upon receipt of an email to our inbox. Therefore, I
worry that the request you are chasing did not reach us.

Could you please check to see if you still have the email you sent to us.
If the response was due no later than 26th April, the original request
would have been sent to us on 29th March. If you still have the request
email, please forward it to us right away.

Thank you.
Freedom of Information Team”

You responded to the Department on 10^th May, as follows:

“Dear Freedom of Information Team,

thank you for your note concerning my FoI request "POL/034/002/006/2
(Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s*)".

You will find details of my request here;
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

In December I asked you to list for me all documents you held concerning
the Phorm affair. In your response you listed several files, the first of
which you included in its entirety your response.

The files were;
1. POL/034/002/006/8 - Phorm Infraction closure (already disclosed)
2. POL/034/002/006/2 - Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s (topic of this request)
3. POL/034/002/006/3 - Phorm Top lines to take
4. POL/034/002/006/4 - Phorm Briefings/Submissions
5. POL/034/002/006/4 - Phorm Infraction

In this present, subsequent, second request,.. I have asked you now to
disclose the second file listed in that response; "POL/034/002/006/2
(Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s*)"

Please will you expedite the response to this now (very overdue) FoI
request?”

The Department responded to you on 11^th May, as follows:

“I will log your second request shortly.

 

You have entitled the email "internal review", but you have not asked for
an internal review or set out what you are asking to be reviewed. In this
and a previous email on 3rd May, you are referring to this request as an
FOI request. Can you please confirm if this is an FOI request or an
Internal Review request?

 

If it is an internal review request, please set out what it is you would
like us to look in to.

 

Once you have answered the above, I can then get the case logged as an
FOI/Internal review, and work can begin on it right away.”

 

You responded to the Department on 11^th May, as follows:

“Dear Freedom of Information Team,

thanks for your note concerning my request " POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm
MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s)"..

The reason the request is flagged for Internal Review is that the request
was first made to you on 26 March 2016 and should have been addressed
promptly and not later than 25 April 2016.

Instead, that request went completely unacknowledged & unanswered until 3
May... so I requested an Internal Review.

See;
[2]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

So the present status of my request is indeed at the Internal Review
stage, prior to an ICO complaint..

I would be most grateful if you would promptly disclose the information I
first requested on 26 March.

To recap I asked you to disclose to me the contents of the folder
POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary
Questions, Treat Official Correspondence).”

The Department responded to you on 12^th May, as follows:

“Thank you for your response.

 

Please take this email as confirmation that I have now logged two request,
as follows:

 

1) FOI Case 283707 - "Please could you disclose to me the contents of the
folder POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary
Questions, Treat Official Correspondence)"

 

2) Internal Review Case 283708 - Internal review in to the delay/handling
of FOI Case 283707

 

* You chased up the request for the contents of folder
POL/034/002/006/2 on 3rd of May. 

* You then sent a link to that request on 10th May, which was received on
11th May, this was our first sighting of the request having not received
the original request on 26th March. 

 

Therefore, I have set the logging date as 11th May for both requests. 

 

The deadline for the FOI request and internal review will be 9th June.
This allows the Department 20 working days from having received the
requests. However, the Department will of course aim to have them
completed as soon as possible.”

 

You responded to the Department on 12^th May, as follows:

“Dear FOI Mailbox,

while waiting for your response to my request, and internal review... I
have obtained the logs tracking the successful delivery of my request from
WhatDoTheyKnow.com to your mail server on 26 March 2016 at 8:30am,
addressed to[3][DCMS request email];

show quoted sections

Note the "250 OK" signal sent by your Californian (!) email server, in
effect accepting delivery of the message.

Perhaps this will help you track down the reason my request was
unacknowledged? It would seem the request was successfully delivered to
you on 26 March... thus your response is overdue.”

 

 

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 carried out an extensive search of the Freedom of Information inbox
and can confirm that I did not find your request email dated 26^th March.

 

The Department aims to have all requests logged as quickly as possible
upon receipt, so that work can begin immediately. The team acted promptly
once it became apparent that they did not receive the request dated 26^th
March.

 

As you may be aware from previous emails to us, an automated response is
generated when an email is received. At that point, the team will then log
the case and begin work on it.

 

It is clear that you did send a request, but I am unable to determine why
we did not receive it.  I did notice on your response dated 12^th May,
that the request was sent to [16][email address]. Please ensure all
future emails are sent to [17][email address].

 

I would like to apologise for the delay you have experienced and inform
you that the team acted correctly once it became apparent that there had
been a problem with your request. The case is currently being worked on.
Every effort will be made to ensure the request is dealt with as soon as
possible.

 

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

 

[18]www.gov.uk/dcms   

 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
2. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
3. mailto:[DCMS request email]
4. mailto:[FOI #324733 email]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. mailto:[FOI #324733 email]
7. mailto:[DCMS request email]
8. mailto:[DCMS request email]
9. mailto:[email address]
10. mailto:[DCMS request email]
11. mailto:[FOI #324733 email]
12. mailto:[FOI #324733 email]
13. http://cluster2.gsi.messagelabs.com/
14. http://mail221.messagelabs.com/
15. http://server-8.tower-221.messagelabs.com/
16. mailto:[email address]
17. mailto:[email address]
18. http://www.gov.uk/dcms

FOI Mailbox,

Dear P John

I am writing to inform you we are dealing with your request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

We can confirm that DCMS holds information within the scope of your
request. However, we have determined that some of this information may be
exempt from release under section 27 (international relations) and section
36 (conduct of public affairs) of the Act. 

It is necessary to carry out a public interest test to consider whether,
in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining
the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information.

By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to
carry out a public interest test, they do not have to comply with the
request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. Due to the
need to consider where the balance of the public interest lies in relation
to the information that you have requested, the Department will not be
able to respond to your request immediately. However, we hope to have a
substantive response completed and sent to you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Colin Evans

FOI Team

Dear Mr Evans,

thank you for your note concerning my FoI request "POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s)".

Note that ICO guidelines concerning 10(3) stipulate a maximum of 20 additional days, and a maximum total handling time of 40 days. The department's response to this request is already substantially overdue (and should have completed promptly, and no later than 25 April 2016).

I hope to receive your response before 7 July.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

ICO Time for Compliance Guidance
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
"an authority should normally take no more than an additional 20 working days to consider the public interest, meaning that the total time spent dealing with the request should not exceed 40 "

FOI Mailbox,

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.
  

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

concerning my request ' POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm MC’s, PQ’s, TO’s', first sent to you on 26 March, details here;
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Please immediately provide the information first requested from you in March, without any additional delay, else a complaint to the ICO seeking a decision notice will now follow.

To recap, on 26 March you were asked to disclose the contents of the folder POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary Questions, Treat Official Correspondence). On 12 May you told me I would receive the requested information on 9 June, claiming the request was mishandled. On 9 June you sought to extend the time allowed to handle the request.

Note that ICO guidelines concerning 10(3) stipulate a maximum of 20 additional days, and a maximum total handling time of 40 days. The department's response to this request is now excessively overdue (and should have completed promptly, and no later than 25 April 2016).

I expect to receive your full response before 18 July, and will not tolerate any further delay.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

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,

Dear P. John,
I apologise for the delay. I can confirm that we are currently working on
the case and that it is close to completion. 
Although the response will not be ready as requested by close of today, we
are working on having it completed and sent to you as quickly as we can.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Evans
FOI Team

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Evans ,

It is now self-evident to me that DCMS are obstructing access to the requested information, unlawfully and unreasonably.

As indicated in my previous correspondence... given the excessive delay responding to this request... a complaint concerning the handling of this request is now en route to the ICO FoIA complaints handling team.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

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.
  

P. John left an annotation ()

FoIA complaint sent to ICO 20 July 2016.
ICO acknowledgement received 20 July 2016.

FOI Mailbox,

1 Attachment

Dear P. John

Further to our email of 9 ^ June, where we advised you that we do hold
information but had determined that some of that information may be exempt
from release, and was subject to the public interest test. We can now
confirm that the public interest test is now complete.

 

You asked:

​​"Please could you disclose to me the contents of the folder
POL/034/002/006/2 (Phorm Ministerial Correspondence, Parliamentary
Questions, Treat Official Correspondence)

I understand from an earlier request (handled by Birgitte Charles) that
the folder & files currently sit within the Ministry of Justice filing
system, TRIM (*)."

We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).

 

Please refer to the attached document.

 

The Department has determined that we are able to provide you with some of
the information, and are withholding other parts of the information, for
the reasons given below.

 

A number of the documents within the attached document contain personal
data relating to junior officials within Government departments and the
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). There are also documents
containing personal data of a member of the public. We have redacted the
personal data in these documents in line with section 40(2)(personal
information). We are not obliged, under section 40(2) of the Act, to
provide information that is the personal information of another person if
releasing would contravene any of the provisions in the Data Protection
Act 1998 (DPA). In this instance we believe that the release of this
information would contravene the first data protection principle and
therefore section 40(2) is engaged. The terms of this exemption in the
Freedom of Information Act mean that we do not have to consider whether or
not it would be in the public interest for you to have the information.

 

We have withheld some additional information under section 36 (conduct of
public affairs). In our opinion, the release of the information would be
likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, and the free and
frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation under section
36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

In line with the terms of this exemption, we have considered whether it
would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the
information, despite the exemption being applicable. When assessing
whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose the information
to you, we took into account the following factors:

In favour of disclosure

·        Promoting accountability and transparency by public authorities
for decisions taken by them. Placing an obligation on officials to provide
reasoned explanations for decisions made will improve the quality of
decisions and administration.

·        Open policy making or decision making will increase trust in
government and increase public confidence in the decision making process.

·        Allowing individuals to understand decisions made by public
authorities affecting their lives and, in some cases assisting individuals
in challenging those decisions.

Against disclosure

·    The information in question mostly concerns officials’ thinking, and
inter-departmental deliberations on decisions about sensitive and
controversial topics. The information includes sensitive and sometimes
personal opinions and advice of officials.

·    Officials need a safe space to express views without feeling that
there will be public disclosure of their work and communications.

We reached the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served
by withholding this information under Section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the
Act.

Furthermore, we consider some of the information exempt under Section 36
also to be exempt under section 27(1)(b) (international relations) of the
Act. This is because release of the information would be likely to
prejudice the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. Section 27 is a
‘qualified’ exemption and requires us to carry out a public interest test
to consider whether the balance of interest lies in favour of releasing or
withholding the information. Release of this information would be likely
to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and the European
Commission, as disclosure of the information would compromise the
effective conduct of the United Kingdom’s international relations. It is
accepted practice on both sides that this information remains
confidential. While there is a general public interest in transparency,
having considered the public interest, we consider that the public
interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the public
interest considerations in favour of withholding the information.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team

 

Department for Culture, Media & Sport

4th floor, 100 Parliament Street

London SW1A 2BQ

 

[1]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:  [2][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 his investigation.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/dcms
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear FOI Mailbox,

thank you for your much delayed response to my FoI request.

I am disappointed that you should withhold so much of the requested information. I am aware that there is considerably more that has not been disclosed, particularly the correspondence exchanged with the European Commission.

You say "Officials need a safe space to express views without feeling that there will be public disclosure of their work and communications". Yet at the same time, the few documents you do disclose exhibit a complete disregard for the privacy/security/integrity of personal & commercial telecommunications data.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

FOI Mailbox,

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.