DHSC Request Ref:1538749

Summary

The requester asked the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald to provide a copy of a document allegedly destroyed by a Minister or to investigate its destruction under the FOI Act. The authority responded that the information is not held as the document was received at the Minister's private home and never entered the official office records.

Key Facts

• The request concerns a document originally sent to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) regarding government matters.
• The DHSC previously advised the requester to contact the Clerk of Tynwald after claiming the document was personal.
• The Minister received the letter at his home address on Thursday 29 October 2020.
• The Office of the Clerk of Tynwald confirmed the document was never sent to the Minister's official office.
• The authority concluded it does not hold the information and cannot find it after reasonable steps.

Data Disclosed

• 1680589
• 1538749
• 2021-02-22
• 2021-03-09
• 26 February 2021
• 29 October 2020
• 30 October
• 1 November
• 24-48 hours
• 1996
• 2015
• 01624 685500

Exemptions Cited

• Information not held

Original Request

Dear Clerk of Tynwald, Late last year I made Information request ref: 1538749 to the Department of Health and Social Care. In response to that request, Ms Hay of the DHSC advised that I could make this request to the Clerk of Tynwald. Consequently, I'm asking that you review the destruction of the document: Was the document destroyed in accordance with the FOI Act (and associated rules/regulations)? My original FOI request related to a document allegedly written by a Government worker, about Government matters, to the Government Minister, which was subsequently taken to a Government space and used for (very public) Government purposes. Indeed, the letter was reportedly written by a DHSC worker to the DHSC Minister in his capacity as Minister. From reading the FOI response, it appears to be the DHSC's position that despite all of this, it was merely a personal document - because this document allegedly travelled at one stage via the Minister's personal home. While I am sympathetic with the broad view that a man's home is his castle, surely it is not the Government's view that the Minister's home is a magical castle that causes all documents which enter to become immune from the Isle of Man's Freedom of Information Act 2015. Elsewhere, the DHSC has admitted that the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1996 and the Freedom of Information Act 2015 allows for the disclosure of information around public services. Further, the Government has admitted that the Government "must ensure that records regarding our services are retained for a relevant time and are accessible." It is difficult to imagine that the Government sincerely believes that "a relevant time" here is approximately 24-48 hours, being from Thursday 29 October to sometime on the evening of Friday 30 October or Saturday 1 November when the document was allegedly destroyed by the Minister. Consequently: a) Could you please provide a copy of the destroyed document? b) If not, could you please investigate whether this document was treatd in accordance with the relevant Government rules and regulations? c) Could you please provide information on how many other documents have been destroyed in similar fashion? Thanks in advance.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Freedom of Information Co-Ordinator Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW Telephone: 01624 685500

Our ref: 1680589 26 February 2021

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 22 February 2021 and which states:

"Dear Clerk of Tynwald, Late last year I made Information request ref: 1538749 to the Department of Health and Social Care. In response to that request, Ms Hay of the DHSC advised that I could make this request to the Clerk of Tynwald. Consequently, I'm asking that you review the destruction of the document: Was the document destroyed in accordance with the FOI Act (and associated rules/regulations)? My original FOI request related to a document allegedly written by a Government worker, about Government matters, to the Government Minister, which was subsequently taken to a Government space and used for (very public) Government purposes. Indeed, the letter was reportedly written by a DHSC worker to the DHSC Minister in his capacity as Minister. From reading the FOI response, it appears to be the DHSC's position that despite all of this, it was merely a personal document - because this document allegedly travelled at one stage via the Minister's personal home. While I am sympathetic with the broad view that a man's home is his castle, surely it is not the Government's view that the Minister's home is a magical castle that causes all documents which enter to become immune from the Isle of Man's Freedom of Information Act 2015. Elsewhere, the DHSC has admitted that the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1996 and the Freedom of Information Act 2015 allows for the disclosure of information around public services. Further, the Government has admitted that the Government "must ensure that records

regarding our services are retained for a relevant time and are accessible." It is difficult to imagine that the Government sincerely believes that "a relevant time" here is approximately 24-48 hours, being from Thursday 29 October to sometime on the evening of Friday 30 October or Saturday 1 November when the document was allegedly destroyed by the Minister. Consequently: a) Could you please provide a copy of the destroyed document? b) If not, could you please investigate whether this document was treatd in accordance with the relevant Government rules and regulations? c) Could you please provide information on how many other documents have been destroyed in similar fashion? Thanks in advance."

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the public authority does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. Our Response to Your Request a) Could you please provide a copy of the destroyed document? The DHSC response to the original Freedom of Information request (ref: 1538749) states that the Minister received the letter at his home address on Thursday 29th October 2020. In order to ensure that the correspondence did not come to this office first, the following checks have been made: 1) We would usually expect that DHSC ministerial correspondence would be sent directly to Minister’s Ashford’s office at the DHSC and any constituency correspondence would either come to Legislative Buildings or directly to the Member’s home address (which is published in the phone book in the white pages and also on the ‘Tynwald’ page). I emailed the Head of Tynwald Administration and requested details of the procedure for the receipt of mail to check what would happen if the sender of the letter to Minister Ashford had sent it to this office first. She has confirmed that the procedure for a letter that comes into Legislative Buildings addressed to Minister Ashford is that the letter is date stamped and placed unopened in Minister Ashford’s pigeonhole; Minister Ashford collects his post from his pigeonhole when he is in the office and we would only send post to Minister Ashford’s home address if he had specifically requested us to do this. Therefore if the letter had come to this office first, we would not hold a copy. The Head of Tynwald Administration also checked the ‘post out’ book from 1st October 2020 to 29th October 2020 and there is no record of any post being sent to Mr Ashford’s home address. 2) I have searched in the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee (SAPRC: the scrutiny committee for the DHSC) folder on the network, using the search term ‘Ashford’ and

‘last year’ as the date modified, in case the letter came in as committee correspondence (i.e. addressed to the committee first): nothing found. 3) I have searched the Hansard on the Tynwald website for the period 29th October 2020 to date for any reference to the letter (using the search term ‘letter’). Reference found in Hansard of Tynwald Court 18th November 2020, line 3057 (Mrs Barber: “It troubles me, today, to find out that a letter read out in a press briefing has been destroyed. That troubles me.”). Reference found in Hansard of HoK 3rd November 2020, line 34 (Ms Edge: “Obviously a lot of the public outcry was with regard to statements that have been made since the resignation, and particularly the reading out of a letter that did not actually name the person, which I totally agree with.” 4) I have checked the Hansard of the SAPRC oral evidence session with Minister Ashford on 9th November 2020 to see if it was discussed: nothing found. b) If not, could you please investigate whether this document was treatd in accordance with the relevant Government rules and regulations? No; it is not a function of the Office to investigate other Departments’ rules and regulations. c) Could you please provide information on how many other documents have been destroyed in similar fashion? No; we do not hold data on how many documents from constituents have been destroyed by Members of Tynwald. Please quote the reference number 1680589 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of

alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.

www.tynwald.org.im/links/foi

Freedom of Information Co-Ordinator Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW Telephone: 01624 685500

Our ref: 1680589 9th March 2021

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 22nd February 2021 and which states:

"Dear Clerk of Tynwald, Late last year I made Information request ref: 1538749 to the Department of Health and Social Care. In response to that request, Ms Hay of the DHSC advised that I could make this request to the Clerk of Tynwald. Consequently, I'm asking that you review the destruction of the document: Was the document destroyed in accordance with the FOI Act (and associated rules/regulations)? My original FOI request related to a document allegedly written by a Government worker, about Government matters, to the Government Minister, which was subsequently taken to a Government space and used for (very public) Government purposes. Indeed, the letter was reportedly written by a DHSC worker to the DHSC Minister in his capacity as Minister. From reading the FOI response, it appears to be the DHSC's position that despite all of this, it was merely a personal document - because this document allegedly travelled at one stage via the Minister's personal home. While I am sympathetic with the broad view that a man's home is his castle, surely it is not the Government's view that the Minister's home is a magical castle that causes all documents which enter to become immune from the Isle of Man's Freedom of Information Act 2015. Elsewhere, the DHSC has admitted that the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1996 and the Freedom of Information Act 2015 allows for the disclosure of information around public services. Further, the Government has admitted that the Government "must ensure that records

regarding our services are retained for a relevant time and are accessible." It is difficult to imagine that the Government sincerely believes that "a relevant time" here is approximately 24-48 hours, being from Thursday 29 October to sometime on the evening of Friday 30 October or Saturday 1 November when the document was allegedly destroyed by the Minister. Consequently: a) Could you please provide a copy of the destroyed document? b) If not, could you please investigate whether this document was treatd in accordance with the relevant Government rules and regulations? c) Could you please provide information on how many other documents have been destroyed in similar fashion? Thanks in advance."

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the public authority does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. Our Response to Your Request a) Could you please provide a copy of the destroyed document? No. We do have neither the original document nor any copy of it. b) If not, could you please investigate whether this document was treatd in accordance with the relevant Government rules and regulations? We have found no evidence that any rule or regulation has been breached. The DHSC response to the original Freedom of Information request (ref: 1538749) states that the Minister received the letter at his home address on Thursday 29th October 2020. In order to ensure that the correspondence did not come to this office first, the following checks have been made: 1) We would usually expect that DHSC ministerial correspondence would be sent directly to Minister’s Ashford’s office at the DHSC and any constituency correspondence would either come to Legislative Buildings or directly to the Member’s home address (which is published in the phone book in the white pages and also on the ‘Tynwald’ page). I emailed the Head of Tynwald Administration and requested details of the procedure for the receipt of mail to check what would happen if the sender of the letter to Minister Ashford had sent it to this office first. The Head of Tynwald Administration has confirmed that the procedure for a letter that comes into Legislative Buildings addressed to Minister Ashford is that the letter is date stamped and placed unopened in Minister Ashford’s pigeonhole; Minister Ashford collects his post from his pigeonhole when he is in the office and we would only send post to Minister Ashford’s home address if he had specifically requested us to do this. Therefore if the letter had come to this office first, we would not hold a copy.

The Head of Tynwald Administration also checked the ‘post out’ book from 1st October 2020 to 29th October 2020 and there is no record of any post being sent to Minister Ashford’s home address. 2) With the consent of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee (the parliamentary committee responsible for scrutinising the DHSC) I can report that I have searched its network folder, using the search term “Ashford” and the date range from 1st October 2020 to 4th March 2021, and found nothing. 3) I have checked the Hansard of the Social Affairs Policy Review Committee’s public oral evidence session with Minister Ashford on 9th November 2020 to see if it was discussed: nothing found. This is the only occasion on which Minister Ashford has appeared before a parliamentary Committee since 29th October 2020. 4) I have searched the Hansard on the Tynwald website for the period 29th October 2020 to date for any reference to the letter (using the search term ‘letter’). Reference found in Hansard of Tynwald Court 18th November 2020, line 3057 (Mrs Barber: “It troubles me, today, to find out that a letter read out in a press briefing has been destroyed. That troubles me.”). Reference found in Hansard of HoK 3rd November 2020, line 34 (Ms Edge: “Obviously a lot of the public outcry was with regard to statements that have been made since the resignation, and particularly the reading out of a letter that did not actually name the person, which I totally agree with.”). c) Could you please provide information on how many other documents have been destroyed in similar fashion? No; we do not hold data on how many documents from constituents or others have been destroyed by Members of Tynwald. Please quote the reference number 1680589 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right

[Response truncated — full text is 16,028 characters]