This request stemmed from the refusal of the Cabinet Office to provide any details of the information that it was refusing to release in Cabinet Office 1. The Cabinet Office had admitted that it had unpublished information relating to the drafting of the dossier between 11 and 16 September but would not reveal what that information was. This request was therefore:

"Does the Cabinet Office hold any comments on the drafting of the September dossier between 11 and 16 September other than those submitted by the DIS and other than those already in the public domain?

"If so, please provide details, including the identities and/or Departments of those offering the comments."

The Cabinet Office refused to provide any information, citing the Section 36 exemption and claiming that:

"We believe that disclosure of department names, individuals' names and designations is as inhibiting for Government business as disclosing details of the responses."

It may be self-evident to many people that this cannot be the case (and the Foreign Office gave a different view in relation to the Williams draft). The Cabinet Office is effectively claiming that public knowledge that a government department had made an (undisclosed) comment on an issue at some point in time would cause officials to be less likely to offer free and frank advice - or perhaps any advice - in the future. This takes the abuse of Section 36 to a new level.

It subsequently emerged that the Intelligence and Security Committee report gave details of some of the individuals and departments offering comments during this time:

At para 73, the report states "The Foreign Secretary commented on 11 September and Mr Mike O’Brien MP, Minister of State FCO, on 12 September."

At para 75, the report states that "The Assessments Staff received comments from a number of departments, including No.10, the MoD and the FCO."

It was pointed out to the Cabinet Office that it was likely to be refusing to acknowledge holding information whose existence was a matter of public knowledge and that the fact that this was public knowledge undermined its claim that disclosure of similar information would have the adverse effects cited. But this made no difference to the case and the Cabinet Office upheld the decision on review.

The case is now with the Information Commissioner