Dear Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting

1) Any communication from Lord Callanan to any other BEIS ministers or civil servants in BEIS surrounding the review of the Department's participation in the Stonewall diversity champions programme

2) Any report, paper or document authored by Lord Callanan that BEIS has record of between March 2021-present advising or instructing the Department to withdraw and/or discontinue participation in Stonewall diversity champions programme.

3) Any communication BEIS had with any other government department or public body (including the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Government Equalities Office, the Ministry of Justice, OFSTED, OFGEM, OFCOM and/or the Equality and Human Rights Commission) relating to the Department's participation in Stonewall diversity champions programme.

4) Any communications from the Secretary of State to any other Government minister, Member of Parliament, Government body or public body relating to the Department's participation in Stonewall diversity champions programme.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with my request.

Yours faithfully,
Theodore Biddle

Dear Information Rights & Records Unit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,

Thank you for your latest response dated 19th January 2022 (received 26th January 2022) in reference to FOI Request FOI2022/00644.

1) I would like to limit my request to the following: Any communication from Lord Callanan and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy surrounding the review of the Department's participation in the Stonewall diversity champions programme limited to 1 March 2020 to 27 January 2022.

2) Thank you for confirming the Department does not hold this information.

3) I would like to limit my request to the following: Any communication BEIS had with the Cabinet Office, Government Equalities Office, and/or Equality and Human Rights Commission surrounding the Stonewall diversity champions programme limited to 1 March 2020 to 27 January 2022.

4) I would like to limit my request to the following: Any communication between the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to any other Member of Parliament on the topic of the Stonewall diversity champions programme limited to 1 June 2020 to 1 December 2020.

Yours sincerely,
Theodore Biddle

Dear Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy's handling of my FOI request 'Stonewall Diversity Programme'.

I sent my original Freedom of Information Request on 11 January 2022 to which I received the Department's response on the 26 January 2022 which asked me to limit the scope of my request due to the cost. I sent this limited request the next day on 27 January 2022 to which I received a reply on 24th February 2022. This asked for more time to apply the public interest test.

It is now the beginning of April. Although the FOIA does not specify how much time might constitute a ‘reasonable’ extension of time, the ICO's view is "that 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 working days An extension beyond this should be exceptional.
Examples of such circumstances could include extreme pressures placed on the public authority by a major incident or exceptional levels of complexity involving a number of external parties. Public authorities will need to demonstrate that the length of any time extension is justified." (see page 14-15 of https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...)

Please can you look into why it is now approaching 50 working days (calculated from my amended request, not the original request)

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

Yours faithfully,
Theodore Biddle

Dear FOI Requests,

This correspondence is in relationship to BEIS IR ref: IR2022/08786. Original FOI ref: FOI2022/02070

I sent my original Freedom of Information Request on 11 January 2022 to which I received the Department's response on the 26 January 2022 which asked me to limit the scope of my request due to the cost. I sent this limited request the next day on 27 January 2022 to which I received a reply on 24th February 2022. This asked for more time to apply the public interest test.

After 50 working days of no response, I requested an internal review. Acknowledgement of this was received on 11 April 2022. The following day (12 April 2022), I received the internal review which apologised for the delays with a promise that the information would be coming shortly.

It is now the 20th June 2022, two months following the internal review, four months since the revised request and five months since the original request and BEIS have still failed to adequately respond.

Therefore, I request that a further review is held into the handling of this FOI request and that the Department responds promptly. If this does not occur, the next stage will be contacting the Office of the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,
Theodore Biddle

Dear Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy,

Ref: FOI2022/02070.

Given the Department's consistant failure to respond substantively, a month after apologising for delays and promising a response "very soon", I write to inform you that I have submitted a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office.

I continue to await your reply.

Yours sincerely,
Theo Biddle
Equalislate

Dear BEIS FOI Team,

This is in relation to the response dated 3 August 2022, your reference: FOI2022/02070 which followed a lengthy delay and resulted in a referral to the ICO.

In relation to the part of my request labelled (1), you applied three qualified exceptions; s35(1)(a), s35(1)(d) and s36(2)(b)(ii). I request an internal review of the public interest applied on these sections for the following reasons.

1) The Department engages both aspects of Section 35 and Section 36, however ICO guidence states very clearly on page 56 of the published guidance on Section 35 exceptions:
"Sections 35 and 36 are mutually exclusive. This means that if any part of section 35 is engaged, section 36 cannot apply - even if the public interest test results in disclosure under section 35." - https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

2) My request, as limited/amended, had no specific request for internal deliberations of a Minister and their department, but for correspondence of two ministers on a specific issue in a specific timeframe. If certain correspondence would prevent the full and frank discussion of policy, then I do not challange that on those specific documents, however as the ICO point out, once the decisions have been made, there is a lesser protection required now the Department has announced it is a Stonewall-free zone (see Lord M. Callanan, twitter.com/MartinCallanan/status/1550825874622414850).

3. I ask the internal review to examine whether the Department is claiming that every single piece of correspondence falls under one of the three exceptions or whether these have been applied as general exceptions which I submit the ICO guidance says is improper.

4. On the matter of s35(1)(d), the Department gives the reason against releasing the documents as something that would prevent Ministers from "manag[ing] their time and the operation of the office efficiently, without external interference and distraction." however correspondence about the Stonewall programme would do no such thing.

5. On the matter of Section 36(2)(b)(ii), I note the advice of a Minister was taken, as is required by the Section. I would ask the disclosure of the Minister whose advice was sought, and if that cannot be disclosed, for the internal review to examine whether if the Minister was either the Secretary of State or Lord Callanan, whether a conflict of interest may arise due to the FOI request being about their correspondence.

6. Further, I note the decision of the Intellectual Property Office to disclose the letter dated 26 May 2022 from Lord Callanan to BEIS Partner Organisations and other arm-length bodies on the Stonewall programme. This letter is outside the timeframe I am requesting from the Department in this request, however, other public bodies have clearly identified correspondence of this nature that has passed a public interest test therefore I request you re-examine it in this light.

7. Further I note, if Section 36 is to be engaged, the ICO clearly states on page 6 of their guidance that I should have been informed within a further twenty days that the Department planned to engage this exception. This did not occur. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

8. As the ICO guidance on Section 36 states on page 15, once decisions have been made and it no longer a live issue being debated in the Department, the specific objection raised by the department becomes more "speculative" and thus I challenge the Department's speculation as the Department has announced it is a Stonewall-free zone and thus has carried out its policy in terms of guidance to ALBs on Stonewall (see Lord M. Callanan, twitter.com/MartinCallanan/status/1550825874622414850).. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

I would also like to request an internal review into the part of my FOI request labelled (3). The Department relies on Section 40(2). However, the Department has not indicated if every document that falls under my request falls entirely under S40(2) or if it is only certain parts that could be excluded and the rest of the document disclosed. I request that the internal reviewer examines whether the initial FOI request handler did this, and if not, whether that was proper.

In relation to the part of my request labelled (4), thank you for confirming the Department does not hold this information.

Yours sincerely,
Theodore Biddle

Dear FOI Requests,

BEIS IR ref: IR2022/19804, Original FOI ref: FOI2022/02070

Over 40 working days have elapsed since you noted receipt of my internal review request. Please reply promptly. If you do not, I will have no option but to file a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office.

Yours sincerely,
Theodore Biddle