This is a duplicate of the request http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mi... which was rather curiously withdrawn by its requester. Therefore I have filed the request again in my name.

A couple of points about their response, as it is not a proper refusal notice under Section 17 of the FOI Act due to the following:

- no details about their complaints / internal review process is given, nor details given of the Information Commissioner [1]

- they have incorrectly combined Section 12 (excessive costs) with other exemptions under the Act. They have not given any basis for why it would cost over £450 to produce the requested information. [2]

- they have claimed Section 43 exemption for the information requested (Commercial Interests), without a prejudice test, nor a qualified test of whether the public interest in witholding information outweighs that of releasing it [3]. In addition, if a 3rd party would be prejudiced by the release of the information, they should be consulted [4].

- they have claimed Section 41 exemption for the information requested (Information provided in confidence). The MoJ states that "This exemption only applies if a breach of confidence would be ‘actionable’. A breach of confidence will only be ‘actionable’ if a person could bring a legal action and be successful. The courts have recognised that a person will not succeed in an action for breach of confidence if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in keeping the confidence. So although the Act requires no explicit public interest test, an assessment of the public interest must be still be made." [5]

In addition, the Information Commissioner has also issued guidance on publishing minutes and agendas [6]: "As a general rule, you should publish ... minutes of senior-level policy and strategy meetings, eg board meetings". These should be redacted if necessary if any exemptions to the FOIA are required. The costs of redaction are not allowed to be included in the "excessive limits" calculation [7]

In conclusion, a request for an Internal Review is strongly recommended.

__References__

[1] Page 4 "Internal review and complaints procedure" <<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>

[2] "[the pubic authority] should, bearing in mind the duty under section 16 of the FOIA to advise and assist an applicant, provide information on how the estimate has been arrived" Page 3 <<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>

[3] See [1 page 3] "Where an exemption is prejudice based the authority must also explain the likely harm that would arise from disclosure".

The public interest test is also referenced in [1 page 3], as well as in Awareness Guidance 3 "Public Interest Test" <<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>

[4] FOIA Section 45 Secretary of State's Code of Practice Part IV <<http://www.foi.gov.uk/reference/imprep/c...>>

[5] <<http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/foi-exemp...>>

[6] <<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>

[7] Page 3 <<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>

"Once the documentation containing the information has been located and retrieved, a public authority cannot take into account the time taken, or likely to be taken, to consider whether any of the requested information is exempt. Nor can it take into account the time taken, or likely to be taken, to remove the exempt information in order to leave the information that is to be disclosed in response to the request"