DWP did Pressurize the MoJ re THAT DVD

DWP & That MoJ DVD

Greyling & DWP did interfere

The truth!

On the 29th June I submitted a detailed Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Ministry of Justice, I sought and stills eek information concerning the self help DvD that the MoJ published on YouTube, which then mysteriously disappeared, after numerous requests it suddenly and without warning reappeared only to just as quickly disappear again!

There were stories rumours and suggestions all unconfirmed and hotly denied by the DWP that the removal of the DVD was at their request or insistence.

Today 90 days after submitting my request and following a complaint to the Information Officer Commissioner, I had an Email response drop into my inbox.

The response id heavily redacted, it is clearly desgined to protect a high ranking official in the DWP/ Government and WE will need to do more to establish the truth.

I have for the safety of my self & family redacted my own address otherwise the information below is exactly as I have received it.

Draw your own conclusions

Email Cover

Dear Mr Hughes

Please find attached a response to your FoI request of 30 June.

Kind regards

Sarah

Sarah Rose

Head of SEC Jurisdictional and Operational Support

HM Courts & Tribunals Service

1.40, 102 Petty France

London

SW1A 9AJ

Cover Letter Response

Sarah RoseHead of Jurisdictional Support, Social Entitlement ChamberHer Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

 

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk

Mr Michael Hughesmike.1947@btinternet.com
Our Reference: FOI 76996 28th September 2012

Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr Hughes

Thank you for your email of the 30th of June, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

In March of 2012 MoJ published on Youtube a self help video with regards to appeals to a tribunal.

1 Who commissioned this video

2 was it internally made or outsourced

3 what was the cost of manufacture?

4 It was only posted to youtube for about two weeks before being removed, why? How many hits did it have prior to removal? Please supply any correspondence / emails relating to its removal especially with DWP.

5 how many hits did it have before being removed?

6 It briefly reappeared in Late June 2012 how many hits did it have prior to again being removed?

7 Who instructed that it was removed?

8 Supply any emails or other instructions in any format instructing its removal

9 The “new” version is now up whats the difference in running times of V1 & V2? 10 How much did the amendments cost?

 

 

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for, and I am pleased to provide this to you.

I will answer each of your questions in turn.

1 Who commissioned this video

I can confirm that the video was originally commissioned by the Tribunals Service (now part of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service).

2 was it internally made or outsourced

The video was made internally.

3 what was the cost of manufacture

The cost of manufacture was £7,514, with an additional £9,600 of staff costs for time spent preparing for and shooting the film.

 4 It was only posted to youtube for about two weeks before being removed, why?  How many hits did it have prior to removal? Please supply any correspondence / emails relating to its removal especially with DWP

We are currently reviewing all the information we provide to SSCS tribunal users and whether a video is the most effective way of reaching our target audience.

We want to ensure that we provide users with the latest, most accurate and useful information. We also need to ensure that the information reflects all the current DWP procedures, including changes they have recently introduced to their decision making processes.

Unfortunately, due to an error the old version went back on the website, it has now been removed.  There were 1034 hits before removal.

 Please supply any correspondence / emails relating to its removal especially with DWP

 

Please see the attached correspondence (Annex A-F) including a submission from the Director of Communications and Information. A letter from Jonathan Djanogly MP to Chris Grayling MP regarding removal of the video and also a series of email chains relating to the removal of the video.

You will see that some information from the annexes have been redacted. In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have also considered whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information, despite the exemption being applicable.

Section 35 of the act exempts information if it relates to the formulation or development of government policy. Before relaying on the exemption at section 35 (1) (a) FOIA we must be satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The factors we took into account in reaching our decision are set out below.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

We recognise that there is a general public interest in the disclosure of details relating to the removal of the video as it would improve public awareness of the reasons for why the video was taken down.  There is also a more general public interest in favour of disclosure so that the public can understand how the department is developing its policies: the disclosure of information would bring greater transparency and make government more accountable.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

Although we recognise that there is a clear public interest in the disclosure of information relating to the formulation and development of government policy we need to balance against this the need for officials to have the private space necessary for such formulation or development before the outcome is exposed to public scrutiny. The absence of this private thinking space risks the policy development process because officials might refrain from issuing free and frank advice to ministers or properly probing and challenging policy ideas.

It is important that MoJ officials are able to present candid advice that deal with the policy decisions they may have to take without fear of premature disclosure and, can discuss policies and decisions frankly with ministers and other government departments. If the quality of guidance or the discussion of issues they deal with is hampered, this will in turn damage the Governments ability to take decisions.

It is relevant to our consideration of this balancing exercise that most of the information within the scope of your request has been disclosed. There is however ongoing discussion about the development of a revised version of the video.  We have exempted information from disclosure only where it relates to the development or formulation of this policy and where release would detriment this process.

In addition please note that we have removed the names and contact details contained within the information being disclosed. We are not obliged, under section 40(2) of the Act, to provide information that is  personal information for junior officials if releasing would contravene any of the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) for example, if disclosure is unfair.

 5 how many hits did it have before being removed?

There were 1034 hits.

 6 It briefly reappeared in Late June 2012 how many hits did it have prior to again being removed?

The video received 9,851 views.

7 Who instructed that it was removed?

The video was removed on the instructions of the HMCTS Communications team.  The video had been taken down for HMCTS to review whether the content remained accurate and useful for tribunal users. Unfortunately, due to an error the old version was put back on the website in early June.  It was removed again once the HMCTS Communications team became aware on 28 June.

8 Supply any emails or other instructions in any format instructing its removal

The instruction to remove the video was made over the telephone to the MoJ Web team and there are therefore no emails or other instructions confirming the video’s removal.

9 The “new” version is now up whats the difference in running times of V1 & V2?

There is no difference between the two videos. The video was taken down for HMCTS to review whether the content remained accurate and useful for tribunal users. Unfortunately, due to an error the video went back on the website and was removed again on 28 June.

10 How much did the amendments cost?

We expect that the cost will be in the region of £1,000.

You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents) and further guidance http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/freedom-of-information.htm.

You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.

Disclosure Log

You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-requests/latest-moj-disclosure-log

​The published information is categorised by subject area and in alphabetical order.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Rose  
How to Appeal

 

Internal Review

If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to an internal review. The handling of your request will be looked at by someone who was not responsible for the original case, and they will make a decision as to whether we answered your request correctly.

If you would like to request a review, please write or send an email to the Data Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the data of this letter, at the

following address:

Data Access and Compliance Unit (10.34),

Information & Communications Directorate,

Ministry of Justice,

102 Petty France,

London

SW1H 9AJ

E-mail: data.access@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Information Commissioner’s Office

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Commissioner is an independent regulator who has the power to direct us to respond to your request differently, if he considers that we have handled it incorrectly.

You can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner’s Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Internet address: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

Appendix A

4 Ministry of

JUSTICE Submission

To: Jonathan Djanogly Date: 29 June 2012

cc:

• Further ccs at end of document

From: Pam Teare, Director of Communication & Information

Jason Latham, Deputy Director, Tribunals, HMCTS

Tel:

Subject: SSCS Tribunal Video

Annex A —

Proposed letter to the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP

Issue

1 To provide you with advice on handling following the accidental reposting of the SSCS Tribunal video on YouTube which DWP have raised concerns with.

Recommendation

2. That you agree to send the letter attached at Annex A to the Rt Hon Chris

Grayling MP at DWP apologising for the error and setting out the remedial action being undertaken by the Department.

Timing

3. Urgent.

Background

4. You wrote to Chris Grayling in April 2012 responding to concerns raised by his officials regarding the content of an information film produced for appellants appearing before the Social Security & Child Support Tribunal (SSCS). Your correspondence outlined a number of changes that you agreed to make to the video in response to these concerns

c rnc1:.q these cranges. HMCTS ufas 1Skii MOJ Oornmunauons

Dirertorate to remove the vdeo content from tr’ Ministry o Justice YouTb taken down. A Freedom of Information request was received on 25 April asking for copies of any emails or letters sent or received concerning making private the Ministry of Justice video about Employment and Support Allowance appeals on YouTube and the email from Chris Graylings Private Office expressing DWPs concerns about the video was released in response.

15. Since the video was first removed it has generated some chatter on social media networks criticising the removal of the video and Chris Grayling’s involvement in this. This has resumed since the reposting and subsequent removal.

16. It is possible that the video was downloaded by users when initially posted,though there has been no evidence of any reposting by third parties until the second removal on 28 June 2012. We are putting press handling lines in place and these will be agreed with DWP.

PAM TEARE

JASON LATHAM

cc:

Antonia Romeo

Peter Handcock

Kevin Sadler

Angela Van Der Lem

Mark Sweeney

Presentation and Media Handling

Scot Marchbank

APPENDIX B

• Jonathan DjanoglyMP

i nis Lry 0 i Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for Justice

j LJST ICE 102 Petty France

SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3555

F 020 3334 3669

E generalqueries@justice.gsigov.uk

The At Hon Chris Grayling MP http://www.justice.gov.uk

Department for Work and Pensions

Caxton House

Toth ill Street

London

SW1H 9DA

June 2012

SSCS TRIBUNALS INFORMATION VIDEO

I am writing to you regarding the unfortunate reposting of the SSCS Tribunals information video on the Ministry of Justice YouTube channel. Following our discussion in March I had asked my officials to make the agreed changes to the video, and to agree these changes with your officials before making the video public.

Unfortunately, for reasons of human error, the video was inadvertently reposted around 12 June 2012 by Ministry of Justice officials during a routine review of content on the Ministry of Justice YouTube channel.

This error was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice Communications team on the afternoon of 28 June 2012, and the video was immediately removed and deleted.

Officials have contacted YouTube to ask them to remove any reposted copies of the video and are monitoring dil digital channels to ident!fy any further third party reposting.

To avoid repetition of this incident I have asked Ministry of Justice Communications officials to introduce a further safeguard when re-posting video content. This requires the Justice.gov.uk content team to seek further sign-off from the original approver, in this case HM Courts & Tribunals Service, in addition to their existing approval processes.

I’d like to apologise for any concern this may have caused and to provide assurance that the new information video will not be hosted on the Ministry of Justice YouTube channel without discussion with your officials.

JONATHAN OJANOGLY

APPENDIX C

The reactions are as I received this, its copies of emails

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 16:3 1

To:

Subject: RE: Can ou give me a call as soon as you can?

Can you make sure sends a copy of what happened to and ? Thanks. I

————————————————————————————

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:55

To:

Subject: FW: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

FYI. lye just spoken to and it is something to do with updating the Youtube channel to move the Tribs videos onto the main channel. Apparently that somehow unhid the video,XXXXX  is going to send through details of how it has happened. It would be useful to have any feedback from your conversation with

thanks

—————————————————————–

From: redacted

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:48

To: Redacted

______

Cc: I Sadler, Kevin; Latham, Jason

Subject: FW: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

Kevin – Can we discuss asap – we might need to alert JDs office

XXXX  is looking at this urgently as we certainly didnt ask for it to be put it back up. Will get back to you asap.

—————————————————————————————-

From: redacted

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:36

To: Redacted

Subject: FW: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

From: Redacted

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:31

To:

Subject: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

DWP are in a bit of atiz re this: http:!/diaryofabeneftscrounger.bloqspot.co.uk/2012!O6/hepralin-rnadhtml

Apparently there’s a history… Thanks.

——————————————————————————

APPENDIX D

Again Blanks are redacted areas ie all vital names etc are redacted

From: Van Der Lern. Angela

Sent: 29 June 2012 16:25

sad11cr. Kevin: Teare. Pam: Sveenev. Mark (Private Office):

Latharn, Jason

Subject: RE: Submission: SSCS Tribunals video

As requested. here s a note of the contact between MOJ and DWP officials and views ot Chris Grayling. as we in policy understand it (Kevin Pam – pis jump in if anything to add).

• DWP policy officials contacted MOJ policy yesterday and explained that the video had appeared on the MOJ website again. They said that it had come to the attention of DWP press office through blog sites reposting links to the video under the banner ‘heip make chris grayling mad – spread the video he didn t want you to see (example:Nt:’,blacktrianlecarnain.or201206,27hel-make-chris-ralin-mad-hel-

They explained that Chris Grayling was not pleased and asked what was happening with the revised version of the video.

• MQJ policy (my team) then rang HMCTS who liaised with Comms, and the video was removed very quickly (within 30 minutes). The video had been up for 16 days by the time it was taken down.

• My team rang DWP to say the video was down, and they said they were

the Departments quick response. I

• We rang DWP policy this morning to let them know that the video had reappeared on youtube under a different user name, and explained our options: that we can request videos be taken down off youtube as breaches of copyright, but that it is much more difficult on the wider web. Additionally. we explained that seeking to get the video off individual websites may draw attention to the matter and inflame the issue. DWP asked us to attempt to remove the youtube videos, but agreed that attempting to stop the video spreading more widely on the web was problematic. My team communicated this to HMCTS and Comrns.

• The urgent sub that was requested this morning from Comms and HMCTS went up to you.

• My team rang DWP this afternoon, to double check that Chris Grayhng did in fact know about the matter, which they confirmed. We let them know that a letter explaining the situation would be sent shortly.

We are unaware whether contact took place between DWP MO,J/HMCTS press offices.

Hope this 3 what you needed. but p!ease let us know if not.

thanks, Angela

Angela san der Lem

Deputs Director for Admin Justice. Court and 1 rihunal Fees and Qoroner% Plic

Ministry of Justice

I‘ulfor

——————————————————————–

From:

Sent: 29 June 2012 15:16

To: Van Der Lem, Angela

Subject: RE: Submission: SSCS Tribunals video

Angela — given the sub doesnt really address what contact there has been between MOJ officials and DWP. and the views of CG, it would be useful to have a short note on this (email is fine) by the end of today so we can address this in the meeting on Monday.

Thank you

=============================================

From:

Sent: 29 June 2012 15:14

To: Van Der Lem, Angela; Teare, Pam; Sadler, Kevin

Cc: Sweeney, Mark (Private Office);

Subject: RE: Submission: SSCS Tribunals video

Thafs fine Angela, thanks for letting me know.

From: Van Der Lem, Angela

Sent: 29 June 2012 15:12

To: ; Teare, Pam; Sadler, Kevin

Cc: Sweeney, Mark (Private Office);

Subject: RE: Submission: SSCS Tribunals video

Unfortunately I am on leave on Monday – just spoke to XXXX about this. If it is essential that I am there can you please come back to me before the end of the day?

thanks.

Angela

Angela van der Lem

Deputy Director for Admin Justice. Court and Tribunal Fees and Coroners Policy

Ministry of Justice

————————————————————————–

From:

Sent: 29 June 2012 15:08

To: Teare, Pam; Van Der Lem, Angela; Sadler1Kevin

Cc: Sweeney, Mark (Private Office);

Subject: RE: Submission: SSCS Tribunals video

Pam, Kevin. Angela

Thank you for the submission below which the Minister will consider over the weekend. id be grateful f you could attend a meeting with the Minister at lO am on Monday morning at 9.21a.

— please let me know if you will also attend.

Happy to discuss

Many thanks

———————————————————-

From: Oldham, Roger

Sent: 29 June 2012 12:56

To: Submissions, CPG

Cc: Romeo, Antonia; Handcock, Peter; Teare, F

– -.

Subject: Submission: SSCS Tribunals video

Please find attached a submission for Jonathan Djanogiy from Pam Teare and Jason Latham.

APPENDIX E

Missed data is where there are reactions the black lines don’t show on copies

From:

Sent: 06 July 2012 13:41

To:

Subject: FW: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

——————————————————–

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 15:00

To:

Subject: RE: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Thanks I’ve spoken to and let her know it was a mistake on the comms end, and that we are very sorry for the mistake.

I’ve also let her know that the new script is being hammered out, and that you’ll be in touch to share it with them once its been agreed. think they’re Ok about it (though CG is apparently very unimpressed). and appreciated the quick reaction.

Have let know in case there is any communication between private offices. She did make sensible suggestion that it might be more sensible to delete the video so this can’t happen again in the future.

Thanks,

—————————————————

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:55

To:

Subject: FW: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

FYI. I’ve just spoken to and it is something to do with updating the Youtube channel to move the Tribs videos onto the main channel. Apparently that somehow unhid the video, is going to send through details of how it has happened. It would be useful to have any feedback from your conversation with

thanks

————————————————————————

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:48

To: I

Cc:

, Kevin; Latham, Jason

APPENDIX F

lI: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

Kevin Can we discuss asap we might need to alert JDs office.

– is looking at this urgently as we certainly didn’t ask for it to be put it back

up. Will get back to you asap.

————————————————————-

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:36

To:

Subject: FW: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

——————————————–

From:

Sent: 28 June 2012 14:31

To:

Subject: Can you give me a call as soon as you can?

Importance: High

DWP are in a bit of a tiz re this:mad htm( (diary of a benefit scrounger blog is refereed to here) on original response

Apparently there’s a history.,. Thanks,

There are LOADS of gaps in the above data all of which is from the MOJ as a result of my FOI requests , I will make the originals available to anyone who asks for them and supplies an Email address.

Its clear that Sue Marsh (@suey) and her blog Diary of a benefit scrounger rattled them seriously enough to cause a flurry of Emails so yet again well done SUE

@blindmike47

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s