It seems that it could take up to 40 days for an Internal Review by the Home Office of our Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request regarding the Westminster Tracer Gas trials.
Perhaps we will get a proper response by the 20th of August.
It seems that it could take up to 40 days for an Internal Review by the Home Office of our Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request regarding the Westminster Tracer Gas trials.
Perhaps we will get a proper response by the 20th of August.
After sending a reminder email on Thursday 21st June 2007, i.e. 2 days after the 20 working day limit for our original request, the Home Office seems to be trying the bureaucratic tactic of "it's nuffing to do wiv us", and claim that they are forwarding the email to the Department of Food, Environment and Rural Affairs.
What possible relevance DEFRA has to some research being conducted for anti-terrorism and national security purposes, which was announced via a Ministerial Statement by Home Office Minister Tony McNulty, who also answered two Parliamentary Written Questions from Labour MP and political blogger Tom Watson on these trials.
These Written Answers partially answered one of our EIR questions within the 20 working day period of oir EIR request, something which the Department should have advised us of, bearing in mind the criticisms by the Information Commissioner in similar cases, including our own long running struggle with the Office for Government Commerce / Home Office over the Gateway Reviews for the Identity Cards Programme.
So far as we can see, since the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 are not as constrained as the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with regards to Exemptions, but we still have to wait for an Internal Review of the handling of our request by a different section of the Home Office, before complaining to the Information Commissioner.
The House of Lords has disclosed, as per our FOIA request, a couple of Home Office documents which give a glimpse about the chronology of the meetings and decisions which led to the Designation of the Place of Westminster and Portcullis House (and Downing Street, Buckingham Palace, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, MOD etc. buildings) under the Serious organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
The emphasis on displaying adequate warning signs around the perimeters of Designated Sites, some of which which are now called Protected Sites (after the amendment brought in by Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2006) is interesting - the Home Office civil servants fear that the legislation will "be brought into disrepute by a failed prosecution", based on the statutory defence under "section 128(4) if a person can prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect the site in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed was a designated site".
This is currently very topical, since the first people, Obadiah Marius and Victoria Smith have now been arrested and charged under this Section 128, for apparently wandering into Downing Street via the unmarked 70 Whitehall entrance to the Cabinet Office.
Warning signs suitable for the perimeter fence of a nuclear power station on an isolated site, are not adequate for public buildings or otherwise unmarked official office buildings in the centre of London, an area with with millions of foreign tourists who may not read English well or at all. There are also many British people who cannot read or see such signs either.
The House of Lords disclosure consists of 4 photocopied items:
The FOIA disclosure was made via post which arrived on Tuesday 12th June 2007, exactly 20 working days (allowing for the May Public Holiday).
"I know the policy is not a welcome one but it is one to which the Government has committed us and it will be difficult for us all if it is called into disrepute"
We have censored some names, addresses, individual email addresses and direct telephone extensions in the transcriptions below:
Recent Comments