Summary: The complainant has requested information about the sequence of events leading up to and following the nationalisation of Bradford and Bingley in 2008. He also asked for confirmation or denial as to whether the matter was discussed and recorded at meetings of the Cabinet. The Cabinet Office refused to provide information in response to the request for information about the sequence of events. It cited section 29 (Prejudice to UK economic interests) and two parts of section 35 (Formulation/Development of government policy and Ministerial communications) as its reasons for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. It also introduced reliance on section 41 (Information provided in confidence) and section 43 (Prejudice to commercial interests) once the Commissioner-™s investigation into this complaint had begun. At the same time, the Cabinet Office sought to rely on section 35(3) as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it held any records of Cabinet discussions of the nationalisation of Bradford and Bingley. The Commissioner-™s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a), section 35(1)(b) as a basis for refusing to provide certain information and section 35(3) as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds other information. However, the Cabinet Office contravened the requirements of section 10 (Timeliness of response) and section 16 (Advice and assistance) when handling this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to the complainant by providing him with the names of public authorities set out in a Confidential Annex to this Notice and other explanatory details that are also set out in the Confidential Annex to this Notice. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0251 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld