In accordance with review proficient gauges, the Council said that their Audit Code of Practice obliged examiners to save privacy where proper and they trusted that there was in this way a certain desire of classifiedness on all inspectors also, data was given to evaluators in the desire that secrecy would be watched.
They would say, Tax Depreciation Schedule privacy was a recognized and acknowledged piece of the review process and, in spite of the fact that there was no statutory surety, there was an unmistakable Council approach of secrecy all together for the Audit Service to have the capacity to lead its work successfully.
I ought to say at the start that, albeit both Mr G and the Council have made reference in their correspondence to the Freedom of Information Act, that Act has not yet completely come into power. I ought to likewise accentuate that the Code gives a privilege just to data. not to records (in spite of the fact that the Ombudsmans experience has demonstrated that the least difficult path in which to meet a solicitation for data is frequently by discharging the real archive concerned), and it is on this premise that Mr Gs protest has been examined.
My evaluation is concerned basically with the refusal to discharge the data looked for by Mr G. That data is contained inside of a report arranged by the advisors to help the Chief Executive in considering the benefits of Mr Gs objection to the Council. In spite of the fact that that report was incorporated by the specialists, the Code is clear that capacities performed by builders in the interest of offices, offices or open bodies are not rejected from the duties of the Code to give data or to secure confidences.