information which a public authority does hold. The rights contained in that section are subject to certain other provisions of FOIA, including section 2. 29. Section 2(2) addresses potential exemptions to the Duty to Disclose. That section provides: “In respect of any information which is exempt information by virtue of any provision of Part II, section 1(1)(b) does not apply if or to the extent that— (a) the information is exempt information by virtue of a provision conferring absolute exemption, or (b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”. 30. The effect of the above is that some exemptions which are set out in Part II of FOIA are absolute and some are subject to the Public Interest Test. Section 2(3) explicitly lists which of those exemptions are absolute (and, pursuant to that section, no other exclusions are absolute). Section 35 (which is relevant for the purposes of the appeal) is not included in that list. 31. Accordingly, in summary, the exemption to the Duty to Disclose in section 35(1)(a) is subject to the Public Interest Test. Section 35 – formulation of government policy, etc 32. So far as is relevant for the purposes of the appeal, section 35 provides: “(1) Information held by a government department… is exempt information if it relates to— (a) the formulation or development of government policy…”. Discussion and findings Scope of the appeal 33. The Authority did not challenge the Decision Notice’s findings that it was entitled to rely on section 42(1) to withhold the relevant aspect of the Requested Information pursuant to that section. 34. In his response to the appeal, the Requestor confirmed that he accepted the Commissioner’s findings in the Decision Notice regarding the application of section 42. As we have noted, the Requestor had also not challenged the Authority’s reliance on section 40(1) in respect of withholding the personal data in the Requested Information (and he confirmed in his response that this was not an issue in respect of the appeal). 35. All three parties accepted that section 35(1)(a) is engaged in respect of the Requested Information. However, whilst the Authority argued that the Public Interest Test favoured maintaining the exemption in that section, the view of the Commissioner and the Requestor was that the Public Interest Test favoured disclosure. 36. Accordingly, the issue which we needed to determine in the appeal was whether the Commissioner was correct to conclude in the Decision Notice that, in respect of section 35(1) (a), the Public Interest Test favoured disclosure of the relevant Requested Information. Ground 1 37. The Authority disputed the Commissioner’s finding (in paragraph 27 of the Decision Notice) that “the requested information relates to a specific policy matter which has already been 6