Upload
guido-fawkes
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 InformationCommissionerblogcopy (1)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/informationcommissionerblogcopy-1 1/2
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
CheshireSK9 5AF
5th August 2013
Dear Sir,
I am writing to appeal to the Information Commissioner regarding a Cabinet Office internal review
decision to refuse the disclosure of information concerning an employee of the Household of the
Prince of Wales on secondment to the Cabinet Office.
My original Freedom of Information request, reference number XXXXXXXX, asked a series of
questions regarding the employee in question.
I asked:
● When did this employee begin their secondment at the Cabinet Office?
● How many days a week do they work at the Cabinet Office?
● What is their job description / what are their responsibilities at the Cabinet Office?
● How much are they being paid?
● What level of security clearance do they have?
The response from the Cabinet Office FOI team confirmed that they hold information relevant to
my request, but refused to answer any of the questions with exception to the query regarding the
employee’s salary. They cited the Data Protection Act, specifically that “personal data must be
processed fairly and lawfully”.
I subsequently wrote to Roger Smethurst, Deputy Director and Head of Knowledge and
1
7/27/2019 InformationCommissionerblogcopy (1)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/informationcommissionerblogcopy-1 2/2
Information Unit Management at the Cabinet Office, requesting an internal review (reference
number XXXXXXXX). Mr Smethurst ruled that “the Cabinet Office correctly applied the absolute
exemption at Section 40(2), in reliance on s.40(3)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act”.
Having exhausted all other options, I am therefore appealing to the Information Commissioner.
My appeal argues that there is no substance to the claim that releasing the informationrequested would contravene the Data Protection Act. I have asked for no information that would
reveal the identity of the employee in question, and there is no danger of “personal data” being
released whatsoever. Frankly this explanation is risible.
Furthermore, since the employee is a public servant whose salary is paid by the taxpayer, the
public interest in releasing answers to these questions cannot be understated. I am sure you
agree that there is an utmost importance for transparency and an undeniable public interest
regarding the involvement of the Prince of Wales in the running of government. I hope you will
take these factors into consideration when you make your decision.
I enclose my correspondence with the Cabinet Office and Mr Smethurst for your reference. I
await your response.
Yours faithfully,
Alex Wickham
Guido Fawkes blog
2