Request
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to the archives relating to: ‘Inquiry into Prison Disturbances (Woolf Inquiry)’ (REF: HO370).
I am requesting the following information:
1. When were the inquiry documents transferred to the responsibility of the National Archives?
2. From which department/authority were the inquiry documents transferred from?
3. Which department/authority recommended the closure of the inquiry documents?
4. Do the inquiry documents transferred to the National Archives contain, or contained at any point, audio recordings?
5. If no audio recordings were contained in the inquiry papers transferred to the National Archives, where would such recordings be transferred to? (I am looking specifically for the tape recording of the sermon being given at the time that the riot had broken out.)
I am also requesting disclosure of the following documents:
1. Any and all instructions/correspondence received from the transferring Department concerning the transfer of the inquiry documents, such as transfer forms
2. Any and all associated schedules, such as those identifying records which required closure, and the corresponding identification of reasons for closure
3. Any and all internal correspondence within the National Archives relating to the inquiry documents
Outcome
Some information provided.
Response
1. When were the inquiry documents transferred to the responsibility of the National Archives?
The inquiry documents were transferred to The National Archives on the 7th of February 2018.
2. From which department/authority were the inquiry documents transferred from?
The Ministry of Justice.
3. Which department/authority recommended the closure of the inquiry documents?
The Ministry of Justice.
4. Do the inquiry documents transferred to the National Archives contain, or contained at any point, audio recordings?
No.
5. If no audio recordings were contained in the inquiry papers transferred to the National Archives, where would such recordings be transferred to? (I am looking specifically for the tape recording of the sermon being given at the time that the riot had broken out.)
If the files in relation to your inquiry did contain audio recordings, they would have been part of the selected file and transferred directly to The National Archives alongside the remainder of the file.
And:
1. Any and all instructions/correspondence received from the transferring Department concerning the transfer of the inquiry documents, such as transfer forms
Please see attachment 1 – CAS-86346 External Instruction and Transfer Forms for the correspondence and transfer forms held by The National Archives concerning the HO 370 files.
2. Any and all associated schedules, such as those identifying records which required closure, and the corresponding identification of reasons for closure
Please see attachment 2 – CAS-86346 Associated Schedules for associated schedule information and correspondence held by The National Archives concerning the relevant HO 370 files.
3. Any and all internal correspondence within the National Archives relating to the inquiry documents
We have understood this as a request for any and all internal correspondence within The National Archives relating to the transfer of the relevant HO 370 files. Please see attachment 3 – CAS-86346 Internal Correspondence for the internal correspondence held by The National Archives.
We are unable to provide you with some of the information you have requested because it is covered by the exemption at section 36 of the FOI Act, which exempts information if it would create prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. For further information about why this exemption has been applied, please see the explanatory annex at the end of this letter.
Some of the information is also covered by the exemption at section 40 of the Act. This exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would break the terms of Data Protection Legislation. For further information about why these exemptions have been applied, please see the explanatory annex at the end of this letter.
Explanatory annexe
Exemptions applied:
Section 36: Prejudice to Effective Conduct of Public Affairs
Section 36 (2) (b-c) exempts information from release if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information would, or would be likely to; (b)(i) inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, (b)(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.
This exemption has been applied to some information within the associated closure schedules regarding the closure request for HO 370/79 to HO 370/219.
Section 36 is a qualified exemption and we are required to conduct a public interest test when applying any qualified exemption. This means that after it has been decided that the exemption is engaged, the public interest in releasing the information must be considered. If the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in withholding it then the exemption does not apply and the information must be released. In the FOIA there is a presumption that information should be released unless there are compelling reasons to withhold it.
With the agreement of the Qualified Person, who in this case is the Chief Executive and Keeper of The National Archives, in whose reasonable opinion this exemption is engaged, the public interest has now been concluded and the balance of the public interest has been found to fall in favour of non-disclosure.
Considerations in favour of the release of the information included the principle that there is a public interest in showing a true and open account of government decision-making, making for greater accountability and increasing public confidence in the integrity of the decisions made. There is also a public interest and expectation of transparency around the associated closure schedules of files at The National Archives. Furthermore, disclosure would improve public confidence in the integrity of the process and decisions made.
However, it is considered that the release of some of the information requested would prejudice the effective function of the process. In particular release of this information would be likely to prejudice the provision of free and frank advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation by preventing the effective aforementioned decision-making process from occurring. TNA is required to engage freely and openly to discuss sensitivities. Disclosure of this documentation could adversely impact the working relationships between TNA and transferring departments; impacting the willingness of departments to provide the level of detail in consultation, as the closure process requires.
After careful consideration, it has been decided that the balance of the public interest lies in favour of withholding the information on this occasion and that the factors for non-disclosure outweigh any benefits of release.
Further guidance on the application of this exemption can be found at:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1175/section_36_prejudice_to_effective_conduct_of_public_affairs.pdf
Section 40(2): Personal Information where the applicant is not the data subject
Section 40 exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would breach the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Art. 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In this case the exemption applies because the requested material contains information which would identify junior members of staff.
Publishing the names and contact details of junior members of staff is considered an unfair use of personal data. Junior members of staff would have no expectation that information about their positions would be made available in the public domain; to do so would be unfair and contravene the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act. As such, the names, positions and contact details of junior officials are withheld under section 40 (2) of the FOI Act.
Further guidance about the publication of junior staff names can be found here:
https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1187/section_40_requests_for_personal_data_about_employees.pdf
In this case the exemption applies because the requested material contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would not include the release of this information into the public domain by The National Archives during their lifetime. To do so would be likely to cause damage and/or distress and would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair, lawful and transparent processing of information of this kind.
Further guidance on the application of this exemption can be found here:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2619056/s40-personal-information-section-40-regulation-13.pdf