FOI team
CB23
Office for National Statistics
Segensworth Road
Titchfield
PO15 5RR

via email to: foi.team@ons.gov.uk
cc: 2011censuspress@ons.gov.uk

22nd September 2011

Dear Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the
following information:

----------------------

With reference to the

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 section 39.
Confidentiality of personal information

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2007/ukpga_20070018_en_3#pt1-pb11-
l1g39

Please disclose:

1) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations
who are currently registered as "Approved Researchers" for the
previous Census data i.e. 2001 and before.

2) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations
who are registered as "Approved Researchers" for the current and
future 2011 Census data.

3) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations
who have applied to be, but are not yet currently registered as,
"Approved Researchers" for the previous Census data i.e. 2001 and
before.

4) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations
who have applied to be, but are not yet currently registered as,
"Approved Researchers" for the current and future 2011 Census data.

--------------------

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it
on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste"
locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already
available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the
reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information
requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an
explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you
should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by
reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the
Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public
interests you have considered and why you have decided that the
public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the
public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as
possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days
from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Friday 21st October 2011

Yours Sincerely,

[name]
[address]
[email]

c.f. the answers to these questions just before the 2011 Census:

Office for National Statistics - Census Data Personal Information disclosures made under the SRSA 2007 s.39 exemptions

In response to your first question. There are eight people who are currently registered as Approved Researchers with access to information from previous censuses. Seven out of the eight are academics from the Universities of Bristol, Warwick and Leeds and Imperial College London. The eighth Approved Researcher is from "Kilo Oscar Ltd", a transport planning consultancy supporting Highway Authorities.

Approved Researchers only have access to a very small sample of anonymised census information. This sample contains no names; no addresses; and no date of birth. The only geographic information provided is the local authority in which the individual lives.

In response to your questions 2 - 4. There are no Approved Researcher's who are currently pre-approved for access to 2011 Census data. There are no outstanding applications to become Approved Researchers for either historic Census information or 2011 Census information.

Attorney General's Office

20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF

General enquiries: 020 7271 2492
Direct line: 020 7271 2492
Fax: 020 7271 2429
Your Ref:
Our Ref: FOI/93/11
Date: 20 September 2011

[name & address]
[email]

{civil servant name]@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk

Dear [name]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Thank you for your email of 20 August, in which you made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in relation to the Detainee Inquiry. Specifically you asked for:

1. A full detailed copy of this promised Undertaking by the the Attorney General;
2. When this Undertaking was communicated to the Detainee Inquiry;
3. If this Undertaking is still to be published, the planned publication date, bearing in mind that it is now over a year since the prime Minister's letter.

In his written statement to the House of 6 July 2010, in announcing the setting up of an Inquiry to examine the treatment of detainees, the Prime Minister said that the Attorney General had agreed to provide an undertaking to witnesses who gave evidence to the Inquiry. Although agreed in principle, the exact wording of the undertaking to be given has not yet been finally agreed. At the date of this reply, there is no final version of the undertaking and no final version has thus been communicated to the Inquiry. When finalised, the undertaking will be published by the Inquiry at a time chosen by the Inquiry. I should explain, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that the delay in finalising the precise wording of the undertaking is not delaying the Inquiry in its work.

Accordingly I have established that the information you requested is not held by this Department.

Yours sincerely,

[name of civil servant]
Freedom of Information Officer

I should explain, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that the delay in finalising the precise wording of the undertaking is not delaying the Inquiry in its work

Until the detailed Undertaking is published, there is no chance that any current or former intelligence service insider, who has any whistleblowing evidence which might contradict what the official briefing documents given to the Detainee Inquiry so far, could possibly risk contacting the Detainee Inquiry, for fear of the several laws which could be abused to threaten them with.

Therefore the work of the Detainee Inquiry is being hindered whilst the precise wording of the Undertaking is finalised, over a year after it was promised.

Nothing yet from the Cabinet Office - see our
FOIA request to Cabinet Secretary regarding promised Undertaking about the Detainee Inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture

See also the reply to Spy Blog from the Detainee Inquiry itself:

Reply from the Detainee Inquiry, regarding anonymity protection for whistleblowers, surveillance targeting against the Inquiry itself etc.

Spy Blog letter to the Detainee Inquiry re: lack of whistleblower anonymity protection and immunity from prosecution

Freedom of Information Act requests
FOI Team
Cabinet Office
Room 120
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS

via email to: foiteam@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

Saturday 20th August 2011

Dear Sirs,

On 6th July 2010 a letter from Prime Minister David Cameron set out the Terms of Reference of the Detainee Inquiry into the alleged complicity in torture by the United Kingdom intelligence agencies and the Government, chaired by Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Gibson, the distinguished former High Court Judge and former Intelligence Services Commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

A copy of this letter is available on the Detainee Inquiry website:

http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk/2010/07/letter-to-sir-peter-gibson/

http://detaineeinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/06.07.10-Letter-from-PM-to-Sir-Peter-Gibson4.pdf

(copy attached)

"The Cabinet Secretary and the heads of the intelligence services will require staff in their departments and agencies to cooperate fully with the inquiry and expect them to cooperate with the Inquiry's requests for oral evidence. The Attorney General has agreed to provide an undertaking that evidence given by witnesses may not be used against them in criminal proceedings, whether their evidence is given in public, private or both (other than in proceedings where he or she is charged with giving false evidence or conspiring to do so in the course of this Inquiry). The Cabinet Secretary and heads of the intelligence services will set out analogous undertakings to staff in respect of disciplinary proceedings based on their evidence, whether public or private. )"

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the following information:

1) A full detailed copy of this promised Analogous Undertaking by the Cabinet Secretary

2) When this Undertaking was communicated to the Detainee Inquiry

3) If this Undertaking is still to be published, the planned publication date, bearing in mind that it is now over a year since the Prime Minister's letter

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Tuesday 20th September 2011 (taking into account the August Bank Holiday).

Yours Sincerely,

Spy Blog letter to the Detainee Inquiry re: lack of whistleblower anonymity protection and immunity from prosecution

Freedom of Information Act requests
Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0NF

via email to: foi@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

Saturday 20th August 2011

Dear Sirs,

On 6th July 2010 a letter from Prime Minister David Cameron set out the Terms of Reference of the Detainee Inquiry into the alleged complicity in torture by the United Kingdom intelligence agencies and the Government, chaired by Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Gibson, the distinguished former High Court Judge and former Intelligence Services Commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

A copy of this letter is available on the Detainee Inquiry website:

http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk/2010/07/letter-to-sir-peter-gibson/

http://detaineeinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/06.07.10-Letter-from-PM-to-Sir-Peter-Gibson4.pdf

(copy attached)

"The Attorney General has agreed to provide an undertaking that evidence given by witnesses may not be used against them in criminal proceedings, whether their evidence is given in public, private or both (other than in proceedings where he or she is charged with giving false evidence or conspiring to do so in the course of this Inquiry)"

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the following information:

1) A full detailed copy of this Undertaking by the Attorney General

2) When this Undertaking was communicated to the Detainee Inquiry

3) If this Undertaking is still to be published, the planned publication date, bearing in mind that it is now over a year since the Prime Minister's letter

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Tuesday 20th September 2011 (taking into account the August Bank Holiday).

Yours Sincerely,

Even though the balance of public interest test must surely have changed even more in favour of disclosure, the ICO has weaselled out of ruling in favour of ordering full disclosure, again, by not considering anything which happened after our FOIA request back in June last year.

Is there a coded message that if we re-submit the request now that the new law on stop and search is actually in force, we might be more successful this time ?

As is usual with all of our FOIA requests, the Information Commissioner has found the the Home Office broke the law, yet again, by failing to meet the statutory timescales for answering our request - why can't they be at least fined each time that they do this ?

Reference: FS50374879

ICO

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)
Decision Notice Date: 21 July 2011

Public Authority: Address:

Home Office
Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P4DF



Complainant: Address:

[name and address]

Summary
The complainant requested information relating to Authorisations for stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The public authority withheld the information on the basis of the exemption at section 24(1), and further decided that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

The Commissioner upheld the public authority's decision to withhold the information on the basis of section 24(1). He however found the public authority in procedural breach of the Act.

The Commissioner's Role

The Commissioner's duty is to decide whether a request for information made to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act"). This Notice sets out his decision.

Background

2. Prior to 18 March 2011, Authorisations for stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 could be granted by the Secretary of State to police forces across the United Kingdom for a maximum of 28 days. In November 2007 the complainant requested information from the public authority regarding Authorisations approved for stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The public uthority's refusal to disclose the information requested on the basis of the exemption at section 24(1) was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner in a decision notice issued on 8 February 2010.¹

¹ The decision is available at:
http://www.ico.aov.Uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2010/FS 50198 733.ashx

3. Following the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) decision in Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom (Application no. 4158/05) in January 2010, the Secretary of State issued a Remedial Order² amending parts of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Order which came into force on 18 March 2011 repealed sections 44 to 47(g) relating to Authorisations for stop and search powers. The repealed sections were however replaced with provisions which include granting senior police officers the power to authorise the use of stop and search powers for a maximum of 14 days.

² Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism. Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011 No.631

The Request

4. On 11 June 2010 the complainant requested the following information in relation to stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000:

The Time, Date, Duration, and Geographical extent (either in words or on a map or plan etc) of:

1. Authorisations which the Secretary of State has been informed of under section 46(3)
2. Authorisations which have not been confirmed by the Secretary of State and which have lapsed under section 46(4)
3. Authorisations modified by the Secretary of State under section 46(5)e
4. Authorisations which have been cancelled by the Secretary of State under section 46(6), and
5. Authorisations renewed in writing under section 46(7)
6. The name of the Minister who signed each authorisation and when the approval was given.

5. He specified that the information provided should cover the period from when the Terrorism Act 2000 (referred to hereinafter as the Terrorism Act) came into force to the date of the request. The public authority confirmed that the Terrorism Act came into force in February 2001. The request was therefore treated as covering related information from February 2001 to 11 June 2010.

6. The complainant had made substantively the same request to the public authority in November 2007 regarding Authorisations for the power to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000.

7. On 6 July 2010 the public authority issued a refusal notice relying on the exemptions at sections 24(1) and 31. It however advised the complainant that it needed additional time to consider the public interest fully.

8. On 27 September 2010 the public authority responded following a number of additional extensions to consider the public interest. It noted that the complainant had requested similar information in November 2007 which was refused. The public authority further noted that the Commissioner did not uphold the subsequent complaint in relation to the refusal to disclose the information in November 2007. The public authority therefore explained that it was withholding the information requested on the basis of section 24(1) for the same reasons already considered by the Commissioner in the previous complaint. It however provided the complainant with a list of Ministers who had confirmed authorisations within the period covered by the request.

9. On 7 November 2010 the complainant requested a review of the public authority's decision.

10. On 6 December 2010 the public authority wrote back to the complainant with details of the outcome of the internal review. The original decision to withhold the information requested was upheld.

The Investigation

Scope of the case

11. On 7 February 2011 the complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the way his request for information had been handled.

12. In light of the disclosure by the public authority in relation to item 6 of the request, the Commissioner clarified with the complainant (on 21 March 2011) that the scope of the investigation in relation to item 6 would still cover 'the name of the Minister who signed each authorisation issued between February 2001 and 11 June 2010 and
when their approval was given'.

13. The information covered by the scope of the investigation in relation to items 1-5 of the request also remained as outlined in paragraph 5 above.

14. The complainant specifically asked the Commissioner to consider the points outlined below.

15. According to the complainant, the balance of the public interest had changed substantially (since his previous request in November 2007) in favour of full disclosure for the following reasons:

• The Coalition Government had effectively suspended the use of section 44 stop and search powers,
• The public authority had admitted many clerical errors which resulted in hundreds or thousands of illegal stops and searches, something which could not have happened if the limits and geographical extent of each section 44 Authorisation had be made public,
• The ECJ judgement in Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom made the Terrorism Act illegal, and
• It is important for public debate and for Parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation that the geographical locations and the dates and times of the 'use and abuse' of these section 44 powers should be clear and transparent.
• The complainant also suggested that subsequent to both his requests of 2007 and 2010, individual Police forces had disclosed information relevant to his requests. In his own words, " it appears that individual Police forces such as the Metropolitan Police Service have disclosed, the time, date, and geographical extent of the Section 44 Authorisation requests they have made to the Home Secretary."

Analysis

Exemptions

16. It is important to note from the outset that the Commissioner's investigation was restricted to matters which were relevant at the time of the request and not after the request was made.

17. As noted above, the Commissioner issued a decision notice on 8 February 2010 in case FS50198733 in relation to the request of November 2007 ("the previous decision notice").

18. Items 1-5 of both requests (i.e. November 2007 and June 2010) are substantively the same. However, the request of November 2007 was not restricted to the time, date, duration, and geographical extent (either in words or on a map or plan etc) of the Authorisations.

19. Item 6 was not part of the request of November 2007.

20. The public authority explained in its letters of 27 September and 6 December that, in its view, paragraph 58 of the decision notice in case FS50198733 had satisfactorily dealt with the issue of the time, date, duration, and geographical extent of the Authorisations.

21. The public authority further explained to the complainant that section 24(1) equally applied to item 6 of the request for the same reasons considered by the Commissioner in the previous decision notice.

Section 24(1)

22. Information is exempt on the basis of section 24(1) if it does not fall within section 23(1) and is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

23. The Commissioner finds that items 1-5 of the request were exempt on the basis of section 24(1) for the same reasons already explained in the previous decision notice especially at paragraph 58.

24. In terms of item 6, the public authority further relied on the previous decision notice to the extent that the Commissioner had specifically noted that disclosure of details of the Authorisations such as dates, times, and geographical extent could enable terrorists ascertain the likelihood of their activities coming to the attention of the police or
anti-terrorist agencies.

25. The Commissioner also considers that disclosing the information requested under item 6 would have revealed information about the Authorisations and the dates they were approved. This information could be used by terrorists in conjunction with information obtained from reconnaissance activities to ascertain the likelihood of their activities coming to the attention of security agencies.

That is utter nonsense.

The ICO and the Home Office might as well argue that revealing that there are about 30,000 Metropolitan Police Officers somewhere within the 125 mile circumference of the M25 Orbital motorway around London, could somehow reveal to terrorists "the likelihood of their activities coming to the attention of security agencies."

The FOIA request was not asking for precise details of roadblocks or patrol patterns or any background intelligence information, only for what is clearly laid down in the text of the Terrorism Act 2000 i.e. only the Time, Date, Duration, and Geographical extent of these supposedly strictly time and location limited exceptional police powers.

How can innocent members of the public be expected to obey a law which is amended in secret by the police and the bureaucrats and rubber stamped by the politicians ?

26. In summary, the Commissioner finds that the information requested in items 1-6 above was correctly withheld on the basis of the exemption at section 24(1).

Public Interest Test

27. The exemption at section 24(1) is qualified by the public interest test. The Commissioner has therefore to consider whether in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

28. The public authority relied fully on the public interest arguments considered in the previous decision notice in support of its decision to withhold the information requested.

29. The Commissioner is persuaded that the public interest assessment in the decision notice applies equally to this request. He has however further considered whether the specific public interest arguments advanced by the complainant had shifted the balance in favour of disclosure at the time of the request in June 2010.

Balance of the public interest arguments

30. According to the complainant, the Coalition Government had effectively suspended the use of section 44 stop and search powers.

31. The Commissioner agrees that the power to grant Authorisations under section 44 to 47(g) of the Terrorism Act was repealed by the Remedial Order. However, Authorisations to stop and search under the Terrorism Act can still be granted by senior police officers. The difference is that the provisions in sections 44 to 47(g) of the Terrorism Act no longer apply. Also, given that the request was made in June 2010 before the Remedial Order came into force in March 2011, sections 44 to 47(g)
were in any event still in force at the time of the request.

32. Therefore, at the time of the request, the public interest was certainly not in favour of disclosure on the grounds that the use of section 44 had been suspended. In addition, the public interest was not then in favour of disclosure on the grounds that powers for Authorisations for stop and search under the Terrorism Act no longer existed. Indeed, the powers are still in use, but no longer by virtue of sections 44 to 47(g).
Therefore, for the same reasons he found in the previous decision notice that there was a stronger public interest in not disclosing details of the Authorisations, he also finds that the public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption at the time of the request in June 2010.

33. According to the complainant, the public authority had admitted many clerical errors which resulted in hundreds or thousands of illegal stops and searches, something which could not have happened if the limits and geographical extent of each section 44 Authorisation had be made public.

34. The complainant further argued that it is important for public debate and for Parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation that the geographical locations and the dates and times of the 'use and abuse' of these section 44 powers should be clear and transparent.

35. Whilst the complainant did not provide any specific evidence to support the above assertion, the Commissioner is aware that there have been quite a number of incidents where the use of section 44 powers was questioned by the media, courts and politicians. It is accurate to say therefore that the use of section 44 powers has not been without
controversy.

36. However, the balance the Commissioner has to strike is between protecting information on national security grounds and disclosure to promote transparency and accountability. The Commissioner is not persuaded that the public interest in disclosing the information about Authorisations requested in items 1-6 outweighs the significant public interest in protecting the security of the United Kingdom and its
citizens.

37. According to the complainant, the ECJ judgement in Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom made the Terrorism Act illegal.

38. The Commissioner has already noted that the government introduced a Remedial Order amending part of the Terrorism Act following the ECJ ruling in Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom.

39. The ECJ judgement was handed down on 12 January 2010. Given that Authorisations for stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act could still be granted up until 18 March 2011, the Commissioner finds that, at the time of the request in June 2010, the public interest was still in favour of maintaining the exemption at section 24(1). Also, for the reasons already noted above at paragraph 32 alone the
Commissioner in any event finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

40. The complainant also suggested that subsequent to both his requests of 2007 and 2010, individual Police forces had disclosed information relevant to his requests. In his own words, " it appears that individual Police forces such as the Metropolitan Police Service have disclosed, the time, date, and geographical extent of the Section 44 Authorisation requests they have made to the Home Secretary."

41. The complainant did not provide any specific evidence in support of the above assertion. In any event, the Commissioner would not have taken into account information which was disclosed after the request of 11June 2010.

Procedural Requirements

42. Under section 10(1) a public authority must comply with the provisions of section 1(1) promptly and in any event no later than 20 working days.

43. Under section 10(3) a public authority may extend the time for compliance where it is necessary to do so in order to properly consider the public interest.

44. Under section 17(3)(b) a public authority must complete its public interest test within a reasonable period in the circumstances.

45. The Commissioner considers that in no case should a public authority take more than 40 working days to consider the public interest. The public authority took over three months to conduct the public interest test in relation to the information withheld on the basis of the section 24(1) exemption.

46. The Commissioner therefore finds the public authority in breach of
section 17(3)(b).

The Decision

47. The Commissioner's decision is that the public authority dealt with the
following elements of the request in accordance with the requirements
of the Act:
•The public authority correctly withheld the information requested in
items 1-6 on the basis of the exemption at section 24(1).

48. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the following
elements of the request were not dealt with in accordance with the Act:
• The public authority breached section 17(3)(b).

Steps Required

49. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.

Right of Appeal

50. Either party has the right to appeal against this Decision Notice to the
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals
process may be obtained from:
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
GRC &GRP Tribunals,
PO Box 9300,
Arnhem House,
31, Waterloo Way,
LEICESTER,
LEI 8DJ
Tel: 0300 1234504
Fax: 01162494253
Email: informationtribunal@tribunals.gsi.qov.uk.
Website: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk

51. If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain
information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the
Information Tribunal website.

52. Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28
(calendar) days of the date on which this Decision Notice is sent.

Dated the 21st day of July 2011

Signed

Graham Smith

Deputy Commissioner
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

The good news is that ONS claim not to have ever betrayed any of our Personal Information from the 2001 Census or from earlier ones.

There is also some information, which might merit more specific FOIA requests about Approved Researchers e.g. to try to discover if any current or previous Approved Researchers have been working for, say, private sector Healthcare or Insurance or Pharmaceutical companies etc.

On reflection, the request should also have asked about any former Approved Researchers as well, either those whose research projects have already been completed and also about any who have had their Approved status revoked (for misconduct or for potential data security breaches).

Just because other Government Departments and Law Enforcement or Intelligence Agencies, do not yet appear to have used the SRSA 2007 s.39 legal exemption statutory gateway to access the raw Census Data Personal Information, it does not mean that, given the advances in Data Warehousing and the reckless rush towards secret Data Sharing which has happened in the last 10 years, they will always neglect to do so.

Some of the Census Data Personal Information is out of date even before it is analysed, but some of it e.g. familial relationship data (potentially abusable for National DNA Database familial DNA data trawling), the racial profiling and the (voluntary) religion questions (the databases that can be used for "positive" discrimination and checking for compliance with Equalities legislation are also useful tools for the persecution of minorities or for genocide), could be abused any time in the future, for the rest of your life and beyond.

Since according to this FOIA response, the SRSA 2007 s.39 exemption powers have never been successfully invoked, they are, to use the Human Rights Act / ECHR Article 8 wording, obviously not "necessary in a democratic society"

The Office of National Statistics spokesmen and the Ministers nominally in political control of them i.e. Francis Maude at the Cabinet Office, should be asked to state whether they agree that the SRSA 2007 s.39 should be repealed, in the Protection of Freedoms Bill or other Coalition government legislation.

The very existence of these legal loophole powers undermines public trust in both the Census and also in the other surveys and questionnaires e.g. the General Household Survey, which the Office of National Statistics also produces and analyses.

Even a public statement that they are listening to public concerns and are planning to review the practical workings of the SRSA 2007 s.39 exemption powers, would be a small victory for common sense, against the current and future spread of the unaccountable, untrustworthy , unnecessarily secretive, faceless bureaucratic Database State.

Office for National Statistics
Nikki Shearman
Legal Services Branch
Segensworth Road
Fareham
Hants
PO15 5RR

Our Ref:FOI01085/[name]
4 March 2011

Dear [name]

Thank you for your emails requesting information about Approved Researchers and section 39 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act. As the requests are of a similar nature this response is intended to answer both.

In the first email you asked:

Please disclose:

1) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations who are currently registered as Approved Researchers for the previous Census data i.e. 2001 and before.

2) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations who are already registered as Approved Researchers for the 2011 Census data.

3) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations who have applied to be, but are not yet currently registered as, Approved Researchers for the previous Census data i.e. 2001 and before.

4) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations who have applied to be, but are not yet currently registered as, Approved Researchers for the 2011 Census data.

In response to your first question. There are eight people who are currently registered as Approved Researchers with access to information from previous censuses. Seven out of the eight are academics from the Universities of Bristol, Warwick and Leeds and Imperial College London. The eighth Approved Researcher is from "Kilo Oscar Ltd", a transport planning consultancy supporting Highway Authorities.

Approved Researchers only have access to a very small sample of anonymised census information. This sample contains no names; no addresses; and no date of birth. The only geographic information provided is the local authority in which the individual lives.

In response to your questions 2 - 4. There are no Approved Researcher's who are currently pre-approved for access to 2011 Census data. There are no outstanding applications to become Approved Researchers for either historic Census information or 2011 Census information.

Your second email asked:

1) Please disclose approximately how many Disclosures of Personal Information, as defined in Section 39 subsection (3), from the 2001 Census or from previous Censuses, you have made in each of the Exempt Categories laid down in Section 39 subsection (4) of the Act:

(a) is required or permitted by any enactment,

(b) is required by a Community obligation,

(c) is necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to exercise any of its functions,

(d) has already lawfully been made available to the public,

(e) is made in pursuance of an order of a court,

(f) is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom),

(g) is made, in the interests of national security, to an Intelligence Service,

(h) is made with the consent of the person to whom it relates, or

(i) is made to an approved researcher.

2) What are the Names and Job Titles of the officials who have authorised such Disclosures of Personal Information from the Census.

In response to your question, under sub-sections (a) to (h) there have been no disclosures of personal information from the 2001 or earlier censuses.

Under sub-section (i) there has been a total of 45 Approved Researchers granted access to samples of anonymised Census information from 2001 and earlier, however as noted above no records that directly identify individuals are made available to Approved Researchers.

All applications for "Approved Researcher" status are authorised by the head of ONS legal services exercising the delegated authority of the National Statistician.

You have the right to have this response to your freedom of information request reviewed by an internal review process and, if you remain unhappy with the decision, by the Information Commissioner. If you would like to have a review please write to Frank Nolan, UK Statistics Authority, Segenworth Road, Titchfield, Hampshire, PO15 5RR

Yours Sincerely,

Nikki Shearman,
Office for National Statistics, UK Statistics Authority.

FOI team
CB23
Office for National Statistics
Segensworth Road
Titchfield
PO15 5RR

via email to: foi.team@ons.gov.uk
cc: 2011censuspress@ons.gov.uk

Sunday 6th February 2011

Dear Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the
following information:

----------------------

With reference to the

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 Section 39.
Confidentiality of personal information
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2007/ukpga_20070018_en_3#pt1-pb11-
l1g39 9

1) Please disclose approximately how many Disclosures of Personal Information, as defined in Section 39 subsection (3), from the 2001 Census or from previous Censuses, you have made in each of the Exempt Categories laid down in Section 39 subsection (4) of the Act:

(a) is required or permitted by any enactment,

(b) is required by a Community obligation,

(c) is necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to exercise any of its functions,

(d) has already lawfully been made available to the public,

(e) is made in pursuance of an order of a court,

(f) is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings (whether or not in the United Kingdom),

(g) is made, in the interests of national security, to an Intelligence Service,

(h) is made with the consent of the person to whom it relates, or

(i) is made to an approved researcher.

2) What are the Names and Job Titles of the officials who have authorised such Disclosures of Personal Information from the Census.

--------------------

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the
public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Friday 4th March 2011

Yours Sincerely,

FOI team
CB23
Office for National Statistics
Segensworth Road
Titchfield
PO15 5RR

via email to: foi.team@ons.gov.uk
cc: 2011censuspress@ons.gov.uk

Sunday 6th February 2011

Dear Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the
following information:

----------------------

4) The Names of individuals and / or the Companies or Organisations who have applied to be, but are not yet currently registered as, Approved Researchers for the 2011 Census data.

--------------------

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the
public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Friday 4th March 2011

Yours Sincerely,

ICO.

Information Commissioner's Office

Upholding information rights

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
T. 0303 123 1113 F. 01625 524510
mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk www.ico.gov.uk

[name]
[address]

Case Reference Number FS50259480

Dear [name]

Freedom of Information Act 2000: Section 50(1)
The Home Office

Please find enclosed a Decision Notice issued under section 50(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This Decision Notice relates to your complaint about a request for information that you submitted to the Home Office on 2 June 2009.

Your complaint has been carefully considered and the enclosed Decision Notice sets out the reasons for the Commissioner's decision.

If you disagree with any aspect of the attached Decision Notice, you have the right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Contact details for the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) are included in the Decision Notice.

The Decision Notice includes details about you and the public authority. This is to ensure that there is no doubt as to the request for information to which the Notice relates. The Commissioner will publish the decision on the ICO website, but will remove all names and addresses of complainants.

Although public authorities may choose to reproduce this Decision Notice, the Commissioner would expect that they would take similar steps. The Commissioner considers that these may be necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

Yours sincerely

[name of ICO official]
Senior Case Officer

ICO.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)

Decision Notice

Date: 15 November 2010

Public Authority: Address:

The Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P4DF

Complainant: Address:

[address]

Summary

The complainant requested information concerning the names and / or the categories of the Public Communications Providers to which the Secretary of State has given a written notice bringing them under the Communications Data Retention scheme.

The Home Office confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 31 (law enforcement) and 43 (commercial interests). The Home Office subsequently told the complainant that it did not in fact hold any information about the categories of providers.

The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that section 43(2) was correctly applied. However, he identified procedural shortcomings relating to delay. He requires no steps to be taken.

The Commissioner's Role

1. The Commissioner's duty is to decide whether a request for information made to a public authority has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the "Act"). This Notice sets out his decision.

Background

2. The UK Government first introduced legislation on communications data retention in 2001. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) included at Part 11 provisions for a voluntary regime for the retention of communications data by communications companies. This scheme started in 2003 and involved a number of key communications companies being paid to retain their data, for the purpose of being accessed by the police, security and intelligence agencies and additional public authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

3. The Notice system arises from The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 6 April 2009. The regulations oblige notified communication service providers (CSPs) to retain communications data for 12 months from the date of communication. The regulations cover fixed, mobile and e-mail telephony, communications over the internet and email data.

4. Although the regulations do not require CSPs to retain the content of communications, CSPs must retain electronic and traffic data that might identify the sender and recipient of the communication, the date and time of the call or e-mail, and the geographical location (and direction of travel) of users.

The Request

5. The complainant wrote to the Home Office on 2 June 2009 making the following request:

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please disclose:

1. the names of the public communications providers and / or
2. the categories of public communications providers

to which the Secretary of State has given a Written Notice, bringing them under the mandatory Communications Data Retention scheme which came into force on 6 April 2009, under Regulation 10 of the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009.

6. The Home Office responded on 18 September 2009 confirming that it had issued Notices to "several" Communication Service Providers (CSP's) since the Regulations came into effect on 6 April 2009. It also confirmed that it held the related details the complainant had requested but cited the exemptions in sections 31(l)(a), 31(l)(e) and 31(2) (law enforcement) and 43 (commercial interests) of the Act.

7. The complainant requested an internal review on 22 September 2009.

8. In its internal review correspondence, which it sent to the complainant on 30 November 2009, the Home Office told him that it did not hold some of the requested information, namely information about the categories of communications providers. It apologised for not having established this in its earlier correspondence.

9. In relation to the remaining information within the scope of the
request, the Home Office upheld its decision. It clarified that, where it has not previously cited the relevant subsection, it was relying on subsections 31(2)(a) and 43(2). It additionally cited 31(l)(b).

The Investigation

Scope of the case

10. On 1 December 2009 the complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the way his request for information had been handled. In this correspondence, he disputed the exemptions cited by the Home Office in relation to the requested information it confirmed it held. He also acknowledged that the Home Office had ultimately said that no Notices had been issued to categories of Public Communications Providers (which covered the second element cited in the request), "implying that they have been issued to specific individual companies only". This matter is therefore not addressed further in this Decision Notice.

11. The complainant contacted the Commissioner again on 25 March 2010, at which time he specifically asked the Commissioner to consider the following points:

"This request has nothing to do with any individual communication data records, nor for any details of the analysis algorithms etc. It is NOT about the general usefulness or uselessness of Communications Traffic Data in criminal or intelligence investigations. It asks simply for the names of the companies which have been notified/ordered to comply with the European Union inspired Data Retention Regulations.

Even those companies which have not been served with Notices, will still be providing law enforcement with communications data records, when properly asked under section 29 of the Data Protection Act, via the Single Point of Contact system".

12. During the course of his investigation, the Home Office confirmed to the Commissioner that it was no longer relying on the exemption in section 31(2)(a). However, as outlined in the Chronology section below, it belatedly cited section 24(1) (national security). Accordingly, the Commissioner has focussed his investigation on whether the Home Office was correct to cite the exemptions in sections 24(1), 31(l)(a), (b) and (e) and 43(2) of the Act in relation to part (1) of the complainant's request for information.

Chronology

13. Following an attempt at informal resolution, the Commissioner wrote to the Home Office on 22 March 2010 asking it for further explanation of its reasons for citing sections 31 and 43 in relation to the request, including its reasons for concluding that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosure of the information requested. The Commissioner also asked the Home Office to clarify references in its correspondence with the complainant to elements of information which the complainant did not appear to have requested.

14. The Home Office provided a substantive response on 14 May 2010. In relation to the extraneous references it told the Commissioner:

"confusion occurred when we were dealing with two simultaneous requests concerning the Notices".

15. During the Commissioner's investigation, the Home Office raised the issue of further exemptions being applicable in this case. On 30 July 2010, it confirmed in writing that it was additionally citing section 24(1).

Analysis

Exemptions

Section 43 Commercial Interests

16. Section 43(2) provides that:

"Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)".

17. The term "commercial interests" is not defined in the Act. However, the Commissioner has considered his Awareness Guidance on the application of section 43. This comments that:

"...a commercial interest relates to a person's ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity, i.e. the purchase and sale of goods or services".

18. The Commissioner has also referred, when considering this case, to guidance issued by the Scottish Information Commissioner in relation to commercial interests and section 33(l)(b) of the FOI (Scotland) Act 2002. This guidance states that:

"commercial interests will specifically relate to any commercial trading activity it undertakes, e.g. the ongoing sale and purchase of goods and services, commonly for the purpose of revenue generation. Such activity will normally take place within a competitive environment".

19. The Home Office has explained that the aim of the Notice system within the United Kingdom is to provide clarity to specific companies that they have a responsibility for retaining communications data and what specifically that retained data should be.

20. The Home Office confirmed that it has issued Notices to several
Communications Service Providers (CSPs). However, it explained to the Commissioner that the decision about which companies to serve a Notice upon "is not necessarily obvious".

21. As the withheld information relates to the names of companies providing services relevant to the environment in which communications providers compete (for example to win customers), the Commissioner is satisfied, with respect to the CSPs involved, that the withheld information is commercial in nature and therefore falls within the scope of the exemption contained in section 43(2).

Identifying the applicable interests

22. In this case, the Home Office has argued that the withheld information constitutes "the names of companies who have agreed to retain information about their customers' use of their communication networks".

This misleadingly implies some sort of voluntary agreement. See paragraph 52 below where it the compulsion is clear.

23. Accordingly, the Commissioner understands the applicable interests in this case to be those of companies in the business of providing communications services. After considering the arguments, the Commissioner is satisfied that the potential prejudicial effects relate to the service providers.

24. During his investigation, the Home Office also argued that the release of the names of the Notice holders would have a financial impact on the Home Office itself.

25. With respect to its argument that the release of the names would have a financial impact on the Home Office, the Commissioner considers there is a distinction to be drawn between commercial interests and financial interests. In this case, he is not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the Home Office, that prejudice to its financial interests may affect its commercial interests. He has therefore only considered the prejudice arguments in relation to the commercial interests of the CSPs.

Nature of the prejudice

26. The Information Tribunal in Hogan and Oxford City Council v The Information Commissioner (EA/2005/2006 and EA/2005/0030) commented:

"An evidential burden rests with the decision maker to be able to show that some causal relationship exists between the potential disclosure and the prejudice and the prejudice is, as Lord Falconer of Thoroton has stated "real, actual or of substance' (Hansard HL (VOL. 162, April 20, 2000, col. 827)".

27. The Commissioner's view is that the use of the term "prejudice" is
important to consider in the context of the exemption at section 43. It implies not just that the disclosure of information must have some effect on the applicable interest, but that this effect must be detrimental or damaging in some way.

28. In support of its reasons for withholding the information under section 43, the Home Office argued:

"given the controversial nature of this issue, and past experience, it is clear that disclosure would be commercially damaging".

29. The Commissioner understands that the reference to "past experience" relates to a story in the national press in November 2009 which resulted in some communications companies receiving "an influx of telephone calls from irate customers". The Home Office argued that one of the impacts of this "unexpected news story" was a financial implication with regard to the companies' brand image.

30. The Commissioner is satisfied that, with respect to detriment to the principle of competition and with respect to brand image, there are commercial interests in this case that are capable of being prejudiced. He has therefore gone on to consider whether the disclosure of the information in question in this case would cause such a prejudice.

Likelihood of prejudice

31. With regard to the likelihood of prejudice, the Home Office told the
complainant that "it would be harmful" to the commercial interests of relevant companies if the requested information was released. It also told him that releasing this information "might change consumer behaviour" which, in its view, would be to the detriment of the companies concerned.

32. However, the Home Office referred to both elements of the likelihood test when it told the Commissioner that:

"disclosure of the names of the CSPs who have been served the Data Retention Notices would cause harm to the companies named as it would be likely to cause financial and reputational harm".

33. Having taken account of the arguments put forward by the Home Office in support of this statement, the Commissioner considers them more relevant to the "would be likely to prejudice" limb. This second limb of the test places a lesser evidential burden on the public authority to discharge and the Commissioner has therefore considered whether, in this case, the lower threshold is met.

34. Importantly, when considering prejudice to a third party's commercial interests, the Commissioner's view is that the public authority must have evidence that this does in fact represent or reflect the view of the third party. The public authority cannot speculate in this respect - the prejudice must be based on evidence provided by the third party, whether during the time for compliance with a specific request or as a result of prior consultation, and the relevant arguments are those made by the third party itself. This approach has been confirmed by the Information Tribunal in the case of Derry City Council v ICO (EA/2006/0014).

35. In response to the Home Office's claim that releasing the requested information might change consumer behaviour, the complainant protested:

"That is just unfounded speculation. ... Predictions of consumer choices and market trends in the telephone, mobile phone and internet markets depend on many factors, and is something well beyond the expertise of the Home Office ...The Home Office does not appear to have consulted any of the commercial internet service providers nor any telecommunications companies ....who are in a far better position than the Home Office to assess any 'consumer behaviour' in several complicated, multiple market places".

36. The Home Office failed to address this point in its internal review
correspondence. However, during the course of his investigation, the Home Office told the Commissioner that it received representations from service providers during the development of the legislation, arguing that they should not be publically identified "because of the risk that customers would transfer their business to services (or companies) not named on a retention Notice". In this respect, the Commissioner notes the ease with which consumers can move between service providers.

37. On the subject of data retention, the Commissioner considers it reasonable to assume that most customers expect their service providers to retain some data about them for business purposes, for example billing. However, in his view, it is not unreasonable to consider that some customers will have a negative perception of how companies named on a Notice are protecting the privacy of their data, given the nature and extent of the data being retained and the length of time it is kept.

38. The Home Office also argued that identifying which CSPs have been served Notices may prejudice the commercial interests of the communications providers "by revealing the capabilities and inabilities of individual providers". Further, it told the Commissioner that identifying which CSPs have been served Notices may prejudice the commercial interests of the communications providers "in their ability to be competitive when providing services to the public sector".

The Home Office did not expand on this point.

39. The Commissioner has reflected on the actual wording of the request in this case when considering these arguments. He has also taken into account the extracts from the third party representations which the Home Office provided on the subject of disclosure.

40. Examples of these representations are as follows:

"It is my view that such action would represent potential brand damage to [company name redacted] and attendant financial and commercial risk".

"Confidentiality must be assured for the CSP....... in short, the status
quo should be maintained and non disclosure of CSP details to the public should be retained".

"We do not, as such, have any problem with the release of the names of those with notices in itself, as most people assume that we fulfil such obligations, as long as each and every CSP and ISP is on the list. What we do not want is to be part of a select few whose names are made public ... this practice would leave those publicly named with a disadvantage, both reputationally and competitively. ... It is not the naming that concerns us but the creation of an uneven playing field in such a crucial and highly competitive market which may impact our customer's perception (and by default our brand)".

"It should be a level playing field therefore every company should be under the same obligations".

41. Taking into account the arguments put forward by the Home Office and the representations of the third parties whose commercial interests are alleged to be at issue in this case, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has demonstrated a real or significant likelihood of prejudice resulting to the commercial interests of third parties through the disclosure of the information in question. Therefore, the Commissioner finds the exemption provided by section 43(2) is engaged.

Both the Home Office and the Information Commissioner have ignored the argument made to them in the the correspondence, that because the Home Office is only serving Notices on some of the Communications Services Providers, presumably the largest ones and that they are paying them millions of pounds of financial compensation, that this is very far from a "level playing field". from the perspective of their smaller rivals or of new entrants into the market.

The Home Office is too naive and technologically incompetent to know if the money claimed for extra disk storage and database infrastructure and personnel to handle the vast amount of Data Retention is not also in fact secretly subsidising say the customer billing systems of these companies.

Perhaps we should see if Ofcom and the European Commission will investigate such secret financial subsidies to some favoured companies.

Have any Home Office civil servants or Labour politicians retired to take up directorships or consultancy jobs with any of these large Communications Service Providers ?

Public interest arguments in favour of disclosing the requested information

42. The Home Office acknowledged that release of the requested
information would give the public the opportunity to identify which providers have been asked to retain information about their customers' use of their networks. If this were to happen, the Home Office recognises that customers "would then be able to decide if they still wished to use these providers".

43. It also recognised that, in providing the names of the companies who have been served Notices, the public would be in a position to hold them accountable "for the safe, correct and legal use of their data".

44. It also told the complainant that releasing the requested information would increase the transparency of how the Home Office has implemented the European Directive, giving the public the opportunity to see how the regulations are used by government.

45. In correspondence with the Commissioner, the Home Office
acknowledged the public interest in openness and transparency about the use of public funds. The Commissioner understands this to refer to the fact that the Regulations give the Secretary of State a discretionary power to reimburse any expenses incurred by a CSP in complying with the Regulations.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

46. The public interest factors in favour of withholding the information
requested should be seen in the context of, and in connection with, the prejudice-based arguments, described above, which the Home Office has made to the Commissioner.

47. According to the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum to the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations, communications data has proved valuable for law enforcement purposes, for example in identifying suspects, tracing criminal contacts, placing people in specific locations at specific times, and confirming or disproving suspects' alibis. Nevertheless, the Home Office recognised that the retention of data is a controversial issue. In this respect, the Commissioner notes the extent of the media coverage on the topic of opposition to the increasing amount of surveillance in Britain.

48. Arguing against disclosure, the Home Office told the complainant that releasing the names of the companies who have agreed to retain information about their customers' use of their communications networks "is likely to result in customers changing their supplier", which would have a detrimental impact on the commercial revenues of those companies. It also said that a reduction in the number of customers "is likely to threaten their ability to secure finance on world money markets and harm their brand image, as well as offer employment".

49. In this respect, the Commissioner notes the concerns expressed by the service providers, when they contacted the Home Office, in relation to the adverse effect of disclosure on their commercial interests. As an example, one company stated that it willingly met all its obligations laid down by the law as well as those it fulfils "in what it sees as its corporate responsibility". The Commissioner notes, however, that the company qualified this, stating that it did so "on the assumption that there will be no competitive disadvantage by doing so".

50. The Home Office argued that a reduction in customer numbers as a result of damage to its brand image would be likely to weaken a CSP's position "in what is a very competitive environment". It went on to argue that it would not be in the public interest if the credit ratings and brand images of service providers were harmed as this would not only affect their ability to offer employment but also their ability to fund future improvements to their networks and services.

We would be reluctant to trust the Treasury on such matters. The Home Office has no expertise or knowledge of such things whatsoever, so they should not be allowed to speculate about them, which is just what they have done, exactly contrary to the ICO Guidance.

51. The Commissioner gives weight to the argument that the impact of disclosure would potentially not only be on the companies themselves but also on their employees and those members of the public who use their services.

52. The Home Office also told the complainant:

"It is also worth noting that these companies have no option but to comply with these regulations".

This makes a nonsense of the claim in para 22 above that the companies had somehow voluntarily "agreed" to retain information about their customers' use of their communications networks i.e. our data.

53. The Commissioner recognises the public interest in ensuring that companies are able to compete fairly. In this respect, the Commissioner understands that on receiving a Notice, CSPs must buy or construct data retention solutions that meet the needs of UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies in terms of their ability to retrieve information "without delay" as well as meeting the commercial requirements of the provider.

Balance of the public interest arguments

54. The Commissioner is mindful of the strong public interest arguments for disclosure of the information in this case. However, in balancing the public interest arguments, the Commissioner is mindful that he has found that disclosure of the withheld information would be likely to cause actual prejudice to the commercial interests of the third parties concerned.

55. Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner accepts that there are many scenarios where companies may be prepared to accept greater public access to information about their business as a cost of doing business with the public sector: the overall value of public sector contracts is a great incentive to tender for them. In this case, however, the service providers who receive Notices are not involved in the decision-making process as to who receives a Notice. In other words, they neither volunteer to participate in the scheme, nor submit a tender for consideration. Rather, they are required by the Home Office to comply.

56. However, he must take account too of the level of prejudice that may be caused to the commercial interests of the CSPs and the wider effects that any such prejudice would have on the public, particularly the customers to which they provides services.

57. In this case, he considers that those publicly named would be
disadvantaged both reputationally and competitively as a result of negative customer perception about the collection and retention of communications data.

58. Having carefully balanced the opposing factors involved, the
Commissioner has concluded that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information in this instance. Accordingly his decision is that the Home Office correctly withheld the requested information by reference to section 43(2).

The Home Office and the Information Commissioner have ignored the fact, pointed out to them in the correspondence, that if any such major shifts of consumers from CSPs who have been served with a Notice under the Data Retention regulations does actually happen, then they can simply serve Notices on to the CSPs where the privacy and security aware law abiding members of the public have moved their business to.

Yet again The Information Commissioner seems to be colluding with Whitehall rather than standing up for the rights of the law abiding tax paying public.

Other exemptions

59. As the Commissioner has concluded that the exemption in section
43(2) was correctly applied, he has not gone on to consider the other exemptions cited by the Home Office in this case.

Procedural Requirements

60. Section 10(1) provides that:-

"Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt."

61. Section 17(1) provides that:-

"A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which -

(a) states that fact,

(b) specifies the exemption in question, and

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies."

62. In this case, the complainant's request was received by the Home Office on 2 June 2009 but the Home Office did not issue its refusal letter until 18 September 2009. It therefore took the Home Office more than 50 working days to respond to the information request. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that, in failing to confirm or deny within 20 working days whether it held the requested information, the Home Office breached the requirements of section 10(1) and that it also breached section 17(1) by failing to provide the details required by that section within 20 working days.

The Decision

63. The Commissioner's decision is that the public authority dealt with the following elements of the request in accordance with the requirements of the Act:

• it correctly applied section 43(2).

However, the Commissioner has also decided that the following elements of the request were not dealt with in accordance with the Act:

• the Home Office breached section 10(1) by failing to inform the complainant whether it held the requested information within 20 working days of the request; and

• it breached section 17(1) by failing to issue the refusal notice within the statutory time limit.

Steps Required

64. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.

Other Matters

65. Part VI of the section 45 Code of Practice makes it desirable practice that a public authority should have a procedure in place for dealing with complaints about its handling of requests for information, and that the procedure should encourage a prompt determination of the complaint. As he has made clear in his 'Good Practice Guidance No 5', published in February 2007, the Commissioner considers that these internal reviews should be completed as promptly as possible. While no explicit timescale is laid down by the Act, the Commissioner has decided that a reasonable time for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the request for review. In exceptional circumstances it may be reasonable to take longer but in no case should the time taken exceed 40 working days. The Commissioner is concerned that in this case, it took over 40 working days for an internal review to be conducted, despite the publication of his guidance on the matter.

Time and time again the Home Office and other Public Bodies simply shrug off the fact that they have cynically broken the law (FOIA sections 10(1) and 17(1)) and have also totally ignored the ICO's "Good Practice Guidance"

When will there be some financial or criminal sanctions which can be applied to these bureaucrats when they obstruct our right to public information ?

Right of Appeal

66. Either party has the right to appeal against this Decision Notice to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals process may be obtained from:

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
GRC & GRP Tribunals,
PO Box 9300,
Arnhem House,
31, Waterloo Way,
LEICESTER,
LEI 8DJ

Tel: 0845 600 0877
Fax: 01162494253
Email: informationtribunal@tribunals.asi.aov.uk.
Website: www.informationtribunal.gov.uk

If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the Information Tribunal website.

Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28 calendar days of the date on which this Decision Notice is sent.

Dated the 15th day of November 2010
Signed

[signature]

Jon Manners
Group Manager
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Legal Annex

Commercial interests.

Section 43(1) provides that -
"Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret."
Section 43(2) provides that -
"Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)."
Section 43(3) provides that -
"The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section l(l)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests mentioned in subsection (2)."

What is so difficult about telling us exactly when and where tempoarary , extrordinary legal powers actually apply ?

Given the revelations by the new Conservative / Liberal Democrat governmet of so many mistakes by Regional Police Forces, the central Metropolitan Police unit, Home Office civil servants and the politicians at the Home Office, regarding these Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 / 45 Authorisations, which haveresulted in in hundreds or thousands o illegal stops and searches, we must conclude that, contrary to the Freedom of Information Act, the real reason for the refusal of our FOIA request is politcal coverup rather than genuine national security.

Home Office
Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

FOI reference: 15213

[name]
[email]

27 September 2010

Dear [name]

I am writing further to my e-mail of 1 September 2010 about your request for information on s44 (Terrorism Act 2000) authorisations. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You made a request for similar information on s44 authorisations in November 2007. The request for that information was considered by the Home Office and, subsequently, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). In their Decision Notice of 8 February 2010 (ref: FS50198733) the Commissioner held that the requested information was properly withheld under the exemption at section 24 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the Home Office has fully considered the requests for information on points 1 - 5 in your current request. I do not believe that it is necessary to address these requests once more as our assessment remains that the disclosure of the information you requested would damage national security, for the same reasons as previously provided.

In addition to the above requests, you also asked to be informed of which Ministers have confirmed which s44 authorisations (and when) between February 2001 (when the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force) and 11 June 2010. In the ICO's Decision Notice of February 2010, the Commissioner indicated that the disclosure of details such as dates, times and geographical locations (i.e. which forces have authorised use of the power) could assist terrorists by allowing them to '...ascertain the likelihood of their activities coming to the attention of the police or anti-terrorist agencies'. The Commissioner was of the opinion '..that any advantages gained by further informing the public would be significantly outweighed by the factors for protecting the public by maintaining the exemption' (i.e. Section 24(1)). Consequently, the Home Office considers that details of the forces who had S44 authorisations in place and when these authorisations were in place come within the exemption at S24(1). From the information available,however, I have provided a list of those Ministers who have confirmed s44 authorisations in this period - see annex A.

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 15213. 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
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
e-mail: FOIRequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

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

[name of civil servant]

The list of Labour politicians who have signedTerrorism Act 2000 Section 44 Stop and Search *Wwithout* Reasonable Supicion requests, is long and dishonourable.

We do not trust any of these people::

Annex A

PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION

Name Appointment

John Denham Minister of state,

Home Office: 2001- 2003

Beverley Hughes Minister of State, Home Office:2002-04

Keith Bradley Minister of State, Home Office, 2001-02.

Bob Ainsworth Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

Home Office, 2001-03

Angela Eagle Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, 2001-02

Jeff Rooker Minister of State: 2001-02

David Blunkett Secretary of State for the Home Department: 2001-
04

Hilary Benn Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, 2002-03

Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State: 2002-03

Lord Falconer of Thoroton Home Office (Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law
(Charles Falconer) Reform) 2002-03,

Baron Filkin of Pimlico (Life Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and
Baron), David Geoffrey Nigel Government Spokesperson for:
Filkin Home Office 2002-03,

Paul Goggins Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State:
Home Office 2003-06,

Caroline Flint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office 2003-05;

Fiona MacTaggart Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, 2003-06

Hazel Blears Minister of State, Home Office, 2003-06

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Minister of State and Government Spokesperson for
(Life Baroness), Patricia Janet Home Office 2003-07;
Scotland;

Des Browne Minister of State Home Office, 2004-05

Charles Clarke Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2004-
06.

Tony McNulty Minister of State Home Office, 2005-08;

Andy Burnham Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office 2005-06

John Reid Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2006-
07

Jacqui Smith Secretary of State for the Home Dept, 2007-09

Vernon Coaker Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, 2006-08

and Minister of State, 2008-09

Meg Hillier Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Home Office
2007-10

David Hanson Minister of State
Home Office 2009-10

Adm. Alan William John West Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and
Government Spokesperson, Home Office 2007-10
Lord West of Spithead

It is interesting that, according to this FOIA response, neither Home Secretary Theresa May , nor any other Conservative / Liberal Democrat Home Office Ministers, apart from Baroness Neville-Jones have signed any such Authorisations:

CURRENT ADMINISTRATION

Baroness Neville-Jones of Hutton Roof Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Home Office 2010 -

How long will the Home Office bureaucrats atempt to delay our request for an Internal Review ?

Home Office
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
E-mail: OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

{email]

[name]

FOI Reference: [nnnnn]

1 September 2010

Dear [name]

I am writing in relation to your information request dated 11 June 2010 and further to
my letter of 4 August 2010.

In keeping with the decision of the ICO (ref: FS50198733) we need to consider fully the use of the exemption in section 24 (1) of the Act, which relates to information supplied by or relating to national security.

No you do not ! Such information was not requested.

See the FOIA Section 24: National Security

It is inconceivable that any warnings or intelligence about terrorist threats passed on to Chief Constables would be exactly duplicated in the geographical extent of the area which a section 44 Authorisation would cover - it is almost certain that the area which the Police would ask for an Authorisation for, would be larger than the actual target e.g. several streets around a political party conference hotel, an area of several kilometres around an airport terminal building or runway etc.

I have noted the point you have made about section 31 in your email of 6 July. As you are aware, however, the ICO did not consider use of the exemption at section 31(1) (a), (b) and (c).

See the FOIA Section 31: Law Enforcement exemption

If this section 44 extraordinary, temporary power for "stop and search" without reasonable suspicion is meant to act a s a deterrent, the time, date and geographical location of when and where it is in force must not be kept secret !

Publishing such information would have no effect whatsoever on operational security or investigations, since the numbers and types of Police deployed to unspecified roadblocks and checkpoints is not part of such Authorisations nor was it even asked for in this FOIA request.

We will still need to address the use of this exemption when responding to your request. To take account of the points raised in your most recent email we need more time and will need a further extension. We now aim to let you have a full response by 30 September 2010.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the further delay in replying to your request and assure that we will respond as quickly as possible.

Should you have any queries about the handling of your information request then please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address quoting reference [nnnnn].

Yours sincerely

[name of civil servant]

This is now the second extension of the Public Interest Test which the Home Office is taking.

The 30th of September 2010 would be 77 working days after the initial FOIA request.

This is now contrary to the Information Commissioner's Office guidelines which say that such Public Interest Test should take no more than 40 days in total, even in the most complicated cases

See Time limits on considering the public interest (GPG4) (..pdf)

[...]

our view is that public authorities should aim to respond fully to all requests within 20 working days. In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days.

Where any additional time beyond the initial 20 working days is required to consider the public interest, the public authority must still serve a "refusal notice" under section 17 of FOIA within 20 working days of a request even in those cases where it is relying on a qualified exemption and has not yet completed the public interest test.

[...]

By taking so long to consider the same Public Interest Tests which they have already done before, the Home Office seems to be trying to delay a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, who will not accept a complaint until the departmental Internal Review procedures have been exhausted.

Remember, all that we are asking to be published is the bare minimum laid down in the text of the Terrorism Act 200 sections 44 and 45 and 46 i.e. the time and duration and geographical location of each Authorisation to suspend the normal rule of law regarding Stop and Search Without Reasonable Suspicion.

Given the recent revelations of thousands of clerical errors with the Authorisations, rendering thousands of Stops and Searches illegal and the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition policy changes and promises to review this legislation, surely the Public Interest is now even more in favour of full publication.

The unnecessary secrecy appears to have been used for political coverup purposes rather than for any demonstrable national security benefit.

Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
E-mail: OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

{email address]

[name]

FOI Reference: [nnnnn]
4 August 2010

Dear [name]

I am writing in relation to your information request dated 11 June 2010 and further to my letter of 6 July 2010. I can confirm receipt of your email dated 6 July 2010.

In keeping with the decision of the ICO (ref: FS50198733) we need to consider fully the use of the exemption in section 24 (1) of the Act, which relates to information supplied by or relating to national security. I have noted the point you have made about section 31 in your email of 6 July. As you are aware, however, the ICO did not consider use of the exemption at section 31(1) (a), (b) and (c). We will still need to address the use of this exemption when responding to your request. To take account of the points raised in your most recent email we need more time and will need a further extension. We now aim to let you have a full response by 2 September 2010.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in replying to your request and assure that we will respond as quickly as possible.

Should you have any queries about the handling of your information request then please do not hesitate to contact me quoting reference [nnnnn]

Yours sincerely

[name of civil servant]

A reminder to the Home Office, from the previous ICO Decision Notice:

69. Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern.

[...]

Information Notice

75. During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Home Office's reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. The delays were such that the Commissioner found it necessary to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation.

76. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider the Home Office's approach to this case to be particularly co-operative, or within the spirit of the Act. As such he will be monitoring the authority's future engagement with the ICO and would expect to see improvements in this regard.

See ICO Decision Notice FS50198733 - Home Office: Terrorism Act 2000 s44 stop and search Authorisations

{email address]#ho_foia@nym.hush.com

[XXXX]

FOI Reference: nnnnn

6 July 2010

Dear [XXXX],

Thank you for your e-mail of 11 June 2010, in which you ask for details of stop and search authorisations under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Your request is being handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We are considering your request. Although the Act carries a presumption in favour of disclosure, it provides exemptions which may be used to withhold information in specified circumstances. Some of these exemptions, referred to as 'qualified exemptions', are subject to a public interest test. This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information. The Act allows us to exceed the 20 working day response target where we need to consider the public interest test fully.

The information which you have requested is being considered under the exemptions in sections 24 and 31 of the Act, which relate to information supplied by or relating to national security and law enforcement. These are qualified exemptions and to consider the public interest test fully we need to extend the 20 working day response period. We now aim to let you have a full response by 4 August 2010.

If you have any questions about the handling of your information request then please do not hesitate to contact us quoting the reference nnnn

Yours sincerely,

{name of civil servant]

N.B. our FOIA request re-emphasised that we are not requesting any information from the background or tactical intelligence, which may have been submitted to the Home Secretary in order to justify the supposedly temporary suspension of the normal laws on stop and search in a particular area, so there does not need to be any "public interest test" under the FOIA section 24 national security exemption.

Such background intelligence may well be necessary to make a reasonable decision as to whether to grant or deny an Application by a Chief Constable for Section 44 extraordinary powers, but that is not mentioned in the wording of the Terrorism Act 2000,. This Act only specifies that the Application has to include time, duration and location data and that it has to requested by someone of the appropriate rank i.e. Chief Constable / Commissioner of Police or their Deputies.

Surely, since hundreds or thousands of people may have been illegally stopped and searched, not just once or twice, but dozens of times, as the Home Office has now admitted, the public interest balance in favour of disclosure must also apply under the FOIA section 31 law enforcement exemption.

See:.

Ministerial Statement to the House of Lords:
Terrorism: Stop and Search
10 June 2010

by Baroness Neville-Jones the Minister of State (Security) at the Home Office,

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-06-10a.66.0&s=speaker%3A13936#g66.1
HL Deb, 10 June 2010, c66WS

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100610-wms0004.htm#10061034000361

The number of such stupid errors would have been vastly reduced or even totally eliminated, if the Home Office had published the times, durations and location of each application of the extraordinary, supposedly temporary, section 44 stop and search without reasonable cause powers., simply because members of the public, the press and the lower rank and file of of the Police forces themselves, would have acted as a check on the handful of secretive slap dash bureaucrats and politicians who messed things up, over and over again.

If they had been open and transparent by publishing the information requested in our FOIA request, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could not have ruled against the Labour Government and the Home Office, in the CASE OF GILLAN AND QUINTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM:

87. In conclusion, the Court considers that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They are not, therefore, "in accordance with the law" and it follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

In the light of the even greater public interest in disclosure, Spy Blog has repeated the FOIA request of 14th November 2007.

There must be a suspicion that the previous FOIA request was refused, not on the grounds of national security, as claimed, but to cover up administrative incompetence.

Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

E-mail: To: FOIrequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
cc: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
cc: info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Friday 11th June 2010

FOIA request: Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search *without* reasonable cause Authorisations (time, date, geographical extent and Ministerial authorisation only)

Dear Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the following information:

Regarding the Terrorism Act 2000 stop and search *without* reasonable cause legal power for a Constable in Uniform:

Section 44 Authorisations
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-b2-l1g44

and

Section 46 Duration of authorisation
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-b2-l1g46

1) Authorisations which the Secretary of State has been informed of under Section 46 (3)

2) Authorisations which have not been confirmed by the Secretary of State and which have lapsed under Section 46 (4)

3) Authorisations modified by the Secretary of State under Section 46 (5)

4) Authorisations which have been cancelled by the Secretary of State under Section 46 (6)

5) Authorisations renewed in writing under Section 46 (7)

6) Given the numerous administrative failures and the thousands of illegal searches, mentioned in the Ministerial Statement of 10th June 2010 by Baroness Neville-Jones (HL Deb, 10 June 2010, c66WS), I also want to see exactly which Minister signed which Authorisation and when.

Please disclose all of the Authorisations since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force until today Friday 11th June 2010.

If that is deemed to be too many Authorisations, then please advise how this FOIA request may best be modified, according to your duty under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 16 Duty to provide advice and assistance.

N.B. as per my previous Freedom of Information Act 2000 request for the same information, submitted back on the 14th November 2007 (see the ICO Decision Notice attached), I am *not* requesting any of the background intelligence material produced to support the granting of such an Authorisation.

I am *only* interested in the time, date, duration and geographical extent (either in words or on a map or plan etc.) of each Authorisation made under section 44 of the the Terrorism Act 2000.

-----------------------------------

ICO Decision Notice on my previous FOIA request.

For your information, I have attached a (.pdf) copy of the Decision Notice Reference: FS50198733 of the 8th February 2010.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50198733%20.pdf

There must not be a repeat of the delays which caused the Information Commissioner to issue an Information Notice, breach of which amounts to a Contempt of Court by the individuals responsible:

"63. The information request in this case was made on 14 November 2007. The public authority failed to comply with section 1(1) until 8 February 2008. In failing to provide a response compliant with section 1(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the public authority breached section 10(1).

[...]

Information Notice

75. During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Home Office's reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. The delays were such that the Commissioner found it necessary to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation.

76. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider the Home Office's approach to this case to be particularly co-operative, or within the spirit of the Act. As such he will be monitoring the authority's future engagement with the ICO and would expect to see improvements in this regard."

-------------------

Ministerial Statement to the House of Lords:
Terrorism: Stop and Search
10 June 2010

by Baroness Neville-Jones the Minister of State (Security) at the Home Office,

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-06-10a.66.0&s=speaker%3A13936#g66.1
HL Deb, 10 June 2010, c66WS

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100610-wms0004.htm#10061034000361

--------------------

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Wednesday 7th July 2010

Yours Sincerely,

Subject: Your Freedom of Information Request 1075/08
From: [name of HMRC official] [name]@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
To: [email]
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:07:13 +0100

<< Information to be disclosed.pdf >>

Dear [name]

I am writing with reference to your Freedom of Information request and the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice issued on 25 January 2010. In accordance with Paragraph 92 of that Notice, I attach the information which HMRC is required to disclose to you. In order to provide some additional clarification and context, HMRC has added some text in square brackets to the information. With regard to the information disclosed in response to question 9, it may help if I further clarify that the complete NIRS record is subject to restricted access for the period when an individual is in a special category but only the current tax records would be subject to restricted access for that same period. I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

[name of HMRC official]

Here is the new disclosure, all of which could easily have been supplied in response to the original request i.e. in February 2008

Categories and Numbers, excluding those subject to the s23 exemption or the s44
exemption

As at April 2008

Class of individual	Number of records*
HMRC staff [for reasons of propriety]	95,000
Certain [e.g. criminal justice] investigators in Govt depts; certain members of the police and judiciary	25,600
Protected for personal reasons: eg transsexuals,Gender re-assigned cases, domestic abuse and witness protection cases	24,500
Ministers of the Crown, Elected representatives, researchers and certain former Elected representatives	8,120

^* We believe that in the majority of cases the number of records will equate to the number of individuals in a category, but there is a small possibility that they may include more than one record for a few individuals.

3) Who exactly makes the decision to put someone into one of these special categories ?

Decisions are made by HMRC managers with a responsibility for handling records subject to additional safeguards, working within a policy framework agreed at Director General level. [The policy framework applies additional safeguards to HMRC staff records for reasons of propriety and to the records of those whose employment or personal circumstances warrant additional protection.]

This appears to be a new or amended policy, possibly as a result of this very FOIA request.

The original FOIA response in March 2008 plead ignorance, and did not seem to know who was currently in charge of the "Special Categories" policy:

"This is a long-established HMRC (and former Inland Revenue) practice and we do not hold recorded information about its origins. However, such a practice would have received authorisation at senior level."

4) When, if ever, is an individual removed from such a special category?

In summary when the risk that gave rise to additional safeguards ceases, for example, when an individual leaves a particular employment or their personal circumstances change.

Where an employee ceases to work for a special employer and takes up non-special employment he or she will lose their additional protection. Similarly where a vulnerable individual is no longer at an additional significant personal risk the protection of their record will be returned to the normal level of security. However, in addition to responding to individual changes of circumstances, particular employers or groups also need to be reviewed from time to time to decide whether they justify additional protection.

In the case of individuals at risk the head of SSD (Special Section D) [the HMRC manager with responsibility for the records] marks cases for b/f to review their status and whether they should continue to be restricted or returned to normal levels of security. B/f time determined on a case by case basis.

5) Does a special category extend to an individual's family as well?

Claims to tax credits are made jointly by couples who are married or living together. So if the circumstances of one of the partners warrant additional safeguards, it follows that the whole record will be subject to them. For other purposes, it would be rare for family members to be included although this might exceptionally happen in witness protection cases.

9) What about the previous 24 year tax record history of an individual, before they became a "celebrity" or politician etc?

Tax records are not retained for the period suggested.

That is unbelievable. The Department for Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS) holds up to 24 (perhaps actually 25) years of data taken from tax (HMRC) and benefits (DWP) datasets, both full (with names and addresses) and semi- anonymised (without names and addresses).

See DWP-IR Longitudinal Study Ethics Committee etc

The most interesting nugget of information revealed in the original HMRC response (back in March 2008) to this FOIA request (January 2008), was that the "Special Category" tax records are not handed over to the Department for Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS), implying that "Special Category" people are not subjected to the same anti-fraud measures which the 1 year WPLS data set (with names and addresses) is used for.

But in any event, the additional safeguards attach to the current tax record for the period for which the risk exists.

For National Insurance purposes, NIRs holds a full record of employments and pay and tax and provides more information about an individual. It follows therefore that the full National Insurance history is subject to restricted access if a case is regarded as sensitive.

[The records of "celebrities" are not protected by additional safeguards.]

Note that by far the largest group, larger than all the rest combined, to whom this "Special Category" status of extra "safeguards" for their tax records is accorded, are HMRC staff themselves !

What exactly does [for reasons of propriety] mean ?

Some possible further FOIA request questions:

• Why are "researchers" of Elected Representatives given "special category" status". Presumably the context of the use of that term implies political or parliamentary "researchers", employed by Elected Representatives, presumably Members of Parliament (646 MPs) at the Westminster House of Commons, rather than, say, biomedical researchers who are targets for harassment or violence by animal extremists.

• Does "Elected Representatives" include Members of the European Parliament (72 UK MEPs 741 in total), Members of the Scottish Parliament (129 MSPs), Assembly Members (60 AMs) of the National Assembly for Wales and the Members of the Legislative Assembly (108 MLAs) in Northern Ireland Assembly ? Does it also cover County, Local and Parish Council Elected Members ?

• The figure of 8,120 seems very high for just current Elected representatives since the figure above add up to only 1684 (only 1015, if only UK MEPs are counted) and "certain former" Elected Representatives.

• What about non-elected Representatives i.e. Members of the House of Lords ?

  The various Labour Lords who have been appointed as unelected, unaccountable Ministers, do seem to qualify.

• Will HMRC reveal the list of "Special Employers", in general terms ?

• It is noticeable that the vast majority of Military or Police or Prison Officer personnel are not given any "Special category" protection, even though their names, addresses and family details are of significant interest to terrorist and foreign intelligence agencies and serious organised criminal gangs etc.

• Who is the current "head of SSD (Special Section D)", and what are his / her contact details ?

• Is there a secure and confidential means of contacting Special Section D, without involving the main HMRC postal, telephone and internet infrastructure ?