Dear Prime Minister's Office,

FoI request: Please kindly provide a copy of the minutes produced during the meeting this year between Sue Gray and Boris Johnson that was set up by Downing Street officials subject to the parameters below.

Parameters: We are solely interested in viewing passages of the minutes which relate to the independent inquiry Sue Gray was asked to conduct - which has already been established is NOT a private matter. You may redact everything else if you wish.

Why we want this: Since this is an independent inquiry, we wish to check that there has been no attempt to remove anything from Sue Gray's findings.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Cabinet Office FOI Team,

Our ref: FOI2022/09050

Dear Amanda Hart,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 23rd May.
Your request is being handled under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 ('the Act').

The Act requires that a response must be given promptly, and in any event
within 20 working days. We will therefore aim to reply at the latest by
22nd June.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team

Cabinet Office

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister's Office's handling of my FOI request 'Meeting with Sue Gray'. FOI2022/09050

You have breached Section 10 of the FoIA by failing to provide a valid response to this FoI request by 22nd June. Section 10 of the Act sets out the time frames within which a public authority must respond to an FOIA request.

* It applies whenever the public authority has:
- a duty under section 1(1)(a) confirm or deny whether the information is held;
- a duty under section 1(1)(b) to provide information that is held to the requester;
- a duty under section 17 to issue a refusal notice explaining why a request has been refused.
* Authorities must respond to requests promptly, and by the twentieth working day following the date of receipt of the request.
* A working day is any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
* Where required, an authority may claim a reasonable extension of time to consider the public interest test. An extension beyond an additional 20 working days should be exceptional.

You are also reminded it is the Information Commissioner who recommends internal reviews are requested when authorities fail to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. They state it is your chance to report on what went wrong and they see it as your opportunity to set things right.

You are under no legal obligation to complete an internal review, but it is considered 'good practice' to do so as it will help you to avoid further breaches. Should you inform us that you are not completing one, or claim there "is nothing to review", there is no further legal requirement for us to wait any longer. Be advised we would then pass the matter directly to the Information Commissioner.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

Report to ICO if no satisfactory response by 3rd August 2022.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

Reported to ICO. A clear case of stonewalling since we know the request was received.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

IC-184454-R2V6. ICO asked office to respond within ten working days. Let ICO know if no response by 24th August 2022.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

Informed ICO that the office has still failed to respond.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

IC-184454-R2V6 ICO served decision notice requiring office to provide a substantive response within 35 calendar days (by 29th September) or risk being in contempt of court.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

We asked the office if it had any plans to provide a valid response to our FoI request by 29th September 2022 or subject their office to a potential Contempt of Court for the first time in history. It's not the kind of attention that the new Prime Minister would want.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

As no response was received from our email nearly a week ago we chased it up with them today. Both emails had a CC to the ICO for evidence purposes.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

Decision Notice deadline reached and still no response from the Prime Minister's Office so we have informed the ICO.

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister's Office's handling of my FOI request 'Meeting with Sue Gray'.

The ICO have informed us you attempted to provide a response on 28th September 2022 which was not received by whatdotheyknow. Your response claims you do not hold these minutes.

The problems are as follows:-

1. On 23rd June 2022 you breached section 10 in failing to provide a valid response within 20 working days.
2. You did not respond within 40 working days to our request for internal review into your failure to comply with the law.
3. You ignored the Information Commissioner's request dated 10th August 2022 to provide a valid response within 10 working days.
4. You waited until 1 day before the deadline of the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice to claim you don't hold this information which shows contempt for the law.

Specific to your response dated 28th September 2022:-

1. We know minutes were created in this meeting between Boris Johnson and Susan Gray.

2. This meeting took place when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister yet you want us to believe you the Prime Minister's Office (including the Cabinet Office) do not possess these minutes.

3. Assuming for a moment that you're being truthful. We think it is most certainly reasonable for you to state under such circumstances which office would therefore hold them yet you have neglected to do this.

4. As the data controllers for the Prime Minister's affairs it stands to reason that the Prime Minister's Office (and Cabinet Office) holds all meeting minutes for the Prime Minister as it is part of your function. You would therefore hold the minutes we are requesting.

5. We think you are acting to conceal these minutes in violation of Section 77 which is a criminal offence.

You have 40 working days to supply a response. The matter will then be reverted back to the ICO.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

As we wait for an internal review response we have supplied the ICO with evidence that
(1) officials of the Prime Minister's Office set up the meeting with Sue Gray regardless of 'technicalities'. They wanted Sue
Gray to discuss her report with Boris. As such they would have been the data controllers for the minutes of the meeting.

(2) these minutes existed at the time we made our FoI request.