If in the interest of the UK would they be Sectioned under the Mental Health Act?

The request was refused by Department for Work and Pensions.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

We have a democratic system of government were the elected party serves a fixed term set out under the rules. Powers which appear unconditional can be potentially devastating for the citizens residing in the country.

We have, in relatively recent years, seen problems created because the government elected can not be challenged over decision, no matter what dire consequences they might have for the country as a whole.

I believe we should have learned lessons about how vulnerable we are in this regard. I would therefore like assurance that ultimately power is held in the hands of our psychiatric assessment specialists.

This leads me to my question I would like answering under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

Q) Does whoever is serving as the Minister for Work and Pensions at the time undergo psychiatric assessment to assess the suitability for deciding the fate of the UK, and if so, with what regularity?

Yours faithfully,

C. Ruption

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

Susan Howarth left an annotation ()

Absolutely a brilliant and a very pertinent question.

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Sir/Madam,
 
Please see the attached response
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP,

In response to your statement that my question is vexatious, I can categorically say that you are very much mistaken. You must be in complete denial if you cannot see that the question is of utmost importance.

Yours sincerely,

C. Ruption

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

Thank you for your email. If your email is asking to join the waiting list
for Private Office open days we will add your name to the list. Due to the
high volumes of requests we get to attend these events we are unable to
acknowledge every single reply received. You will hear from us next once
we are arranging the next open days. If you are applying for the STAR
scheme you will shortly hear from us. You will be issued with a security
clearance form, and please be aware that the security services take a
number of weeks to process this.

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Please see the attached response in relation to your review request
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Gerald Jones left an annotation ()

The ICO provides guidance about vexatious requests (link below) that you might find helpful.

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...

I've experienced the problem of the DWP claiming a request was vexatious. I complained to the ICO and when the ICO contacted the DWP it changed its mind.

You might want to consider making a complaint to the ICO about the DWP handling of your request.

C. Ruption left an annotation ()

Thanks for the link Gerald. Will have a look and submit a request for review.

Although the DWP treat my last message as a request for review, it wasn't, so I figure I'm entitled to have another go.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Work and Pensions's handling of my FOI request 'If in the interest of the UK would they be Sectioned under the Mental Health Act?'.

There has been no evidence provided to support the DWP's decision that my FoI request was vexatious.

I feel the following guidance may be helpful for you to consult before applying exemptions in regards refusing information on the grounds that requests are vexatious:

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...

It is clear where it is set out at §§131–133 of the guidance that the Information Commissioner would be looking for evidence that the request would have an unjustified or disproportionate effect on the authority. I don't think the DWP will be able to provide such evidence.

I therefore ask that the DWP reconsiders and responds to my request for information.

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

Yours faithfully,

C. Ruption

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Please find attached a response to your recent request
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP,

I ask in regards your response below, whether this a formal refusal to hold a review?

If so, please state your name in order that I may make a formal complaint about you.

"Thank you for your e-mail of 17 February requesting a further review of my decision to uphold our handling of your recent Freedom of Information request.

I have nothing further to add to either of the previously issued responses dated 30 January and 11 February.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team"

Yours sincerely,

C. Ruption

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Please see the attached
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP,

Please state your name in order that I may make a formal complaint about you.

Yours sincerely,

C. Ruption

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Please see the attached
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Emma Dale left an annotation ()

"We have decided that no valid request has been made as you have failed to supply a real name. I should note that even if you had supplied a real name the information requested would be exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act."

The Department for Work and Pensions obviously don't follow good practice which is to consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/priv...

"...the same guidance also says it is good practice for the public authority to still consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym. You should refer to this if a public authority refuses a request because you used a pseudonym..."

Gazz left an annotation ()

Interesting Mr Ruption. One wonders how they came to the conclusion the name was 'unreal'.

Gazz left an annotation ()

Interesting Mr Ruption. One wonders how they came to the conclusion the name was 'unreal'.

Correction ~ Mr/Mrs/Miss Ruption

Syd (Knee) Potter left an annotation ()

"....I should note that even if you had supplied a real name the information requested would be exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act."

The information requested would NOT be exempt under section 40(2) of the FOI Act. Section 40(2) is an exemption that applies when a request is made for personal information of a third party. The request asks for general information relating to WHOEVER is serving as Secretary of State at the time. Essentially it asks for recorded information (if existing) of the regularity of psychiatric assessment of any person holding said position. The person holding that position has no relevance, neither is the request asking for the outcome of any such tests, only whether any are undertaken.

Even if the request was asking for personal information about a third party (which it wasn't) and the DWP wanted to apply an exemption, it would be a "qualified exemption" requiring the public interest test. Then a request can only be refused if disclosure would breach any of the 8 data protection principles (the Data Protection Act 1998). In any event, an exemption should not be used as a means of sparing officials embarrassment.

Dear PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP,

"We have decided that no valid request has been made as you have failed to supply a real name...."

The Department for Work and Pensions obviously don't follow good practice which is to consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/priv...

"...the same guidance also says it is good practice for the public authority to still consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym. You should refer to this if a public authority refuses a request because you used a pseudonym..."

"....I should note that even if you had supplied a real name the information requested would be exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act."

The information requested would NOT be exempt under section 40(2) of the FOI Act. Section 40(2) is an exemption that applies when a request is made for personal information of a third party. The request asks for general information relating to WHOEVER is serving as Secretary of State at the time. Essentially it asks for recorded information (if existing) of the regularity of psychiatric assessment of any person holding said position. The person holding that position has no relevance, neither is the request asking for the outcome of any such tests, only whether any are undertaken.

Even if the request was asking for personal information about a third party (which it wasn't) and the DWP wanted to apply an exemption, it would be a "qualified exemption" requiring the public interest test. Then a request can only be refused if disclosure would breach any of the 8 data protection principles (the Data Protection Act 1998). In any event, an exemption should not be used as a means of sparing officials embarrassment.

Yours sincerely,

C. Ruption

PO-BUSINESS-SUPPORT DWP, Department for Work and Pensions

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer you to your previous responses, in that as no real name has been provided we are under no obligation to answer your requests and will be taking no further action on it.

DWP Central FOI team

show quoted sections

Gazz left an annotation ()

BUT how would the DWP know if the name used was real or not ? It is clearly a non-sense!

The Real Neil Gilliatt left an annotation ()

Go to the ICO if you feel the Department for Work and Pensions have wrongly refused your request........ oh wait that isn't your real name isn't it...

Maybe next time use your proper name and maybe the DWP would have taken your response a bit more seriously

(though i do agree with DWP that your just being a vexatious pest)

Dan Stevens (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

There's nothing stopping you submitting the same request with a view to escalating a complaint to the Information Commissioner if the DWP gets 'all funny'. Of course, you would have to do so under your "real" name for a complaint to be valid. You're obviously not the person matching the name under which you post; if so you would not consistently use the appalling grammar that appears in all your contributions.

Ronald Sanderson left an annotation ()

I thought of this attempt to obtain information when I saw the double punch of IDS in the House of Commons yesterday when George made his budget announcement.