It’s taken over 4 months to respond to a simple request for an internal review. The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued guidance stating that they consider 20 working days from the date of the request for review to be acceptable, and in no case should the total time taken exceed 40 working days.
And guess what? The government say it is in the public interest for you not to know the contents of the ministerial wine cellar!
2 comments ↓
Why worry about the small stuff?
What about the government pension liabilities?
e.g 1,300,000,000,000 (1.3 trillion) owed to civil servants?
Just how can the rest of us pay that bill?
Tom – You’ve probably not seen this recent ICO Decision Notice – the GHACPW have 1 week left to appeal against the requirement for them to publish much of their stock list (prices of wine excepted)
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50277632.ashx (PDF)
“Case Ref: FS50277632
Date: 18/10/2010
Public Authority: Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine (GHACPW) about the wines held in the Government Hospitality cellar, including the names of the wines held, suppliers, prices and comments regarding the wines themselves. The GHACPW provided the complainant with an ‘illustrative list’ of the types of wine it held but refused to provide the remaining information requested on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner accepts that disclosure of the prices at which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) bought particular wines, and from which suppliers, would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of both the suppliers and the FCO and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that section 43(2) does not provide a basis to withhold the names of the FCO’s suppliers and furthermore does not provide a basis to withhold the names of the wines held, unallied to the names of who supplied them, but allied to the comments about each particular wine. The GHACPW must therefore provide the complainant with this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld , FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld , FOI 43 – Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50277632″
Leave a Comment