FS50185270: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision4" to "DNDecision" |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision" |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 35 | |dnd_section=FOI 35 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
Revision as of 21:58, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50185270
- Date: 1 March 2010
- Public Authority: Department of Health
- Summary: The complainant requested various pieces of information regarding communication with HM Treasury in relation to the 2002 Spending Review. Specifically, the complainant requested the Bid Letter from the Department of Health (the “DoH”), the Settlement Letter from HM Treasury, and the internal advice provided in relation to the Bid Letter. The DoH refused to disclose this information under sections 35(1)(a) and (b). During the investigation the Commissioner formed the view that some of the withheld information was ‘statistical information’. Therefore the DoH applied sections 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) in relation to that information. After investigating the case the Commissioner upheld the DoH’s use of sections 35(1)(a) and (b), 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) in relation to some of the withheld information. However, he also found that in relation to some of the statistical information sections 36(2)(a)(i), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) were not engaged. Therefore this information should be disclosed. Finally, the Commissioner also found that the DoH breached sections 10(1) and 17(1).
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
