Watching porn in House of Commons

Amanda Hart made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Tŷ'r Cyffredin

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai Tŷ'r Cyffredin fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

Dear House of Commons,

FoI request 1 of 3
From relevant documentation, please provide a copy of what website categories are blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn).

FoI request 2 of 3
Kindly confirm existence of a system in place to help prevent (or deter) MPs from watching porn on their phones inside the House of Commons chamber.

FoI request 3 of 3
From records, please indicate who is responsible for ensuring MPs do not watch pornography while in the House of Commons.

For public reference: A Tory MP was recently caught watching pornography on his phone while in the House of Commons https://www.facebook.com/stopuklies/phot...

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

Dear Ms Hart,

 

Freedom of Information request F22-220

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 27 April 2022, received
by us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 26 May 2022.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted above and in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sarah Price

IRIS Support Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]www.parliament.uk | [2]@ukparliament | [3]@houseofcommons

 

[4]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

 

The House of Commons welcomes feedback. If you have any compliments,
complaints or comments,
about the service that you have received please send an email
to [5][email address]

 

 

 

 

From: Amanda Hart <[FOI #857470 email]>
Sent: 27 April 2022 15:21
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Watching porn in House of
Commons

 

Dear House of Commons,

FoI request 1 of 3
From relevant documentation, please provide a copy of what website
categories are blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of
Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn).

FoI request 2 of 3
Kindly confirm existence of a system in place to help prevent (or deter)
MPs from watching porn on their phones inside the House of Commons
chamber.

FoI request 3 of 3
From records, please indicate who is responsible for ensuring MPs do not
watch pornography while in the House of Commons.

For public reference: A Tory MP was recently caught watching pornography
on his phone while in the House of Commons
[6]https://www.facebook.com/stopuklies/phot...

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[7][FOI #857470 email]

Is [8][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[11]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
[12]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

3 Atodiad

Dear Ms Hart,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F22-220

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You asked the
House of Commons three questions regarding blocked website categories
“accessible in the House of Commons”, which we have sought to answer
below.

 

Please note that while the House of Commons and the House of Lords are two
separate public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (FOIA), cyber security and wifi on the parliamentary estate are
the responsibility of the Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS), which is a
joint, bicameral service which maintains the parliamentary network, which
is used by both Houses. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, this response
covers both Houses of Parliament.

 

 1. From relevant documentation, please provide a copy of what website
categories are blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of
Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn).

 

While the House holds a breakdown of website categories blocked on the
parliamentary network, we have determined that disclosing details of these
categories would assist those with criminal or malicious intent to
circumvent our blocking measures. This would be likely to prejudice the
prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders and may
also undermine the safeguarding of national security. This information is
therefore exempt by virtue of both s.31(1)(a) and (b) and s.24(1) FOIA.
Further details about the use of these exemptions are detailed below.

 

Section 31(1)(a) and (b) - Law enforcement

 

There is no doubt that, globally, threats and incidents of cyber-crime
have increased. PDS is aware of how this is also a risk to organisations,
and especially high-profile organisations such as the Houses of
Parliament. As a result of these increasing risks, we now consider that
disclosure of any details of our web filtering processes would prejudice
the prevention and detection of crime (including cyber-crime) and also the
apprehension and prosecution of offenders. This exemption is subject to
the public interest test and our considerations of this are detailed
below.

We accept the legitimate public interest in our being open and transparent
in these matters so that the public can have confidence in way the House
of Commons operates.  There is a public interest that individuals who use
the parliamentary network to access the internet should be able to do so
securely, but the public also needs to be assured that these taxpayer
funded resources are being used in a way that is appropriate to the work
of the House. 

 

We have also considered the reasons to withhold this information. Firstly,
the disclosure of this information would aid cyber criminals looking to
circumvent Parliament’s security systems. Disclosing details of blocked
categories would allow cyber criminals to determine which sites or site
categories were unfiltered, and would therefore aid their ability to
launch for a potential cyber attack against our servers. In particular, it
would leave the Parliamentary Network exposed to a number of potential
cyber security issues including, but not limited to, water-holing,
phishing, domain squatting, loss of personal data and similar types of
attack. In the case of water holing, rather than attempting to breach the
security of the parliamentary network, an individual could target the
network users by aiming their malicious code or activities at other
website categories that they know are being visited. This would in turn
mean that we would fail in our duty to help prevent criminal attacks on
our network, which in turn would fail in our duty to assist those services
providing us with law enforcement and would prejudice the prevention and
detection of crime as a result.

 

In these circumstances it is therefore our view that the public interest
in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing
the information.

 

Section 24(1) National Security

 

In addition to the increased threats and incidents of cyber-crime,
national security is also increasingly under threat from those
organisations and individuals who seek to use technology to disrupt the
workings of government. To limit these risks, we now seek to withhold
details of blocked categories on the parliamentary network in order to
safeguard national security. This exemption is subject to the public
interest test and our considerations of this are detailed below.

 

We have considered, once again, the legitimate public interest in our
being open and transparent in these matters so that the public can have
confidence in the way the House of Commons operates and be reassured that
computers are being used to visit websites that are both secure and
appropriate to the work of the House. Government Ministers may carry out
important work using the parliamentary network and it is in the obvious
public interest that this is done securely and appropriately.

 

However, we consider that it is not in the wider public interest to
disclose details of our web filtering processes because, as well as the
risk posed to the security of Parliament’s IT network, there is also a
risk of national security being compromised. Parliament is an essential
part of the UK’s system of government and constitutes part of the critical
national infrastructure; cyber security is therefore of paramount concern.
Providing detailed information about the categories of websites we block
would be very likely to assist the design of attacks by malicious groups,
including hackers, terrorists, and others, against the parliamentary
network, jeopardising the security of information which is likely to
impact on national security. In particular, Groups planning attacks are
known to conduct extensive research, and to disclose this information
could potentially provide those groups or individuals with an indication
of where to focus their efforts when targeting our systems. Most notably,
providing definite on website categories blocked or not blocked by our
security systems would allow them to focus their efforts on website
categories accessible via the parliamentary network, in turn giving them a
greater chance of launching an attack against the network via sites of
these categories. The release of this information would therefore
compromise national security as it would allow malicious groups to
compromise the parliamentary network, holding it to ransom and for
extortion, and allowing them to steal confidential information, disrupting
and compromising the core function of parliament and governmental
departments in turn.

 

In this instance, the House considers the wider public interest to favour
non-disclosure in this instance.

 

More details about our position on the disclosure of this information can
be found in two Information Commissioner’s Office Decision Notices which,
for your convenience, we have attached to this email.

 

 2. Kindly confirm existence of a system in place to help prevent (or
deter) MPs from watching porn on their phones inside the House of
Commons chamber.

 

This information is held by the House of Commons. We can confirm there is
a web filtering system in place on the Parliamentary Network and guest
Wi-Fi networks managed by Parliament, and this blocks access to
pornographic websites.

 

 3. From records, please indicate who is responsible for ensuring MPs do
not watch pornography while in the House of Commons.

 

This information is not held by the House of Commons. This is because
there is no sole person or team responsible for ensuring this within the
House of Commons Administration.

 

It may help you to know, however, that there are a number of disciplinary
routes and procedures regarding misconduct of Members, both internal to
the House and externally via their respective parties. In this instance, a
Member could be disciplined in a number of ways, including but not limited
to the following:

 

• A Member may be reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Standards (PCS) for breaching the House of Commons Code of Conduct and
Guide to the Rules:
([1]https://www.parliament.uk/business/publi...).
The Commissioner will then look at the details of the complaint who
will then investigate the Member to determine whether to uphold the
complaint or not. In serious cases, the Commissioner may also submit a
formal report to the Select Committee on Standards for them to
consider a sanction against the Member.
• A Member may also be reported to the Independent Complaints and
Grievance Scheme (ICGS), who will carry out a formal assessment on the
allegation. More information on this process can be found on our
webpages here:
[2]https://www.parliament.uk/about/independ...
• Members may also be disciplined by their parties for poor or
inappropriate conduct. In particular, they may be suspended or
expelled from the party depending on the severity of their actions.
More information on these processes is likely to be held by political
parties themselves, and further details of political parties in the
House can be found here:
[3]https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-....
• Lastly, in 2015 Parliament passed the “Recall of MPs Act 2015”, which
created a procedure to trigger a recall of a Member in cases of
serious misconduct committed by Members, and for a subsequent
by-election to take place. The House of Commons Library holds a
research briefing detailing the specifics of this procedure whch you
may find helpful, and this can be found here:
[4]https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/res....

 

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [5][House of Commons request email].  Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[6]https://ico.org.uk/.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Rights Officer
House of Commons Information Compliance Team
House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 
[7]parliament.uk
[8][IMG]

[9]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

[10]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

 

From: Amanda Hart <[11][FOI #857470 email]>
Sent: 27 April 2022 15:21
To: FOI Commons <[12][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Watching porn in House of
Commons

 

Dear House of Commons,

FoI request 1 of 3
From relevant documentation, please provide a copy of what website
categories are blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of
Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn).

FoI request 2 of 3
Kindly confirm existence of a system in place to help prevent (or deter)
MPs from watching porn on their phones inside the House of Commons
chamber.

FoI request 3 of 3
From records, please indicate who is responsible for ensuring MPs do not
watch pornography while in the House of Commons.

For public reference: A Tory MP was recently caught watching pornography
on his phone while in the House of Commons

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[13][FOI #857470 email]

Is [14][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[15]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[16]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[17]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
[18]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear House of Commons,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling of my FOI request 'Watching porn in House of Commons'. Ref F22-220.

The ICO decision notice you rely on is very different to what we have clearly requested.

Let's concentrate on that first. The Decision Notice was in response to a request for a list of the most popular websites accessed from within Parliament. Such information is rather specific and would obviously have implications if released. Our request was more general. Our request does not involve specific lists of websites accessed - or anything accessed for that matter. Neither was our request for what people tried to access but failed.

Our request (R1) only merely for categories of website that were blocked from being accessed. I quote (R1) "From relevant documentation, please provide a copy of what website categories are blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn)."

The provision of such categories would NOT aid cyberterrorism or prevent crime from being detected or cause a security breach of any kind. In any case, security breaches are inbound in nature, not outbound.

Moving onto request 2 (R2) - I quote "Kindly confirm existence of a system in place to help prevent (or deter) MPs from watching porn on their phones inside the House of Commons chamber."

We accept your response strongly implied there was a some kind of outbound blocking system in place. The implication of existence of the blocking system falls well short of what we asked for, but is actually enough for us to withdraw R2 in favour of you confirming as part of R1 that porn is blocked (although we accept it is impossible to guarantee a complete blocking of this or any other category).

Moving onto request 3 (R3) - I quote "From records, please indicate who is responsible for ensuring MPs do not watch pornography while in the House of Commons"

I see nothing in your response of relevance to request 3 - unless you are implying the answer would also prevent the detection of crime or hinder cyberterrorism. Maybe it was missed by accident. I politely request an answer in any case.

If you have any queries let me know.

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

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Hart,

 

 

Internal Review Request – IR F22-220

 

Thank you for your email, copied below, requesting an internal review of
Freedom of Information request.

 

We will endeavour to respond within 20 working days, i.e., on or before 22
June 2022. However, it may be necessary to extend this deadline by another
20 working days, for example if the review is complicated and requires the
assistance of multiple resources. If this is the case, and your review
cannot be completed in the shorter timeframe, we will inform you of this.

 

If you have any queries about the review, please contact me with the
reference in the subject line.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Information Rights Manager

House of Commons Information Compliance Team

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA

 

[1][IMG]

 

[2]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

 

From: Amanda Hart <[FOI #857470 email]>
Sent: 23 May 2022 20:23
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Watching porn
in House of Commons

 

Dear House of Commons,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling
of my FOI request 'Watching porn in House of Commons'. Ref F22-220.

The ICO decision notice you rely on is very different to what we have
clearly requested.

Let's concentrate on that first. The Decision Notice was in response to a
request for a list of the most popular websites accessed from within
Parliament. Such information is rather specific and would obviously have
implications if released. Our request was more general. Our request does
not involve specific lists of websites accessed - or anything accessed for
that matter. Neither was our request for what people tried to access but
failed.

Our request (R1) only merely for categories of website that were blocked
from being accessed. I quote (R1) "From relevant documentation, please
provide a copy of what website categories are blocked on the wifi internet
accessible in the House of Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn)."

The provision of such categories would NOT aid cyberterrorism or prevent
crime from being detected or cause a security breach of any kind. In any
case, security breaches are inbound in nature, not outbound.

Moving onto request 2 (R2) - I quote "Kindly confirm existence of a system
in place to help prevent (or deter) MPs from watching porn on their phones
inside the House of Commons chamber."

We accept your response strongly implied there was a some kind of outbound
blocking system in place. The implication of existence of the blocking
system falls well short of what we asked for, but is actually enough for
us to withdraw R2 in favour of you confirming as part of R1 that porn is
blocked (although we accept it is impossible to guarantee a complete
blocking of this or any other category).

Moving onto request 3 (R3) - I quote "From records, please indicate who is
responsible for ensuring MPs do not watch pornography while in the House
of Commons"

I see nothing in your response of relevance to request 3 - unless you are
implying the answer would also prevent the detection of crime or hinder
cyberterrorism. Maybe it was missed by accident. I politely request an
answer in any case.

If you have any queries let me know.

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

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #857470 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

3 Atodiad

Dear Ms Hart,

 

 

Please find attached our response to your request for an Internal Review. 
If you are still dissatisfied, you may complain to the Information
Commissioner’s Office at [1]Home | ICO

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Information Rights Manager

House of Commons Information Compliance Team

 

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA

 

[2][IMG]

 

[3]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

 

From: Amanda Hart <[FOI #857470 email]>
Sent: 23 May 2022 20:23
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Watching porn
in House of Commons

 

Dear House of Commons,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling
of my FOI request 'Watching porn in House of Commons'. Ref F22-220.

The ICO decision notice you rely on is very different to what we have
clearly requested.

Let's concentrate on that first. The Decision Notice was in response to a
request for a list of the most popular websites accessed from within
Parliament. Such information is rather specific and would obviously have
implications if released. Our request was more general. Our request does
not involve specific lists of websites accessed - or anything accessed for
that matter. Neither was our request for what people tried to access but
failed.

Our request (R1) only merely for categories of website that were blocked
from being accessed. I quote (R1) "From relevant documentation, please
provide a copy of what website categories are blocked on the wifi internet
accessible in the House of Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn)."

The provision of such categories would NOT aid cyberterrorism or prevent
crime from being detected or cause a security breach of any kind. In any
case, security breaches are inbound in nature, not outbound.

Moving onto request 2 (R2) - I quote "Kindly confirm existence of a system
in place to help prevent (or deter) MPs from watching porn on their phones
inside the House of Commons chamber."

We accept your response strongly implied there was a some kind of outbound
blocking system in place. The implication of existence of the blocking
system falls well short of what we asked for, but is actually enough for
us to withdraw R2 in favour of you confirming as part of R1 that porn is
blocked (although we accept it is impossible to guarantee a complete
blocking of this or any other category).

Moving onto request 3 (R3) - I quote "From records, please indicate who is
responsible for ensuring MPs do not watch pornography while in the House
of Commons"

I see nothing in your response of relevance to request 3 - unless you are
implying the answer would also prevent the detection of crime or hinder
cyberterrorism. Maybe it was missed by accident. I politely request an
answer in any case.

If you have any queries let me know.

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

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #857470 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear FOI Commons,

Thanks for your internal review ref IR F22 220. We certainly deeply appreciate your response along with the additional information you have provided.

Unfortunately we must proceed to the Information Commissioner as we do not accept that our FoI request 1 ("From relevant documentation, please provide a copy of what website categories are blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn).") is exempt from release. In order to make things easier though we shall make it clear to the Information Commissioner that we would be content with your confirmation that there is a record that the category of porn is blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of Commons*.

* As we indicated earlier we accept that category blocks are not full proof.

We think it will be helpful to state why this information is being requested. The provision of this information would allow us to see work has been done to try and prevent access to this kind of material and that the users of this network cannot simply do whatever they please on taxpayers time in the area of the House of Commons. Should you decide to provide this information before the ICO makes her decision, we shall naturally inform her.

Again we thank you for what you have provided, and we also hope you will be able to go one step further as we report the outstanding matter.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Hart
for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

Reported to ICO.

FOI Commons, Tŷ'r Cyffredin

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Hart,

 

 

Thank you for your further email, copied below.  The House of Commons has
nothing further to add to the responses we have already provided and can
only reiterate your right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s
Office if you remain dissatisfied.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Information Rights Manager

House of Commons Information Compliance Team

 

House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA

 

[1][IMG]

 

[2]House of Commons Privacy Notice for the public

 

 

From: Amanda Hart <[FOI #857470 email]>
Sent: 27 June 2022 17:45
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Re: IR F22-220 Internal review response

 

Dear FOI Commons,

Thanks for your internal review ref IR F22 220. We certainly deeply
appreciate your response along with the additional information you have
provided.

Unfortunately we must proceed to the Information Commissioner as we do not
accept that our FoI request 1 ("From relevant documentation, please
provide a copy of what website categories are blocked on the wifi internet
accessible in the House of Commons (eg gambling, hate speech, porn).") is
exempt from release. In order to make things easier though we shall make
it clear to the Information Commissioner that we would be content with
your confirmation that there is a record that the category of porn is
blocked on the wifi internet accessible in the House of Commons*.

* As we indicated earlier we accept that category blocks are not full
proof.

We think it will be helpful to state why this information is being
requested. The provision of this information would allow us to see work
has been done to try and prevent access to this kind of material and that
the users of this network cannot simply do whatever they please on
taxpayers time in the area of the House of Commons. Should you decide to
provide this information before the ICO makes her decision, we shall
naturally inform her.

Again we thank you for what you have provided, and we also hope you will
be able to go one step further as we report the outstanding matter.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Hart

for Stop UK lies and Corruption.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Amanda Hart anodiad ()

ICO informed us their ref for this is IC-178149-Y4B0