17 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bristol City Council (‘the council’), information relating to its new Trans Inclusion and Gender Identity Policy. The council disclosed some information, however, it said that some feedback was not held, and it withheld other feedback on the basis that section 40(2) of FOIA applied (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the feedback. He has also decided that, on a balance of probabilities, it was correct to state that other information was not held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 40(2)
View Bristol City Council
16 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about passenger volumes and staffing levels at Heathrow Airport on a given date. The Home Office ultimately refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has properly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA. It also met its advice and assistance obligations under section 16 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: Border control
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
16 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
16 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Lockerbie bombing.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA to the aggregated requests, and he is satisfied that the Cabinet Office met its obligations under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance.No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Cabinet Office
16 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury (“HMT”) regarding the cost to the taxpayer from the 10 year deal with Moderna. HMT withheld the information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not requires any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View HM Treasury
16 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) relating to creation and disclosure of reports by the engineering section of the Rivers Agency.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the DfI does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the DfI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
16 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to the Department for International Trade (DIT) (now, Department for Business and Trade, DBT) seeking correspondence between Ben Houchen, (Tees Valley Mayor) and Lord Grimstone and details of meeting between them for the period March 2020 to November 2021. DIT confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request and disclosed some of this to the complainant but withheld the remainder on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 29(1)(a) (economy), 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) (effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 29(1)(a); FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
16 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of requests 1 and 3, the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance in respect of requests 1 and 3, and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance in respect of requests 1 and 3 to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Sheffield City Council
16 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding an assurance of financial support given to the National League by the government. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport wrongly relied on sections 35 and 43 to withhold requested information from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
16 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department of Business and Trade (‘the DBT’), information relating to an approved arms licence. The DBT refused the request on the basis that the exemptions in sections 41, 40(2), 43 and 36(2)(b)(i)&(ii) of FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DBT was correct to apply the exemptions in section 41(1) and 36(2)(b)(i)&(ii), and the public interest rests in the information being withheld. The Commissioner does not require the DBT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 42(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about settlement fails related to particular US entities. The Bank of England (“the Bank”) refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information, citing section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Bank was entitled to rely on section 44(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the Bank to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0257 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Bank of England
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on recent deaths in the locality. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary (‘HIOWC’) refused the request, citing sections 30 (Investigations and proceedings) and 38 (Health and safety) of FOIA. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that HIOWC was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse the request. 3. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a consultation regarding the use of imperial and metric units of measurement. The former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) responded confirming that it held information in the scope of the request but this was withheld in reliance of FOIA section 35(1)(a) – formulation and development of government policy and section 35(1)(b) – Ministerial communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Business and Trade
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the company Mark Gurrey Consulting Ltd. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data about Counter Terrorism (“CT”) arrests from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (the “NPCC”). The NPCC advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit at section 12 (Cost of compliance would exceed appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 is not engaged. The NPCC is required to disclose data that had previously been agreed in respect of an earlier request that was made to the Metropolitan Police Service. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0292 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View National Police Chiefs Council
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) relating to a specific planning application.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the combined sewer system/road drainage hydraulic modelling for a specific location. Northern Ireland Water (NI Water) withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety) of the EIR. In its internal review NI Water also sought to rely on regulation 13 (personal data) and regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information). During the Commissioner’s investigation NI Water also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NI Water has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Northern Ireland Tourist Board
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
15 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DHSC to disclose copies of internal assessments/reviews on the Covid pandemic. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that while section 35(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged, the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. He therefore requires DHSC to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department of Health and Social Care
15 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the North Sea Transition Authority (‘NSTA’) information relating to the potential environmental impact of Shell's Brent decommissioning project in the North Sea. The NSTA stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NSTA does hold the requested information in accordance with regulation 3(2)(a) of the EIR. In addition, in failing to respond to the internal review within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that NSTA breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant, and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of regulation 14 of the EIR specifying the exception relied on to withhold the information. The response should not rely on a claim that NSTA does
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 3(2)
View Oil and Gas Authority
12 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a Care Quality Commission inspection. Haringey London Borough Council (‘the Council’) withheld the information under sections 36 and 40 of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 40(2) to the requested information. It is not necessary for the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Haringey Council
12 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
12 May 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested unredacted copies of two traffic management orders. The above public authority provided copies of the orders with the signatures redacted. It relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the signatures. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority should have dealt with the request under the EIR. However, having done so, it would have been entitled to rely on Regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0418 appeal dismissed.Keywords: enactment, article 6(1)(c)
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14
View Transport for London
12 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made two requests for information held by Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (the council) relating to its contract with a ground maintenance business. The council initially refused the requests under section 14(1) - vexatious requests, of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council confirmed that it was also relying on section 12(1) – cost limit, of FOIA, as its basis for refusing the complainant’s requests. Whilst the Commissioner finds that it is the EIR that is the correct information access regime, he has decided that the council is entitled to refuse both requests under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
12 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to freedom of thought. The EHRC refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC was entitled to refuse the request under section 12 and there has been no breach of section 16 (advice and assistance). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
12 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about access audits in respect of the York Guildhall restoration project. City of York Council (the Council) initially withheld the information requested under sections 22 (information intended for future publication) and 42 (legal professional privilege). During its internal review the Council withdrew reliance on section 22 and disclosed the information withheld but maintained that the legal advice relating to the matter was exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 42 to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View York City Council
12 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the UK Health Security Agency (“UKHSA”) in relation to overseas territories being included in the vaccine damage act and vaccine damage compensation scheme, specifically for the arrangements coordinated with Gibraltar. The UKHSA withheld the information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View UK Health Security Agency
11 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the different statuses of employees. The Commissioner’s decision is that Forestry Commissioner England (the FC) was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information, as disclosure would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Forestry Commission
11 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Queen’s University Belfast (the University) regarding the employment process of a new Customer Experience Manager. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 40(2) when refusing this request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Queen's University Belfast
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Harrogate Borough Council (the Council) relating to enforcement action taken by the Council and correspondences regarding said enforcement action. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing to comply with this request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has complied with regulation 9. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the responses to an internal staff survey undertaken by the Colchester Royal Grammar School. The School disclosed some information, but withheld the raw data and free text comments under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School is entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View CLITHEROE ROYAL GRAMMAR SCHOOL
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DHSC to disclose all correspondence between itself and Steve Brine MP relating to a particular FOIA request and all FOIA handling correspondence in relation to that request. DHSC refused the request, initially section 36(2)(b) and then section 12 of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation DHSC claimed a late reliance on section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 14 of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information from the Cheshire West and Chester Council (the Council) relating to a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(3), regulation 13 and regulation 12(5)(f) when refusing the request. The Council, on the balance of probabilities does not hold any additional information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
10 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on WhatsApp communications between the Prime Minister at the time, Boris Johnson, and particular individuals. The Cabinet Office eventually relied on FOIA section 12(1) to withhold the requested information, on the basis that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse the request in reliance of section 12(1). The Commissioner also finds a breach of section 17(5) in the late reliance on section 12 and a breach of section 16 by failing to engage sufficiently with the complainant to provide meaningful advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the requester to enable them to refine their request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
10 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked about the environmental standards of the Mayor’s cars. The above public authority relied on sections 38 (health and safety) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority should have dealt with the request under the EIR although part b) is not a valid request for recorded information. He is not satisfied that the public authority is entitled to rely on either regulation 12(6) – national security – or regulation 13 – personal data – of the EIR to refuse to confirm or deny that the information is held. The public authority also breached regulation 14 of the EIR by failing to rely on an EIR exception within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of elements a) and c) of the request. If and to the extent tha
Exemptions cited: EIR 12; EIR 13; EIR 14
View Greater London Authority
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the General Medical Council (GMC) to disclose the legal advice that it received on the matter of definition(s) to be used by the GMC in response to allegations of antisemitism by UK registered doctors. The GMC refused to disclose the information, citing section 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with section 42 of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0289 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View GMC
10 May 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the felling of trees in 2018 from Sheffield City Council (“the council”). The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR applies (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request, and that the public interest rests in the exception being maintained. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that it did not respond to the request for review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Sheffield City Council
10 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a specific employee. Liverpool City Council (the “council”) refused the request under the exemption for personal data – section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not respond to the request in time and breached section 10(1) but that it is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information as it is the personal data of a third party and disclosure would be unlawful. The council is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Liverpool City Council
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information. The above public authority provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has provided all the information that it holds in recorded form and has therefore complied with its obligation under section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about liability for Business Improvement District (BID) levies. East Lindsey District Council (the “council”) refused the request under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information under section 42(1) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View East Lindsey District Council
10 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose the ‘internal ways-of-working review’ mentioned by Lord Bethell in Parliament. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that while section 35(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged, the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 May 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information comprising a report colloquially entitled “the Arqiva Report”. The request was made to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that DESNZ is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) - confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, to withhold the requested information with the public interest favouring maintaining the exception. However, he finds that the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion is not engaged. In regard to regulation 12(3) – third party personal data, the Commissioner accepts DESNZ’s finding that the senior individuals whose names appear in the withheld information would not have an expectation of privacy. He therefore finds that the names should be disclosed. He finds that the email addresses of the same individuals are exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the following steps to ensur
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
9 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) for information relating to the Seasonal Worker scheme.The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA, with reliance on section 40(3)(a), to withhold information in relation to question three, but that it was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) nor section 41(1) to withhold the information in relation to question one. He also considers that on the balance of probabilities, Defra does not hold any information in relation to questions two, seven and eight and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. However, in relation to question six, the Commissioner’s decision is that Defra did not carry out sufficient searches to confirm, on the balance of probabilities, whether the information is held.The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• To carry out further searches and to respo
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
9 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary (“Gloucestershire Constabulary”).The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Gloucestershire Police has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of part 5 of the request.However, he finds that Gloucestershire Constabulary breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require Gloucestershire Constabulary to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Gloucestershire Constabulary