On 23 Jun 2015 Goddard, then the Chair of IICSA, sent a letter, not before time, to Jeremy Heywood, the powerful Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service. It asked him to circulate the letter to saving documentation relevant to the inquiry.
Goddards letter asked ” Please circulate this letter and its appendices to all parts of your organisation, to those bodies for which you are responsible, or which are affiliated to your
organisation. It is of particular importance that your Safeguarding Boards and units
dealing specifically with CSA/CSE receive and act upon this request.”
In a simple FOI request to the Cabinet Office, back in May 2016, I asked for the letter Heywood sent out after receiving this from Goddard, how many people it was sent to and who.
The first reply I received was not very helpful
“The letter you refer to from Lowell Goddard was circulated to all Permanent Secretaries in their role at that time and was accompanied by a letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood. This letter requested all Departments should satisfy themselves that their systems and processes allow them to comply with the Goddard inquiry requirements and that they should take appropriate steps to ensure that any information held that fell within Justice Goddard’s categories for retention should be preserved.”
It was not clear who signed itI replied
“Perhaps did not make myself clear. Please send me a copy of Jeremy Heywoods letter and a list of people it was sent to. I cannot read the signature on the reply. Could you say who this is please”
- They ignored my refused to provide the Heywood letter
- They ignored the request for how many people it was sent to
- They refused to say who the permanent secretaries were supposedly under S21 – supposedly the public domain but they did not state where
- They refused to produce the letter under section 31 g “disclosure would be likely to prejudice the role of the inquiry in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper”. This is a rarely used exemption which does not seem to apply.
- Again a remarkably exact signature
compare with (any size difference my fault)
Barely believably the supposed internal review was the most incompetent I have come across. Despite “carefully reviewing”,
- Two sentences were not even finished. Certaily an11 eear
- It claimed there had been a public interest test when there had not
- The number of letters sent out was ignored
- Who wrote the signature was was ignored
- Heywood Letter refusal was confirmed refused under S 31 (g) with only a vague sentence – “the public interest requires that officials must have safe space with which to communicate with the inquiry so that it can properly conduct its role in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper”
- Refusal to provide other information under Section 21 confirmed, supposedly already in the public domain but no link given to where, against ICO guidance
- Although not signed, and it not being clear who carried out the internal review, the name on the bottom of the letter was the notorious Eirian Walsh Atkins
The one good part was the names of who was sent the letters was provided under their duty to S16 to give advice and assistance.
However, the names relate to 2015 and their job at the time is unclear, so the quest goes on for their jobs at the time. The claim that letters were all sent to permanent secretaries appears to be wrong as Alison Saunders is mentioned.
I have of course asked for a proper internal review.
The list of who was provided with letters is below.
How much the responses to this FOI from the Cabinet Office have been incompetent or deliberately awkward is not known, but this does not reflect well on UK Government, democracy or “Freedom of Information”
This I find typical of the arrogant disregard which the cabinet office treats FOI. The tactic seems to be delay at all costs and give the miminum information out.
What are you hiding?
Alex Younger
Alison Saunders
Bernard Gray
Melanie Dawes
Bronwyn Hill
Chris Wormald
Derek Jones
Edward Troup
Robert Hannigan
John Kingman
John Manzoni
John Pullinger
Jon Day
Jon Thompson
Jonathan Jones
Jonathan Stephens
Kim Darroch
Lin Homer
Malcolm McKibbin
Mark Lowcock
Mark Sedwill
Mark Walport
Martin Donnelly
Nicholas Macpherson
Peter Housden
Philip Rutnam
Andrew Parker
Richard Heaton
Robert Devereux
Sally Davies
Simon Fraser
Stephen Lovegrove
Sue Owen
Tom Scholar
Una O’Brien
Ursula Brennan
Links
[1a] 2016 May 29 FOI to Cabinet Office https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#outgoing-547245
[1b] 2016 Jun 28 Answer https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#incoming-830836
I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office. The letter you refer to from Lowell Goddard was circulated to all Permanent Secretaries in their role at that time and was accompanied by a letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood. This letter requested all Departments should satisfy themselves that their systems and processes allow them to comply with the Goddard inquiry requirements and that they should take appropriate steps to ensure that any information held that fell within JusticeGoddard’s categories for retention should be preserved. (Helen Ewen)
[1c] 2016 Jun 28 Question https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#outgoing-555523
I perhaps did not make myself clear. Please send me a copy of Jeremy Heywoods letter and a list of people it was sent to. I cannot read the signature on the reply. Could you say who this is please.
They took this as a new request FOI323084 ( a technique often used to delay) so I asked for an internal review of the old request and allowed them to label this a new request [omitted these here for simplicity]
[1d] 2016 Jul 26 Answer to FOI323211 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/337151/response/843836/attach/3/FOI323211%20Reply.pdf https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#incoming-830836
I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office. In our initial response we confirmed that the letter from Justice Goddard was sent to all the Permanent Secretaries in post on the 6th July 2015. The identities of those Permanent Secretaries is a matter of public record and is exempt under s21 of the Act. The accompanying letter from the Cabinet Secretary is exempt under s31(g) as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the role of the inquiry in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper
[1e] 2016 Sept 5 Question https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#outgoing-575839
I think there has been some confusion over numbering of FOI requests, however I wish internal reviews on two requests FOI322084 and FOI323211. FOI 322084 request for internal review is still outstanding Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am still waiting for an internal review of Cabinet Office’s handling of my FOI request ‘Goddard inquiry Letter to Jeremy Heywood’. Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office’s handling of my FOI request ‘Goddard inquiry Letter to Jeremy Heywood’.
FOI323084. I wish an internal review of my request as the questions were not answered, and I could not read the signature on the reply.
[1f] 2017 Feb 3 Answer https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#incoming-932126 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/337151/response/932126/attach/3/IR322084%20and%20IR323211%20FINAL.pdf
“Thank you for your email of 5 September 2016.
You asked for an internal review of our response to your request for information of.
In your request you asked for information concerning a letter sent by the Cabinet Secretary to Permanent Secretaries concerning co-operation with the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry (then known as the Goddard Inquiry)
I have carefully reviewed the handling of your request and I consider that the exemptions at 21 and 31(g) of the Freedom of Information Act were properly applied.
I believe that the balance of the public interest was fully considered for the reasons set out it our letters of.
I have therefore concluded that I should uphold the decision given in our letter.
I have considered the points you make about the availability of the identity of the Permanent Secretaries to Departments and maintain that these are easily available through numerous public sources. However as part of our obligation to provide advice and assistance please find below a list of recipients of the letter from the Cabinet Secretary.
- Alex Younger
- Alison Saunders
- Bernard Gray
- Melanie Dawes
- Bronwyn Hill
- Chris Wormald
- Derek Jones
- Edward Troup
- Robert Hannigan
- John Kingman
- John Manzoni
- John Pullinger
- Jon Day
- Jon Thompson
- Jonathan Jones
- Jonathan Stephens
- Kim Darroch
- Lin Homer
- Malcolm McKibbin
- Mark Lowcock
- Mark Sedwill
- Mark Walport
- Martin Donnelly
- Nicholas Macpherson
- Peter Housden
- Philip Rutnam
- Andrew Parker
- Richard Heaton
- Robert Devereux
- Sally Davies
- Simon Fraser
- Stephen Lovegrove
- Sue Owen
- Tom Scholar
- Una O’Brien
- Ursula Brennan
[1g] 2017 Feb 3 Question https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/goddard_inquiry_letter_to_jeremy#outgoing-620921
Please could you answer all theses under advice and assistance. If there is any reason cannot be, then please state why. I would also suggest that a proper internal review is carried out, as a 4 year can see the answer pruporting to be an Internal Review is wholly incomplete on a number of levels.
Please could you give any proof of the statement
“The reply to your IR request was issued to you on the 8th September last year. It is attached here once more for ease of reference. “
As you can see from the thread https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/g… there is no reply received by WDTK on that date or on any date since 5 th Sept until you replied on 3rd Feb.
If you cannot provide proof please apologise for the delay.
The reply received for the first time on 3rd February was incomplete and cannot be called an internal review.
I reproduce the relevant parts here
“Thank you for your email of 5 September 2016. You asked for an internal review of our response to your request for information of. ****** In your request you asked for information concerning a letter sent by the Cabinet Secretary to Permanent Secretaries concerning co-operation with the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry (then known as the Goddard Inquiry)
I have carefully reviewed the handling of your request and I consider that the exemptions at 21 and 31(g) of the Freedom of Information Act were properly applied. I believe that the balance of the public interest was fully considered for the reasons set out it our letters of. ******
I have therefore concluded that I should uphold the decision given in our letter.
I have considered the points you make about the availability of the identity of the Permanent Secretaries to Departments and maintain that these are easily available through numerous public sources. However as part of our obligation to provide advice and assistance please find below a list of recipients of the letter from the Cabinet Secretary.
Alex Younger
Alison Saunders
Bernard Gray
Melanie Dawes
Bronwyn Hill
Chris Wormald
Derek Jones
Edward Troup
Robert Hannigan
John Kingman
John Manzoni
John Pullinger
Jon Day
Jon Thompson
Jonathan Jones
Jonathan Stephens
Kim Darroch
Lin Homer
Malcolm McKibbin
Mark Lowcock
Mark Sedwill
Mark Walport
Martin Donnelly
Nicholas Macpherson
Peter Housden
Philip Rutnam
Andrew Parker
Richard Heaton
Robert Devereux
Sally Davies
Simon Fraser
Stephen Lovegrove
Sue Owen
Tom Scholar
Una O’Brien
Ursula Brennan
I have also considered your points concerning the application of 31(g). I confirm there is no information held that the inquiry is investigating the Cabinet Secretary’s letter or the Cabinet Secretary as part of the enquiry but maintain the public interest requires that officials must have safe space with which to communicate with the inquiry so that it can properly conduct its role in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper.”
This is quite obviously not a proper and complete internal review, it is a complete embarassment.
It is incomplete so I have put stars in the above so that it can be recognised exactly where.
Where was the “balance of the public interest fully considered” and the “reasons set out” in your letter? These were carelessly omitted.
Where is the end of this sentence “You asked for an internal review of our response to your request for information of. ” This was carelessly omitted.
Whose signature is it and what position do they hold on the letter of 26 July 2016 ? This was asked in the FOI and the internal review. Neither have been answered.
Who carried out internal review? Was it the person whose name was at the bottom of the letter, Eirian Walsh Atkins or someone else? Had the person who carried out the so called review been involved in the requests previously?
Finally the names are included but not the positions of the people. s21 was claimed. Perhaps I could be pointed in exactly the place as to where it might be found those peoples positions as per ICO guidance.
It was stated that I asked for “information concerning a letter sent by the Cabinet Secretary to Permanent Secretaries” No I asked “Could you state how many people the letter was circulated to, who they were and what letter accompanied it.” Are all the people in the list permanent secretaries?
You have the list and their positions at the time of sending, why not give it to me as requested ?
Why prevaricate and obfuscate and claim s21 and its out where somewhere – without telling me where as you are required to do under the Act and Guidance?
The exemption claimed for not providing the actual letter is 31 g – Law Enforcement !!
“(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—
(g)the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2),”
(2)The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are—
(b)the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper
Please tell me –
Where is the public interest test that must be applied for 31 (g)? Where is the reconsideration of the public interest test for the internal review?
This is not a public interest test -“maintain the public interest requires that officials must have safe space with which to communicate with the inquiry so that it can properly conduct its role in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper”
This is a one sided opinion, not a public interest test.
Which part of the inquiries role is being referred to as “role in ascertaining whether any person is responsible for conduct which is improper” Who is being referred that might be responsible for conduct that is improper is not even clear. What connection is there between the inquiries historic role and the sending of a letter in the near present? What connection with the letter and “safe space” is there?
Even if there is some sort of connection, and even if 31 g can somehow be argued to be engaged (and there appears to be no sound engagement) why can some text not be redacted?
How does the release of the letter prejudice that law enforcement function? How is the law enforcement function relevant to the letter i requested?
This request was first made in May 2016. We are now in Feb 2017.
I consider the responses of the Cabinet Office wholly incompetent and / or deliberately delaying and obfuscatory. If not could you explain why it has taken so long and I have still not received an answer that is satisfactory under the FOI Act. The request ws very simple, why has it not been answered lawfully.
How many staff are competent and qualified in the cabinet office carry out internal reviews, and what positions are they?
Yours sincerely,
Cathy Fox
[3] 2017 Feb 3 Wikipedia Permanent Secretaries http://archive.is/tS0s8
[4] Goddard to Heywood requesting to keep documents https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/77/view/letter-to-sir-jeremy-heywood.pdf http://archive.is/8TirD
[5] Wikipedia Jeremy Heywood http://archive.is/CaNmj
Foxy's Extra Blog 