After the MCA had considered the views of the CSM on disclosure of the information sought, they therefore decided to seek Ministers’ views about the property valuation Sydney disclosure of information relating to the CSM’s past proceedings.They then reconsidered all of Mr I’s outstanding requests in the light of the Minister of State’s decision that they should maintain confidentiality except.They subsequently wrote to him again on 9 December to convey the outcome of this review. They confirmed to Mr I that he had already been provided with some information, although in one case that information was needed subsequent correction.
where information was clearly available (for example in annual reports) and where it would not prejudice the previous understanding about confidentiality. The Permanent Secretary said he had reviewed the MCA’s handling of Mri’s requests. The Permanent Secretary said that Mr I had sent eleven Code requests for information to the MCA in 1998, most of which were detailed. The MCA would now review all of his relevant requests, including those which were the subject of the complaint to me they would consider what, if any, additional information or documents could now be released.
The MCA accepted that, when they reached their Waterproofing Stage Inspection original decision, they might have given a rather narrow interpretation of Ministers’ views about the disclosure of previously confidential information it might therefore be possible to release more. This review had already started, and he had asked for details of its outcome and of any further decisions about disclosure to be sent to my staff. The MCA wrote to Mr I on 11 November to inform him of their decision to review his complaints.
They also agreed to provide edited versions of the minutes of all CSM committee and sub-committee meetings held between January 1998 and 20 March 1998 (the date on which Mr I had asked for the information) and to send him these by the end of that week. On 23 December the MCA sent Mr I (among other material) edited minutes of a meeting, in reply to another of his requests, although these were not the minutes he had asked for on 20 March.