Track this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Request sent to House of Commons by John Cross on 10 February 2009.
All information sent by House of Commons to Mark on 14 August 2009.
Information not held by House of Lords to Francis Irving on 5 March 2009.
Online petitions documents from PICT
A Freedom of Information request to House of Commons by Francis Irving
Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, House of Commons should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.
Francis Irving
21 July 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to make a freedom of information request for
electronic copies of any documents produced by PICT discussing or
evaluating the possible deployment of electronic petitioning
systems in Parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Irving
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
21 July 2008
Dear Mr Irving,
Thank you for your email dated and received 21 July 2008.
We shall deal with your request promptly and let you have a response no
later than 18 August 2008.
If you have any queries about your request, please contact me.
Mandy Kelly
Freedom of Information Assistant
020 7219 8805
show quoted sections
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
14 August 2008
Dear Mr Irving
I have a response and information send to you in relation to your
request. However, it is not appropriate for this to be automatically
republished on your website.
The information to be sent to you is subject to Parliamentary copyright
which restricts the reproduction of Parliamentary material - this would
mean that the material could not posted to the whatdotheyknow web pages
without breaching copyright.
Therefore, I should be grateful if you could send me an alternative
email address for correspondence that does not automatically republish
responses and attachments onto the internet.
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
_________________________________________________
Bob Castle
House of Commons Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
show quoted sections
Francis Irving
14 August 2008
Dear CASTLE, Bob,
Section 11(4) FOIA is subject to section 11(1). I am expressing a
preference for you to respond to the request by replying to this
email. Under section 11(1) you must give effect to my preference if
it is "reasonably practicable" to do so.
Under section 11(2) you may give regard to all the circumstances,
including cost, in deciding whether it is reasonably practicable.
Practicable means "capable of being done or accomplished with
available means or resources". It certainly seems that replying to
an email is not an unreasonable cost, and something which you have
the means and resources to do.
However, it seems that you feel this is not the case. Can you do
one of the following:
a) Respond to my request by replying to this email with the
information that I requested.
b) Under section 11(3), notify me as to your reasons for
determining that it is not "reasonably practicable" for you to
comply with my preference for the form of your response. When
giving these reasons, note that the meaning of practicable is
"capable of being done".
c) Reject my request under another section of the Act. If so please
state which section, and your reasons for rejecting my request.
Please do not mention copyright law in your reply, as it is
irrelevant. There is no section of the FOI Act which allows
rejection of a request because of suspected future breach of
copyright law.
You may, of course, wait for WhatDoTheyKnow to publish the
response, and then either complain to them about copyright
violation, or serve them with a take down notice.
But that is a separate matter - I'm currently writing to you as a
private individual, requesting you respond to an FOI request by
email. Only FOI law applies, not copyright law.
I would be grateful if you could do so.
Yours sincerely,
Francis
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
14 August 2008
Dear Mr Irving
As is clear from my previous email to you, a response to your request is
ready and information will be sent to an address that does not
automatically republish information on your web site.
Section 11 (1) refers to preferences given to the communication of the
information requested in one of three forms - electronic, inspection or
in a digest or summary. Your request of 21 July expresses your section
11 preference by asking for electronic copies of recorded information
and the House will meet that preference. We do not believe that the
section extends to an obligation in terms of the address to which those
communications should be sent.
In any event, even if that preference did apply it would not be
reasonable to comply because the information to be sent to you is
subject to Parliamentary copyright, which restricts the reproduction of
Parliamentary material.
FOI does not override copyright law. For more information FOI and
copyright please refer to "The ICO charter for responsible FOI requests"
which states:
"Disclosure of information under the Act or the Regulations will not
remove the copyright in it. Any information released may be subject to
copyright restrictions that you will have to abide by. If you have any
doubts about copyright, consult with the public authority about the
status of information. In some cases copyright may be waived or
information can be licensed for reuse."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
actical_application/its_public_information_foi%20charter_final.pdf
For more information about Parliamentary copyright and licenses for
re-use please refer to:
http://www.parliament.uk/site_informatio...
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
Francis Irving
14 August 2008
Dear Bob,
I completely understand your objection, and why you are requesting
that I give you an alternative email address.
However, it would be dishonest and pointless for me to do so. This
is because I will publish your response on the Internet anyway,
whatever email address you send it to me via. I have been doing
this since long before the existence of WhatDoTheyKnow (see for
example http://www.flourish.org/foi/2005-09-20-p... and
http://www.flourish.org/foi/2005-08-05-p...).
My legal advice is that knowing that someone will later break
Parliamentary copyright is not a ground under which you can refuse
an FOI request. Section 17 (1)(b) says that you must "specify the
exemption in question".
Please state clearly which section under Part II of the Act (if
any) you are purporting to refuse my request.
Unless you reply with the information that I requested to this
email address, I will be forced to go to the Information
Commissioner. This is a real pain, and your life would be much
easier if you just waived copyright and sent the information.
Not only do I believe your rejection to be illegal under FOI law, I
also believe it to be bad public service. It is our Parliament, and
it is here to serve us, including you.
It will not play out particularly well in the media if you decide
to unnecessarily fight this one, when Parliament is perfectly free
not to enforce its copyright on any of its documents.
Yours sincerely,
Francis Irving
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
19 August 2008
Dear Mr Irving
As already explained, the House is not refusing your request under s.17
FOIA. Under s.11(4) of the Act, the House may comply with a request by
any means which are reasonable in the circumstances. You have requested
the information in electronic form, which you are entitled to do under
s.11(1) FOIA. A response, with information to be disclosed, is ready and
will be sent to you in electronic form when you provide an address which
does not automatically re-publish this material.
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
Francis Irving
19 August 2008
Dear Bob,
Thank you for preparing the response and having it ready to send to
me.
I'm trying to understand exactly why you want an address which does
not automatically republish the response on the Internet. This is
especially puzzling as I have clearly stated that I will manually
republish the information whatever address you send it to me via.
Since you have not specifically said why, I can guess. However, I
may be wrong, and it would be quicker if you could tell me the
actual reason, so we can sort this out in a way that is acceptable
to both of us.
My guess is that you may be concerned that you are giving
WhatDoTheyKnow a licence to publish by emailing an address knowing
it will be automatically published on the internet
I would like to clearly state now that if you reply to this email
address, I am not assuming Parliament to be licensing the documents
for republication.
I hope that meets your objections, and you can now answer my
request. If not, please state clearly not just what you want, but
why you want it, so we can work this out.
Thanks for all your help,
Francis
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
22 August 2008
Dear Francis,
Thank you for your email dated 19 August. The points you raise are being
considered further. I will endeavour to respond again by no later than
29 August.
Yours sincerely
Bob
show quoted sections
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
27 August 2008
Dear Mr Irving
Thank you for your email dated 19 August. The House notes the points
you raise and your stated intentions in relation to the information.
To confirm, the information which is disclosable to you under the Act
has been prepared and is ready to be sent to you. You are asked to
provide an address which does not require the House to waive copyright
over the information which is sent.
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
Francis Irving
28 August 2008
Dear Bob,
Thanks for your reply, which helped only slightly. Thank you,
however, for taking the time to consult about it within the House.
I am still not satisfied, so I would like to formally request an
internal review of the House of Commons handling of my FOI request.
You can read the correspondence of the request in full here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/on...
Please pass this on to the person within the House who does reviews
of FOI requests.
In particular I would like the review to address:
* That I still have not received the information that I requested.
* That a reason under the FOI act for my request being rejected has
not been given.
* Why the House will not send a response to this email address,
which will automatically publish the response. Whereas the House
seemingly would happily send a response to another address which
would result in the response being manually republished.
* Under what law, and why, the House is considering copyright law
in relation to the future actions of others when replying to a
request. As opposed to simply sending the reply, and then dealing
with any consequence breach of copyright later.
* Why the House would not accept a reassurance that when emailing
the automatically republishing address, they were not considered to
be waiving copyright in this case.
* Separate from FOI law, a review of why the House will not waive
copyright on the information I requested and allow republication of
it, when that would be in the public interest, and the information
is available to anybody in the world who wants it simply by
requesting it privately.
* Any other points I raised in the correspondence with Bob Castle
to be considered and addressed.
Thanks once again for your time Bob. Sorry this has had to come to
a review, but I'm sure you understand why!
Francis
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
1 September 2008
Dear Mr Irving,
Thank you for your email dated 28 August 2008 in which you request an
internal review of the handling of your request. Our internal target
for conducting a review is 30 working days and we will endeavour to
provide you with a response no later than Thursday 9 October 2008.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
CASTLE, Bob
House of Commons
9 October 2008
Dear Mr Irving
I am writing to let you know that we will not be able to meet our
internal target for providing a response to your request for an internal
review. The issues that you have asked us to review are complex and
necessitate a longer period of consideration.
We will endeavour to provide a final response by no later than 23
October.
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
CASTLE, Bob
House of Commons
24 October 2008
Dear Mr Irving
I regret that we are not yet in a position to respond to your request
for an internal review. As previously noted the issues that you have
asked us to review are complex and the need to consult interested
parties and test options is taking longer than hoped. It is anticipated
that we will be able to provide you with a substantive response to your
request for a review in the next few weeks.
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
_________________________________________________
Bob Castle
House of Commons Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officer
show quoted sections
Kevin Wells left an annotation (2 December 2008)
I fail to see the copyright reason being a good excuse to to release it to the email address supplied.
In fact releasing it to a site like this, will make their job easier, as if some one else ask for the same information they can just point them to here.
Francis Irving
2 December 2008
Hi Bob,
I requested an internal review on 28 August.
As I am sure you know, the Information Commissioner's guidance on
internal reviews says "in our view, in no case should the total
time taken exceed 40 working days".
Can you tell me how the internal review of this request is
progressing, and when you expect it to be completed?
Francis Irving
Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation (23 December 2008)
Are they ever going to reply to this?
FOICOMMONS
House of Commons
23 December 2008
Dear Mr Irving
I am sorry but the response to your request for an internal review is
not yet ready. I will write to you again early the New Year when I hope
that we can bring this matter to a conclusion
Yours sincerely
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
Francis Irving
6 February 2009
Dear Bob,
You said just before Christmas that you would write again early in
the New Year regarding the internal review of my request for PICT
petitions documents.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/on...
I have still not heard from you.
I am now going to be forced to complain to the Information
Commissioner, both about your refusal to answer my initial request,
and about your slowness at conducting an internal review.
I would be most grateful if you could instead just send me the
document. That would be much simpler, and I really can't understand
why you don't just do that.
Please remember that Parliament exists to serve the people, which
includes you, me and any British citizen reading this.
Thanks once again for your help,
Francis Irving
Francis Irving left an annotation (10 February 2009)
John Cross has made a request for documentation relating to the internal review of this request.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation (25 February 2009)
The ICO has now found that copyright cannot be used as a reason not to release information: http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...
Francis Irving left an annotation (6 March 2009)
A request for the same information from the House of Lords, which jointly runs PICT, has been responded to as not held, for reasons relating to the legal corporate structure of both Houses and PICT.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/on...
KELLY, Mandy
House of Commons
13 March 2009
Dear Mr Irving,
Please find attached the response to your request for an internal review
of Freedom of Information request F08-260.
<<20090311 AJW signed Internal review response F08-260.pdf>>
Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
show quoted sections
Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation (13 March 2009)
They are in part claiming an exemption under 43(2) - commercial interests. I've submitted a request to get them to explain this further: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Francis Irving left an annotation (16 March 2009)
My thoughts about Parliament's reply:
* I suspect that Parliament's arguments about s.11(1) and s.43(2) are not correct under the law. We'll see what the ICO says.
* The letter gives no information about why they are requiring a formal license in this case. Notably, they have not required a formal license for mySociety to republish the letter itself. What's different or special about the petitions document?
* The licensed offered to mySociety doesn't seem acceptable to me. It only offers a 3 year license - part of the point of WhatDoTheyKnow is to archive in perpetuity.
CASTLE, Bob
House of Commons
16 March 2009
Dear Mr Irving,
I am very sorry but the following details should have been included with
Mr Walker's letter dated 11 March 2009, concerning the internal review
of your Freedom of Information request (F08-260).
<<20090316 Detail of Internal Review F08-260.pdf>>
Please accept my apologies.
Bob Castle
Head of Information Rights and Information Security
show quoted sections
Francis Irving
19 June 2009
Dear CASTLE, Bob,
The internal review says that some of the information I have
requested is "subject to copyright owned by third parties".
You haven't previously mentioned this.
Can you tell me which third parties have the copyright, and over
what parts of the information that I've requested?
I am getting a proper verdict from mySociety about whether they can
accept the license you've offered.
Yours sincerely,
Francis Irving
Francis Irving
20 June 2009
Hi Bob,
Unfortunately, the team at mySociety* say they are unable to accept
the license agreement which the House has offered them.
They say that in general they will not sign license agreements to
reproduce public information which is released under FOI. They also
have some additional objections to specific clauses of the
contract.
However, since we last spoke, I note that circumstances have
changed significantly within the House, with regard to
transparency, and Freedom of Information.
I would like you to reconsider your decision and release the
original online petitions document that I requested, to this email
address.
Thanks once again for your help,
Francis Irving
* For the record, I do work at mySociety, but specifically did not
get involved in this decision, to avoid a conflict of interest. I
make this request in my own name, not on behalf of mySociety.
CASTLE, Bob
House of Commons
22 June 2009
Hi Francis,
Thank you for your response. I will get back to you as soon as
possible.
Kind regards
Bob Castle
show quoted sections
Mark left an annotation (18 July 2009)
I made a request for the learning/training/etc programs that the handlers of Mr. Irving's request have enrolled in.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/le...
Mark left an annotation (19 July 2009)
On Feb 10, 2009 J. Cross made a request for the internal emails that the House of Commons were circulated in response to F. Irving's request:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
J. Cross has met with delays as well. I've made a request for the learning/training/etc programs that the request handlers of J. Cross request have enrolled in:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/le...
Francis Irving
4 September 2009
Hi Bob,
In June, I wrote to ask you if the new regard for transparency held
by the House following events regarding MPs' expenses means that
policy has changed with regard to my FOI request for online
petitions documents from PICT.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/on...
You said "Thank you for your response. I will get back to you as
soon as possible.".
I have heard nothing from you in over two months since.
Can you please now send me the PICT petitions documents to this
email address, or else confirm that the House still does not
consider transparency of its operations to be important.
Thanks,
Francis
CASTLE, Bob
House of Commons
7 September 2009
Hi Francis
I will certainly take this forward again but I an not sure that the situation would have altered from that set out in the response as clarified and discussed in the internal review.
Regards
Bob
show quoted sections
William Thackeray left an annotation (21 October 2009)
Francis, why not just take it to the ICO?
Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation (27 October 2009)
I thought the annotation of 16th March implied that he had already done so, but I can't spot it on the FOI caseload snapshots released by the ICO in the last few months (e.g. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...). Francis, what's the situation?
Francis Irving left an annotation (28 October 2009)
I haven't complained to the ICO yet. I'd written a letter all ready months ago, when they suddenly sent the license agreement. I didn't find the time to rewrite it in the light of that.
I'm now concerned that it is too late for me to complain:
"You should do this as soon as possible, or within two months following the final response of the public authority." http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
What date counts as my "final response from the authority" do you think?
Ganesh Sittampalam left an annotation (28 October 2009)
I'd say their reply offering the licence was their final repsonse. Perhaps someone else will have to go through the dance again to get something that can be taken to the ICO. I can't, because I actually requested the information privately (and got it) last year, so it'd be a repeated request for me as well.
I do have this request which about the same issue but EIR, which I do fully intend to take to the ICO, though: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ro...
phisheep left an annotation (2 November 2009)
Francis, I think you should make the complaint to the ICO. It does not seem that the House has given you a 'final response' (as they promised to come back to you after rejection of the license agreement and did not do so) and so they are well out of time for doing so.
That in itself would seem to be grounds for complaint, let alone the earlier suggestion that a response be conditional on a license agreement with a third party, which does not seem to be contemplated in the Act.
Rather than worry yourself about whether you are out of time, leave that to the ICO.
Francis Irving left an annotation (2 November 2009)
Thanks for prompting me, phisheep. I've now complained to the ICO as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My complaint concerns the following request which I originally made on 21st July 2008 to the House of Commons, asking for IT documents relating to deployment of an electronic petitioning system.
You can see the full correspondence between me and the House on the following web page.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/on...
There are two parts to my complaint.
1. The House says they have the document that I requested, but they refuse to send it to me. I am complaining that the House has given no reason under FOIFA for refusing my request. In particular:
a) An exemption under section 17(1)(b) of FOIFA for my request being refused has not been given.
b) The House will not send a response to the WhatDoTheyKnow.com email address that I expressed a preference that they use. They say that this is because the address will automatically republish their response. Under section 11(1) of FOIFA, I believe that it is "reasonably practicable" for them to reply to such an address.
I draw the ICO's attention to decision notice FS50217416, which says:
"15. [...] With regard to copyright, the Commissioner considers that FOI does not provide an implied licence for commercial or other exploitation of released information, and that any person to whom information is released is still bound by an obligation to respect any intellectual property rights held within it. However he considers that issues of possible copyright infringement fall outside the scope of the Act and that if any breaches of such legislation were to transpire then the Company should more properly address these elsewhere [..]"
"18. The Commissioner has explained above why he does not consider issues regarding copyright and confidentiality fall within the scope of section 11 of the Act. This is because they do not deal with the question of whether it would be reasonably practicable to provide the information in the preferred format. Therefore the Commissioner considers any steps the Company considers it needs to take in order to allay its concerns in relation to copyright and confidentiality can also not be taken into account"
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...
c) The House is considering copyright law in relation to the future actions of others when replying to a request. There is no provision within FOIFA for them to do this.
d) Following an internal review, the House offered mySociety, who run the WhatDoTheyKnow site, a license for republication. Firstly, I do not think such an offer alters the legal situation described in a)-c).
Additionally, the license was considered unacceptable by mySociety because it contained the following clauses:
* "not to reproduce ... departmental logos". The logos are an important part of the response documents, and for a proper archive must be reproduced by mySociety.
* "not to reproduce Material for the purposes of disparaging either House or bringing it into disrepute". Such a clause may stop important reporting similar to the Telegraph newspaper's on MPs' expenses earlier this year. It would be bad for Freedom of Information for authorities to try and stop such reporting using licenses on responses to requests.
* The term of the license is only 3 years. mySociety maintain a permanent archive of Freedom of Information responses, and would need a perpetual license.
* "to ensure [...] that no content is changed or lost". mySociety sometimes have to redact information from their archive to comply with other laws, e.g. data protection.
2. My original request was on 21st July 2008. On 28th August 2008 I requested an internal review from the House of Commons. The House responded to the review on 16th March 2009. This is well beyond the 40 days maximum which the ICO's guidance gives for internal reviews gives.
On 22nd June, the House said "I will get back to you as soon as possible." with regard to whether the House's response to the request had changed since the reporting on MPs' expenses by the Telegraph, which I hoped would have led to more transparency from the House. I reminded them on 4th September. It is now 2nd November, and they have still not got back to me.
Francis Irving left an annotation (25 November 2009)
The ICO have sent me this email, giving the case a reference number:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
25th November 2009
Case Reference Number FS50276715
Dear Mr Irving
Your information request to the House of Commons
Thank you for your correspondence dated 02/11/09 in which you make a complaint about the House of Commons’ decision not to release the information you requested.
Your case has been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will contact you as soon as possible to explain how your case will be progressed. Due to the volume of complaints we are receiving at present it may be several months before you hear from us.
The Information Commissioners Office is an independent public body set up to promote public access to official information. We will rule on eligible complaints from people who are unhappy with the way public authorities have handled requests for information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.
If you need to contact us about any aspect of your complaint about the House of Commons please contact our Freedom of Information Helpline on 08456 306060, or 01625 545745 if you would prefer to call a 'national rate' number, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Sent on behalf of
Mr Andrew White
FOI Triage Team Leader
The Information Commissioner’s Office
Francis Irving left an annotation (4 December 2009)
Another message from the ICO:
---------------------------------
4 December 2009
Dear Mr Irving
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information to the House of Commons
We last wrote to you on 25 November 2009 regarding your complaint about the House of Commons (the House). I am writing to inform you that your case has been allocated to me to investigate.
In order to reach a decision as to whether the Freedom of Information Act (the Act) has been correctly applied, I will need to carry out a thorough investigation. This may take some time as I will need to ensure that I am aware of all the relevant facts and that I carefully consider the application of the law to those facts.
Where possible the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) aims to resolve complaints informally. If this is not possible, he will usually issue a Decision Notice to you and the public authority once an investigation has been completed. This will inform you of his decision and the reasons for it.
Where the Commissioner decides that a request has not been handled properly he may specify what steps he believes are necessary to remedy the situation. This can include requiring a public authority to release information which has previously been withheld. A copy of the Decision Notice will be placed on our website (with your details omitted). If you disagree with the decision that has been reached you have the right to appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Your request
Thank you for the information you have already provided. I understand that you made a request to the House on 21 July 2008 for an electronic copy of documents produced by PICT discussing or evaluating the possible deployment of electronic petitioning systems in Parliament.
The House provided a response to you on 14 August 2008 in which it confirmed its willingness to provide an electronic copy of the requested information, however refused to do so via the ‘what do they know’ website. The House asked you to provide an alternative email address.
You corresponded with the House on a number of occasions, before requesting an internal review on 28 August 2008. The House responded on 13 and 16 March 2009 and confirmed its view that an electronic copy of the information requested could not be provided via the ‘what do they know’ website without raising copyright issues.
You complained to the ICO on 2 November 2009.
The scope of the case
The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether the House is required to provide the requested information via the ‘what do they know’ website as you have requested
Please contact me as soon as possible if there are matters other than this that you believe should be addressed. This will help avoid any unnecessary delay in investigating your complaint. If I do not hear from you within the next 10 working days, my investigation will focus only upon the matter identified above.
Next steps
I have reviewed the information on file and have discussed your complaint with colleagues. It has been agreed that I should call a meeting at which relevant parties from within the ICO can consider the complaint. This meeting has been set up for mid-January 2010.
I shall contact you following the meeting to let you know what has been agreed, and will update you on the progress of the investigation as appropriate but at least every 8 weeks thereafter, if your case has not been resolved. If you have any queries at any time you are welcome to write to me at casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk (if you ‘reply’ without changing the subject line on this email your response will be delivered directly to the correct electronic case file) or by telephone via 01625 545 745.
It may not be possible for me to respond to enquiries immediately due to other work commitments but I will aim to provide a response as promptly as possible and will ensure that a response is provided within 14 working days of the receipt of any enquiry.
I hope this information is useful.
Yours sincerely
Laura Booth
Senior Complaints Officer
Francis Irving left an annotation (4 December 2009)
I wrote back, asking the ICO to also consider the second part of my complaint, relating to the House of Commons taking more than 6 months to conduct the internal review.
Francis Irving left an annotation (7 December 2009)
The ICO replied:
---------------------------------------
7 December 2009
Dear Mr Irving
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information to House of Commons
Thank you for your email.
In addition to the issue of publication of the requested information on the ‘what do they know’ website, I shall raise with the House any procedural, code of practice and good practice issues that come to my attention during the investigation.
I will keep you updated as outlined in my previous email.
Yours sincerely
Laura Booth
Senior Complaints Officer
phisheep left an annotation (8 December 2009)
Well done, Francis - looking forward to seeing how this turns out.
Francis Irving left an annotation (21 January 2010)
The ICO are going to compel the House to release the information via WhatDoTheyKnow. I received this email from them today:
-----------------------------------------
21 January 2010
Dear Mr Irving
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information to the House of Commons
Further to our recent correspondence, I write to inform you that your complaint has been considered by a panel of ICO staff.
The decision was that the request is valid for the purposes of the Act and that it is reasonably practicable for the House of Commons to provide you with an electronic copy of the information requested via the ‘what do they know?’ website.
A Decision Notice will be drafted shortly to confirm the Commissioner’s view on this matter and to compel the House to disclose the requested information via ‘what do they know?’.
As I’m sure you are aware, each Decision Notice must complete an internal validation procedure prior to being served and therefore it may be some time before you hear from us again.
I hope this information is useful.
Yours sincerely
Laura Booth
Senior Complaints Officer
Francis Irving left an annotation (4 February 2010)
I sent this email back to the ICO on 21 Jan.
-----------------------------------------
Thank you Laura!
I'm impressed that the ICO is starting to reach decisions quicker, and give more specific timing information as they are going through the process.
Keep up the good work,
Francis
-----------------------------------------
I've just received another email from the ICO.
-----------------------------------------
4 February 2010
Dear Mr Irving
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information to the House of Commons
Thank you for your email of 21 January 2010. I have highlighted your positive comments about the ICO’s service to my manager.
When I wrote to you on 21 January 2010, I also wrote to the House of Commons. The House of Commons stated its intention to submit further arguments in respect of this matter. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort in this case, I responded to the House that I would delay drafting the Decision Notice until week commencing 1 February 2010.
The House has now submitted further arguments in respect of this case. These will be taken into account during the drafting of the Decision Notice and will be considered by the signatory before the Notice is finalised.
I appreciate this delay and uncertainty may be frustrating, however I aim to progress this case to a conclusion as swiftly as possible now that I have received the House of Commons’ further submissions.
Yours sincerely
Laura Booth
Senior Complaints Officer
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
Francis Irving left an annotation (17 October 2008)
Link to this