Enforcement Authorised Persons - Section 7 Aldershot and District Military Lands Byelaws

The request was successful.

Dear Defence Infrastructure Organisation,

With respect to Section 7 Aldershot and District Military Lands Byelaws I am interested in information relevant to the following positions:

a) General Officer Commanding the Army District
b) Officer in Charge of the Military Lands

1. Are the positions current and active?
2. If active are the posts currently filled? Or vacant?
3. If not current and active when did they cease to be relevant/operational?
4. If the positions are no longer active and current what, if any, are the equivalent positions in operation today?

With respect to 4 above please provide copy of information relating to the transfer of powers from former to current positions.

Additionally, please provide copy any documentation granting or authorising current office holders to act in accordance with the powers as described in Section 7(c) of the byelaws.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Brown

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

 

Good Afternoon

 

Your request has been logged under our reference 2021/04360 and the target
date for response is 24/05/2021.

 

Yours sincerely

 

DIO Secretariat

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

1 Attachment

Good morning,

Please see attached correspondence in response to your below FOI request (FOI2021/04360).

Kind regards,

DIO Secretariat

show quoted sections

Dear DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for the response to my request. There is inconsistency with this reply to a previous request, and I am seeking clarification.

In the request FOI2021/00285 section 13 states:

"The reason that no information is held is because the present byelaws specify an out- of-date process of obtaining exemption to the byelaws that, with the exception of obtaining permission from the Secretary of State for Defence, refer to appointments that no longer exist. Permission to undertake such activities that would otherwise be in breach of the byelaws is currently being granted by DIO Officials on a case by case basis with the delegated authority of the Secretary of State."

The above statement clearly states "...appointments (plural) that no longer exist."

Yet this request states the position of Officer in Charge of the Military Lands is current, active and filled.

Which statement and FOI is correct?

If the latter please supply further details so they may be verified e.g. rank, title, contact address of incumbent.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Brown

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

1 Attachment

Good afternoon,

In response to your below follow-up query to FOI/04360; I can confirm that the statement provided in your FOI/04360 response (attached again for ease) is correct. The rank of Officer in Charge of the Military Lands is Lt Col. However, any further personal details, such as contact information/address, concerning this position fall entirely within the scope of the absolute exemptions provided for at Section 40 (Personal Data) of the FOI Act and therefore cannot be provided to you. Section 40(2) of the FOI Act has been applied in order to protect personal information as governed by the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. Section 40 is an absolute exemption and there is therefore no requirement to consider the public interest in making a decision to withhold the information.

Kind regards,

DIO Secretariat

show quoted sections

Dear DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER),

In this instance I believe the application of absolute exemptions has gone beyond what is necessary.

Whoever is discharging the duties of Officer in Charge of the Military Lands requires full disclosure. Application of the byelaws and their application requires full disclosure and transparency.

For example:
Anyone enforcing the byelaws under Section 7(d) requires written authorisation from Officer in Charge of the Military Lands. Without knowing the details of the office holder anyone wishing to validate written authorisation will be unable to do so.

Law and its application requires transparency and to apply an absolute exemption is therefore - in my view - wrong and I look forward to full disclosure.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Brown

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Good morning,

Thank you for your email below. Your concerns have been noted.

As stated in your FOI response, if you wish to complain about the handling of your request, or the content of this response, you can request an independent internal review by contacting the Information Rights Compliance team, Ground Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that any request for an internal review should be made in writing within 40 working days of the date of this response.

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may raise your complaint directly to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not normally investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website at https://ico.org.uk/.

Kind regards,

DIO Secretariat

show quoted sections

Dear Defence Infrastructure Organisation,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Defence Infrastructure Organisation's handling of my FOI request 'Enforcement Authorised Persons - Section 7 Aldershot and District Military Lands Byelaws'.

In this instance I believe the application of absolute exemptions has gone beyond what is necessary.

Whoever is discharging the duties of Officer in Charge of the Military Lands requires full disclosure. Application of the byelaws and their application requires full disclosure and transparency.

For example:
Anyone enforcing the byelaws under Section 7(d) requires written authorisation from Officer in Charge of the Military Lands. Without knowing the details of the office holder anyone wishing to validate written authorisation will be unable to do so.

Law and its application requires transparency and to apply an absolute exemption is therefore - in my view - wrong and I look forward to full disclosure.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Yours faithfully,

Simon Brown

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Dear Mr Brown,

 

Receipt is acknowledged of your email of 25 May, in which you requested an
internal review of the handling of your request under the FOI Act, our
reference FOI2021/04360.

 

The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days
from date of receipt and we therefore aim to complete the review and
respond to you by 23 June 2021. While we are working hard to achieve this,
in the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you
should expect a response, the majority are currently taking between 20 and
40 working days to complete.  The review will involve an independent
assessment of the handling of this request and the outcome.

 

We should also advise that the measures implemented by the Department to
prevent the spread of COVID-19 may continue to impact upon our ability to
complete the review within the above timescale but we will aim to provide
you with an update, if necessary.

 

Regards

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

 

 

show quoted sections

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Defence Infrastructure Organisation

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20210623 Rev Mr S Brown Officer of Military Lands MOD final review response FOI2021 04360.pdf

    92K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Brown,

 

Please see attached MOD’s internal review of your request, our reference
FOI2021/04360.

 

Regards,

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team