APPENDIX I: SAMPLE REQUEST Brendan Montague Director Request Initiative Email: brendan@requestinitiative.org Tel: 07590 030201 Ref: 120413 06TAT515 RE001 Date: Ruth Findlay Corporate Communications Manager Freedom of Information Director's Office Tate Millbank London SW1P 4RG FOIA: Request for information redacted in response "354" Dear Ms Findlay, This is a Freedom of Information Act request that relates to the sponsorship of Tate by BP. I would be grateful if you could provide the information that has been redacted from documents disclosed following a Freedom of Information request made by a Mr Tarman on 28 December 2011. Tate's response to the request was dated on 16 February 2012 and referenced "Tate reference - 354" and is available on the What Do They Know? website. Context Mr Tarman made a Freedom of Information Request to Tate on 28 December 2011 for: 1. The date the decision was made by Tate Trustees to accept BP's offer of renewal of sponsorship as announced on 19 December 2011. 2. The minutes of the meeting of the Trustees at which this decision was taken and the minutes of any other meeting at which the renewal of BP sponsorship now announced was discussed along with any other record of the deliberation(s)taken by Trustees on this matter. 3. The minutes of the Tate Ethics Committee at which BP sponsorship renewal was discussed and the recommendation(s) and any associated report by the Ethics Committee, or any other body, made to the Tate Board on or related to the matter of BP sponsorship renewal after 19 May 2010 and up to the date of subsequent announcement (19 December 2011). 1 4. Any other assessment of BP and Tate's Ethical Fundraising Policy in 2011 and any information or reports regarding environmental, reputational or similar audits and/investigations conducted by Tate (or parties contracted by Tate) relating to BP sponsorship in the period of the present sponsorship (that decided by Tate management in 2006 to be until 2012) including any assessments with regard to the impacts on fulfillment of Tate's mission. 5. The email Nicholas Serota, Director of Tate sent to Tate Staff with regard to the acceptance of BP's offer of renewal of sponsorship when it was announced. Tate responded to the request by releasing documents and providing information on 16 February 2012. The information was redacted citing several exemptions including under Section 36; Section 40 (2); Section 42 and Section 43 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act. The response the documents disclosed were found at the website, What Do They Know? The disputed information I write today to request that Tate reexamine the use of some of these exemptions with a view to releasing the information in response to this request. In making this request I have returned to the legislation, reviewed relevant decisions from the information tribunals and from the Information Commissioner's Office. In order to assist you I have outlined below my reasons for believing the information that has been redacted should be disclosed under the heading of each of the exemptions used rather than point---by---point, line---by---line. I have also given a few public interest arguments in favour of disclosure towards the end of this request. I have where possible made the case for each specific piece of information but as you would understand my ability to do this is limited, as I do not have access to the information itself. I would be grateful if you could consider the points I have raised ion each of the exceptions in relation to each piece of information where it has been applied. Section 12: Costs Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption "where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit" and states that under Section 12(3) "'the appropriate limit' means such amount as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases." The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 states: 3.-- (1) This regulation has effect to prescribe the appropriate limit referred to in section 9A(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act and the appropriate limit referred to in section 12(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act. (2) In the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the appropriate limit is ?600. (3) In the case of any other public authority, the appropriate limit is ?450. I would be grateful that if refusing this request in whole or in part you would provide some explanation as to why compliance would, rather than could, exceed the limits set out above. I would also be grateful if you could confirm or deny that you have the information requested, unless this process in itself will exceed the cost limit. Section 16 of the Act states that: "It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it" 2 The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs' Code of Practice on the discharge of public authorities' functions under Part I of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Issued under section 45 of the Act adds: Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under Section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider providing an indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by reforming or re---focussing their request, information may be able to be supplied for a lower, or no, fee. Therefore if this request is refused on grounds of cost I would be grateful if you could provide a list of, or an explanation relating to, the information that would be available at or below the costs outlined in the regulations. Section 12(4) Section 12(4) also provides that: the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for information are made to a public authority-- (a) by one person, or (b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them. It may assist you to know that this Freedom of Information is for specific information outside of scope of any other request made by Request Initiative or, to my knowledge, different persons acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign alongside myself. Section 36 (2)(b)(ii): Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. The law Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act states that: (2) Information to which this section applies is exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information under this Act-- ...(b)would, or would be likely to, inhibit-- ...(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation... Relevant court and tribunal decisions In Scotland Office v the Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0128 para 62) the Tribunal recognised the importance of the concept of a "safe space", but warned that "information created during this process cannot be regarded per se as exempt from disclosure otherwise such information would have been protected in FOIA under an absolute exemption". ICO guidance "The phrase "likely to prejudice" has been considered by the courts and by the Information Tribunal. From these decisions the test to be applied is that the chance of prejudice being suffered should be more than a hypothetical possibility; it has to be demonstrated that there is a real and significant risk of harm. A remote possibility of harm is insufficient, even if the risk can fall short of being more probable than not. The level of risk will be a factor to take into account when considering the public interest test. The Information Tribunal has also considered the evidential burden in establishing the likelihood of prejudice. A public authority cannot be expected to prove exactly what would happen on disclosure. However, it is not sufficient for a public authority to put forward unsupported speculation or opinion; the public authority must be able to 3 provide some evidence from which it can then extrapolate in order to come to a conclusion about what is likely." [Emphasis in bold added]. Tate arguments Tate has relied on this exception when refusing to disclose sections of "The report to Tate's Ethics Committee for discussion at the meeting held on 27 June 2011." In using the exemption Tate has stated: Tate's Director, in his capacity as the qualified person, has considered this exemption carefully and has concluded that disclosure of the redacted material would inhibit the Ethics Committee in the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation on this matter. In so doing this would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. On this particular matter, it was essential that a range of points were freely and frankly outlined and rigorously discussed in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion. It is essential that Tate's Ethics Committee is in a position to do this. The discussions were relatively recent and their implications are ongoing. Disclosure of this material would also set a precedent which would inhibit future discussion on this or any other matter brought to their attention. Tate further considers that the public interest in maintaining the Section 36 (2)(b)(ii) exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing this material: in particular Tate considers that the public interest is best served by the Ethics Committee having a free and protected space in which to discuss these matters without the inhibition that comes from knowing that the material may have to be publicised. [Emphasis in bold added]. Factors in support of disclosure Tate has argued that a) disclosure of the redacted material would inhibit the Ethics Committee in the free and frank exchange of views; b) the discussions were relatively recent and their implications ongoing; c) Disclosure of this material would also set a precedent which would inhibit future discussion; d) the public interest is best served by the Ethics Committee having a free and protected space." In relation to a), I would argue that the decision to agree a sponsorship deal with BP has been taken and the agreement will last for another five years. This suggests that in the specific case of BP sponsorship disclosure of some materials relating to the discussion will not affect the Ethics Committee. The next time a decision to partner with BP will be taken is so far in the future that the Ethics Committee would not be inhibited then by information disclosed now. In relation to b), the fact that the discussions were ongoing and their implications ongoing strengthens the public interest case for disclosure of the information. In relation to c), the argument that disclosing information appears to me to fall under the ICO description of "a hypothetical possibility" and I would ask that as part of this request Tate demonstrate that there is a real and significant risk of harm if the decision not to disclose information is confirmed. Finally, in relation to d) and the argument that there should be a free and protected space, I would again refer to the ICO guidance when it states, "it is not sufficient for a public authority to put forward unsupported speculation or opinion; the public authority must be able to provide some evidence from which it can then extrapolate in order to come to a conclusion about what is likely." I would also refer to the tribunal when it states: "Information created during this process cannot be regarded per se as exempt from disclosure otherwise such information would have been protected in FOIA under an absolute exemption". The public interest test must be applied to the specific information and disclosure cannot be denied simply on the basis that complying with the Freedom of Information Act may in future inhibit free and full discussion. The application of Section 36 is subject to a public interest balance. I will develop my argument as to why the information which has been redacted should be disclosed in the public interest below. Section 40 (2): Personal information 4 The law Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act states: (2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if-- (a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and (b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied. (3) The first condition is-- (a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene-- (i) any of the data protection principles, or (ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress), and(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public authorities) were disregarded. The relevant condition from Schedule 2 is condition 6(1): "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, exept where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of the prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject." Relevant Tribunal decisions According to the ICO, "the Tribunal said the names of more junior civil servants could be released where they were in roles which involved giving evidence to parliamentary committees or where they had some managerial responsibilities (MoD v IC and Mr R Evans EA/2006/0027, July 2007)." ICO guidance According to the Information Commissioner's Office guidance, "The Data Protection Act does not define fair processing." However, the guide adds: "Personal data may sometimes be used in a manner that causes some detriment to (negatively affects) an individual without this necessarily being unfair. What matters is whether or not such detriment is justified." "Fairness requires you to...above all, not use their information in ways that unjustifiably have a negative effect on them. "When deciding whether you should give any other information in the interests of fairness, you have to take into account the nature of the personal data and what the individuals concerned are likely to expect." The Information Commissioner's Office published "Practical guidance: when should names be disclosed?" on 15 August 2008 in which it gave clear indicators of when it would be "fair" to disclose the name of a public sector employee: 1. Does the information requested relate primarily to the person's public function rather than their private life? 2. Should the individual expect their role to be subject to public scrutiny? You should consider: o how senior they are; o whether they have a public profile; and, o whether their role requires a significant level of personal judgement (sic) and individual responsibility. 5 It is good practice to have a policy on routinely disclosing names at certain levels, in certain roles or in certain circumstances. However, this does not mean that the names of more junior staff should always be withheld. Often, it will not be unfair to release their names as the context will not be sensitive or controversial. Tate arguments Tate states in its response: "Redactions of personal information, such as email addresses, have been made under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act. These have been applied to staff who are not employed at Director level or above." Factors in support of disclosure Tate appears to have applied a policy of publishing the names of staff at director level or above, which in itself complies with Section 40 (2) of the Act. However, as the ICO guidance makes clear, it should not be assumed that staff at a less senior level should not have their names disclosed. For example, in the document titled "Minutes of the Ethics Committee Meeting Held on 27 June 2011 the job titles given - Head of Corporate Development, Governance and Policy Manager, Head of National and International Initiatives --- where names have been redacted suggest the individuals do have managerial responsibility. I would be grateful if in dealing with this request the Tate could apply the test of whether it would be "unfair" to disclose the name of each individual and also to establish whether disclosure would "prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject". I would argue there is a legitimate interest in establishing who was present as part of the Tate Ethics Committee when it was decided to accept sponsorship from BP. My arguments about how the public interest would be served by disclosure of information are further developed below. The Tate Ethical Policy as agreed by the Board of Trustees in May 2008 states that it takes into account the Seven Principles of Public Life that it lists in the appendix. The principle under the heading "accountability" states that: "Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. " The information tribunal had given an indication that it is appropriate for holders of public office who manage others and take part in policy level decision making should submit themselves to public scrutiny. Section 42: Legal advice I am not asking for the exemptions as applied under Section 42 to be reviewed in a substantive way. However, I would ask that the reviewer establish that the exception has been applied in a manner that is appropriately granular so that information is not withheld simply on the basis that it is contained in a document that also has information that indeed should be withheld. Section 43 (2): Commercial interests The law Section 43 FOIA provides for a qualified exemption where disclosure of the information: 'would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)'; ICO guidance The Information Commissioner's Office has published "Freedom of Information Act Awareness Guidance No. 5 which relates to commercial interests". The guidance states: "When deciding whether the release of information would, or would be likely to, harm someone's commercial interests it will be necessary to consider fully all the circumstances in question." 6 The ICO lists the following considerations relating to commercially sensitive information: 1) "The level of competition within an industry will affect whether the release of information will harm someone's commercial interests. Where a company enjoys a monopoly over the provision of the goods or services in question it is less likely that releasing the information will have a prejudicial impact on that company." 2) Could the information prejudice the bargaining position of the public authority? 3) Deciding whether or not a particular disclosure would be likely to cause prejudice will often require the exercise of judgement (sic). It will be necessary to judge, in other words, what may be the nature of the harm that would be caused and, also, the likelihood of that harm. While the "prejudice" that may be caused by disclosure may not be substantial, nor should it be completely trivial. As for likelihood, while prejudice need not be certain, there must be a significant risk rather than a remote possibility of prejudice." In terms of the public interest, the guidance states: A) "Public authorities should be wary of accepting arguments that the potential for commercial information to be released would reduce the number of companies willing to do business with the public sector, leading to reduced competition and increased costs. In practice, many companies may be prepared to accept greater public access to information about their business as a cost of doing business with the public sector." B) "Circumstances will change over time. Information submitted during a tendering process is more likely to be commercially sensitive whilst the tendering process is ongoing compared to once the contract has been awarded. Information refused at one point in time does not mean that the information can be permanently withheld." The ICO guidance titled "Commercial detriment of third parties" adds: "This exemption [Section 43] is qualified. Even if information falls within section 43, public authorities must then apply the public interest test set out in section 2(2)(b). The information can only be withheld if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure." Tate arguments The exemption is used in relation to the "Key Points Documents" where Tate states: "Having taken into account the public interest test, we believe that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Release of this information would compromise our ability to negotiate effectively with current sponsors and also with potential future sponsors and thereby prejudice our commercial interests. As a public body, it is Tate's core mission to promote public understanding and enjoyment of British, Modern and contemporary art. Corporate sponsorship enables Tate to engage with as wide an audience as possible in imaginative and ground---breaking ways. It is essential that Tate is able to effectively negotiate such sponsorships. Some sections of the material refer to Tate's approach to making decisions around sponsorship which if publicly released would compromise our ability to negotiate effectively with potential sponsors. If these negotiations were to be compromised it would affect our effectiveness as a public body and our ability to carry out our core activities. We therefore feel there is a greater public interest in withholding this commercially sensitive information than in disclosing it." [Emphasis in bold added]. Tate has also relied on the exemption to refuse disclosure of sections of information contained within other documents provided under the Act. No specific explanation is given other than, "for reasons outlined previously". 7 Factors in support of disclosure Many of the statements in Tate's response are not disputed. For example, it is agreed that "As a public body, it is Tate's core mission to promote public understanding and enjoyment of British, Modern and contemporary art." There are two points of departure in terms of the application of Section43(2): a) Release of this information would compromise our ability to negotiate effectively with current sponsors and also with potential future sponsors and thereby prejudice our commercial interests and b) Some sections of the material refer to Tate's approach to making decisions around sponsorship which if publicly released would compromise our ability to negotiate effectively with potential sponsors. The second point expands on the second but essentially makes the same argument: that release of the information would compromise the Tate's negotiating position. In the terms set out by the Information Commissioner's Office in relation to commercial contracts, I would argue that the same considerations apply to sponsorship agreements. Although this stops short of a monopoly, with other institutions offering sponsorship, Tate is one of the most high profile and respected art institutions in the UK, indeed it is a global player. The commissioner states, ""Public authorities should be wary of accepting arguments that the potential for commercial information to be released would reduce the number of companies willing to do business with the public sector, leading to reduced competition and increased costs." I believe the same applies to Tate and that it enjoys a strong position in terms of attracting sponsorship. Moreover, the fact that BP has chosen to sponsor Tate for more than two decades is evidence of the high value the company places on the relationship. A key consideration would be whether release of the information would prejudice the negotiating position of Tate. I believe, although obviously I have not seen the disputed information, that the release of the redacted material would simply not produce a situation where BP would withdraw funding or indeed ask for greater coverage for less money. The ICO states that, "While the "prejudice" that may be caused by disclosure may not be substantial, nor should it be completely trivial. As for likelihood, while prejudice need not be certain, there must be a significant risk rather than a remote possibility of prejudice." I would be grateful if in dealing with this request you could establish that the potential prejudice caused to negotiations is not "trivial" and also not a "remote possibility". Tate, in my view, would need to state that there was a risk BP would destroy a 22---year sponsorship agreement if the content of the documents and views of the Ethics Committee were made known to the public. The exemption under Section 43 (2) is qualified, and authorities must then apply the public interest test. I have outlined my argument as to which public interest considerations favour disclosure below. Public interest 1) There is a legitimate public interest in transparency and accountability in relation to Tate's finances and management generally. Tate is just one of four museums covered by the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 and has statutory duties handed down by Parliament. The Act stipulates that Tate must prepare accounts and provide them to the Secretary of State at such time as he may direct. Tate therefore has a significant degree of public accountability in terms of its finances beyond those of an "ordinary" charity or private company. 2) There is a legitimate public interest in an informed and transparent debate about the funding of the arts generally, which would include specific information about how any one gallery is funded by a commercial company. The arts play a vital role in civic society. The subject matter and form of contemporary arts are part of the public life of all citizens and therefore any factors that can influence them, or where it could be perceived there is an influence, should be subject to the utmost transparency and accountability. There may be a public concern that a commercial organization with very real and specific interests may have an influence on an institution it chooses to sponsor. It could have an unintended indirect influence on artists in terms of the subject areas they choose, including subject areas or activates deemed worthy of criticism. Even 8 in areas where such influence cannot be shown to exist, there is a legitimate interest in transparency to assure the public that such risks have been duly understood and considered. 3) Tate holds a unique position in UK's civic society and indeed within the international arts. As such it is particularly important that the galleries are mindful of the risks to the integrity of its editorial voice when considering offers of sponsorship. There is a clear interest in transparency and accountability in the internal processes designed to balance the risks and benefits of sponsorships. Even where there is no evidence that a particular sponsorship arrangement would pose a risk to the editorial voice of Tate there remains a legitimate interest in assuring that there is no public perception of harm to the image and integrity of the galleries. This is recognised by Tate: The Tate Ethics Policy as approved by the board of trustees in May 2008 states: "Tate was founded as a national institution on the premise of public service....we also have a duty to the public to be transparent and accountable, and always act in the public interest. Our ability to maintain a strong relationship of trust with our public is critical to our ability to fulfil our mission." 4) I would suggest that the public interest should be understood differently in relation to different types of sponsorship. There is a greater public interest where sponsorship involves very significant sums of money where it could be viewed as essential or important to the long---term future or successful operation of the recipient. Where this is the case, decisions relating to risks are going to be much more finely balanced. There is also a greater public interest in sponsorship where the relationship is long---standing as there may arise a culture of accepting that any arrangement is "permanent". Finely balanced ethical decisions may evolve into assumptions. Decisions may not be calibrated to changes in what is seen as in the public interest: for example widespread awareness around issues around climate change are relatively new and may be seen as a higher priority than would have been the case 20 years ago. There is much more likely to be concern among the public about sponsorship deals involving multinational commercial interests where it may be believed that such a company, with a duty to shareholders, would require some return on an investment where a private individual would not. The public interest test has to be applied on a case by case basis and a decision to release information relating to one donor would not set a precedent where all information about all donors would have to be released in future. 5) There is a legitimate public interest in establishing how Tate is reporting progress to ministers including in relation to climate change. Paragraph 10 of the Tate's Funding Agreement 2008--- 2011 with DCMS expressly mentions "actions being taken to promote sustainability and mitigate the effects of climate change" as an area of greatest priority to Ministers in the context of reporting progress. Relationships with sponsors including associated risks to the promotion of sustainability would logically be one of the areas in which there would be reporting to Ministers. There is a public interest in this information being shared even further in order to promote informed debate. 6) Tate has a sustainability policy that recognizes the issues of climate change and environmental conservation. The Tate website includes a page called "Tate's Priorities" which includes a section titled "2015 Vision" which states: "In 2007, we looked forward and envisioned how we wanted to evolve. We said we want to become more... Sustainable: by demonstrating leadership in response to climate change, being financially sustainable and ensuring scholarship and research are central to Tate's activities." There is a public interest in being able to establish how the Tate and its Ethics Committee implement these priorities, especially in relation to sponsorship and its relations with carbon intense multi---national companies. The Tate Ethics Policy states at section 4(c)(3) that Tate will not accept funds where it would "materially damage the reputation of Tate". This is a fine judgement and there is a legitimate interest in there being and informed public debate about this area generally and where the interplay between having climate change policy while taking sponsorship from an oil company is being examined. The public interest is particularly strong where Tate has decided there is no material damage to its reputation and accepts funding while acknowledging there is a risk. 7) Lord Browne when chief executive of BP acknowledged in a speech at Stanford on May 19, 1997 that the company provides a product (fossil fuels) that is a significant contributor to climate change. The company's own estimate in 1997 was that the use of BP products contributes 9 one percent to all human carbon emissions. Moreover, BP has a record of taking extraordinary risks that have resulted in environmental damage costing billions of pounds. As the managing director of BP, Iain Conn, said in the BBC article cited above: "We recognise the controversy of what BP does as a company..." 8) There is a public interest in understanding the nature of the relationship between Tate and BP specifically, heightened by the fact that Lord Browne has served as both chief executive of BP and the chairman of Tate's board of trustees. Lord Browne states in his profile on the Tate website: "I served as Chief Executive of BP plc from 1995---2007". Transparency would have a significant impact in terms of reducing the risk of any public perception that this close interrelationship is nothing but proper and in the public good. 9) Finally, there is a public interest in ensuring that the private wishes of BP do not override the need for Tate to be transparent and accountable both to its visitors and stakeholders and to the public generally. The fact that information has been withheld by Tate on the apparent instructions of BP is a matter of legitimate concern and there is a risk of a public perception that "who ever pays the piper plays the tune" and that a suspected culture of confidentiality at the company is influencing the culture at an institution which under statute comes under the prevue of the Freedom of Information Act when it would clearly serve the public interest if the direction of influence was the other way round. Application of exemptions You will note that some information which falls within the scope of this request will be 23 years old. I would be grateful if Tate could apply the exemptions in a sufficiently granular manner as to release more historic information even if it were to decide that recent information should be withheld. Conclusion I am requesting information which has previously been refused or redacted. I am asking your FOIA team to consider whether a blanket policy was applied or whether the application of the exemptions and been sufficiently granular and the weighing of the public interest sufficiently robust as to ensure information has not been withheld unlawfully. I would argue that there is a very clear public interest in the highest transparency possible where an institution which receives significant public funding enters into a sponsorship agreement with a multinational company. This is particularly true where the institution promises the public that it will be "demonstrating leadership in response to climate change" while working with a company that is among the biggest global contributors to climate change. Responding to the request Section 11(1) Section 11(1) of the Act states that: (1) Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely-- (a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant, (b) the provision to the applicant of a reasonable opportunity to inspect a record containing the information, and (c) the provision to the applicant of a digest or summary of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant,the public authority shall so far as reasonably practicable give effect to that preference. I would, under Section 11(1)(b), request an opportunity to inspect in situ any record containing the information requested. I would also like to express a preference for all documents to be supplied electronically as PDFs via email at the address given at the top of this letter. 10 I would like to express a preference for the information to be communicated to me in a form as close to its original. For example that documents are provided whole with any redactions made rather than content to be pasted into new files. Section 16(1) Section 16(1) of the Act states that: "It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it". I would request that advise and assistance is provided at the earliest opportunity should you refuse this request in part or in whole. This would include contacting me if there are any issues, such as apparent errors that make the request difficult to respond to, which are likely to prevent disclosure. I would also be grateful if you could assist in my administration of this request by using the reference above in any further correspondence. If I can be of further assistance, please phone me on 07590 030201 or email me at brendan@requestinitiative.org. Yours sincerely, Brendan Montague Director Request Initiative 11