Counter Extremism Unit2 Marsham StreetFry BuildingChristopher MarshallFifth FloorLondonSW1P 4DF15 May 2019Dear Mr Marshall,Thank you for your email of 02 March 2019 in which you ask for information relating to theamount of money awarded, or given, to the Tyne & Wear Anti-Fascist Association(TWAFA) by the Home Office. A copy of this email is at Annex A. Your request has beenhandled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).I can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you requested.I can confirm that TWAFA was awarded a value of £5,858.00 following their successfulapplication to the Building a Stronger Britain Together (BSBT) grant funding round. Thisapplication was made in February 2017and awarded by the BSBT team, which sits withinthe Counter Extremism Unit in the Home Office. To date TWAFA have received £3,643.50of this fund. In addition, TWAFA were awarded in-kind communications support throughthe BSBT programme in July 2017.You have asked for a breakdown of these awarded funds and for what purposes the fundwas for. I can confirm that we hold this information through our delivery partner UKCommunity Foundations who manage the monitoring of grant funding on our behalf. Thismonitoring will include agreeing the breakdown of the awarded funding directly with thegroup. However, after careful consideration we have decided that this information isexempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of theFOIA. This provides that information can be withheld where disclosure would or would belikely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (an individual, a company, thepublic authority itself or any other legal entity) and the public interest falls in favour ofmaintaining the exemption.In relation to TWAFA’s in-kind communications support, I can confirm the Home Officeholds the information you requested. However, after careful consideration we havedecided that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (prejudice tocommercial interests) of the FOIA. This provides that information can be withheld wheredisclosure would or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person(an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity) and the publicinterest falls in favour of maintaining the exemption.Arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest, with the reasons forour conclusion, are set out in the enclosed Annex B.You have asked for contact information for the Home Office’s contact in TWAFA. TheHome Office has obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and in lawgenerally to protect personal data. We have concluded that the information you haverequested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA, because of thecondition at section 40(3)(a). This exempts personal data if disclosure would contraveneany of the data protection principles in Schedule 1 to the DPA. Section 40(2) is anabsolute exemption, which does not require a public interest testYou have asked for communication between the Home Office and TWAFA. I can confirmthat we have communicated with TWAFA regarding their success in securing BSBTfunding. TWAFA also remain on the BSBT network mailing list, which includes allorganisations that have received support from the BSBT programme, and as such receivemonthly newsletters and event invitations. The Home Office has also had face to face andother verbal communications with TWAFA during visits and events. Our delivery partnerUK Community Foundations have also provided written correspondence to TWAFAdirectly in relation to their grant, but we consider these to be outside of the scope of yourrequest.You have asked for any training delivered by the Home Office to TWAFA. I can confirmthat we cannot find any information of training delivered directly by the Home Office.TWAFA did, however, receive training from BSBT’s delivery partner M&C Saatchi. Thisincluded crisis communication, social media, PR and maximising online audience trainingsessions.If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal reviewof our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx, quoting reference. If you ask for an internal review,it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request wouldbe reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If youwere to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint tothe Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.Yours sincerelyAnnex ADear Home Office,Please provide me with records of all money which has been awarded or given in any formto the Tyne & Wear Anti Fascist Association (TWAFA). This organisation may also befound under pseudonym Tyne & Wear Anti Fascist Coalition (TWAFC).Please provide these records in the following form:A) A total, all-time figure of how much money has been provided to the organisation; andB) An annual breakdown of this all-time figure, detailing:- the nature of the money provided, i.e. grant, loan .etc, and for which purposes the moneywas provided by the Home Office; and- the annual sum of money provided in relation to the nature above; and- the department or individual responsible inside the Home Office for signing off thismoney; and- the point of contact in the Tyne & Wear Anti Fascist Association for both communicatingand receiving this money;Second, please also provide me the following information:A) Any communication received by the Home Office or affiliates from this organisation;B) Any communication sent to this organisation by the Home Office or affiliates;C) Any training delivered by or to this organisation to/by the Home Office, Police, Anyofficers or any affiliates, etc;Yours faithfully,Christopher MarshallAnnex BB) An annual breakdown of this all-time figure, detailing:- the nature of the money provided, i.e. grant, loan .etc, and for which purposes the moneywas provided by the Home Office; and- the annual sum of money provided in relation to the nature aboveI can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested asabove.However, after careful consideration we have decided that this information is exempt fromdisclosure under section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the FOIA. Thisprovides that information can be withheld where disclosure would or would be likely to,prejudice the commercial interests of any person (an individual, a company, the publicauthority itself or any other legal entity) and the public interest falls in favour of maintainingthe exemption.In relation to grant funding, UK Community Foundations monitor and administer grantfunding on behalf of the Home Office, to ensure an element of independence. The HomeOffice does not release information in relation to specific projects delivered by BSBTfunded groups where releasing this information may be commercially prejudicial to themas a third party supplier.In relation to in-kind support M&C Saatchi won the original tender for delivery of the BSBTprogramme through an open and competitive process. The contract position has also beenbenchmarked earlier this year and was considered to be in line with market rates.Providing a breakdown of costs would release commercially sensitive information as itdetails the supplier’s costs. This could represent disclosure of details of a contract with asuccessful company and performance information about a contractor. The release of thisinformation could potentially unsettle the market and cause other suppliers to change theirbehaviour.Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified’ exemptions, are subject toa public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosureagainst the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations forand against the requirement to say whether the information requested is held or not. Wemust carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions inresponse to a request for information.The ‘public interest’ is not necessarily the same as what interests the public. In carryingout a PIT we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if theinformation is released or not. Transparency and the ‘right to know’ must be balancedagainst the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of thepublic.The FOIA is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about themotives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we areexpressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone.Disclosing information relating to the cost to the tax-payer of delivering the government’sagenda can serve to increase transparency of government decision making and providegreater accountability. There is a general requirement for openness and transparency ingovernment where possible. The Home Office recognises that openness in governmentincreases public trust and engagement.It is important to take into account the potential commercial prejudice to TWAFA as adelivery partner of the Home Office, where disclosure of information could be commerciallyprejudicial to them. Disclosure of both the value of TWAFA’s project and detail of deliveryweaken the third party's position in a competitive environment as it would releasecommercially sensitive information with details in relation to the supplier’s costs.M&C Saatchi were awarded the contact for delivery of the BSBT programme following acompetitive process. The contract has been benchmarked against similar suppliers andfound to be in line with market rates. There is a need to protect the commercial interests ofour suppliers and not compromise their ability to remain competitive within themarketplace. Providing a breakdown of cost for a specific in-kind support project wouldrelease commercially sensitive information as it details the supplier’s costs. This couldrepresent disclosure of details of a contract with a successful company and performanceinformation about a contractor. The release of this information could potentially unsettlethe market and cause other suppliers to change their behaviour.We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption andwithholding the information.