FS50169317: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50169317 | |dn_ref=FS50169317 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=8 September 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Work and Pensions | |dn_pa=Department for Work and Pensions | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant made a request for information to the Department for Work and Pensions (the | |dn_summary=The complainant made a request for information to the Department for Work and Pensions (the ”DWP”) for the number of Parliamentary Questions (“PQs”) for Written Answer that had been colour coded red under a ”traffic light” system for colour coding PQs. The complainant asked for the information to be broken down in respect of one specific MP and collectively for other MPs. The DWP refused the request stating that the information held was exempt under section 35(1) (d) of the Act. After investigating the case, the Information Commissioner finds that the first element of the request should properly have been treated as a subject access request within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner has weighed up the public interest arguments for and against disclosure under section 35(1) (d) of the Act applied by the DWP and finds that the balance of the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. He therefore requires the DWP to disclose to the complainant the information which was the subject of the second element of his request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP, breached the requirements of sections 1(1) (b), 10(1) and 17(1). | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50169317.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50169317.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 35 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:35, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50169317
- Date: 8 September 2008
- Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
- Summary: The complainant made a request for information to the Department for Work and Pensions (the ”DWP”) for the number of Parliamentary Questions (“PQs”) for Written Answer that had been colour coded red under a ”traffic light” system for colour coding PQs. The complainant asked for the information to be broken down in respect of one specific MP and collectively for other MPs. The DWP refused the request stating that the information held was exempt under section 35(1) (d) of the Act. After investigating the case, the Information Commissioner finds that the first element of the request should properly have been treated as a subject access request within the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner has weighed up the public interest arguments for and against disclosure under section 35(1) (d) of the Act applied by the DWP and finds that the balance of the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information. He therefore requires the DWP to disclose to the complainant the information which was the subject of the second element of his request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP, breached the requirements of sections 1(1) (b), 10(1) and 17(1).
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
