27 October 2010

Your Ref:

Our Ref: 920(553)

Dear Mr Elibank,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. I confirm that the Privy Council Office holds some of the information you are seeking.

You first asked for electronic copies of all correspondence connected to and which was involved in the preparation of Lord Mandelson's announcement regarding arrangements for The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012.

First, I am very sorry for not having replied before now. We should have done so. I know in your email of 11 October you asked for an internal review of the handling of your request but should be grateful if you could confirm whether or not you do still wish for the review to continue, given that we have responded to the request with this letter. If you do still wish us to take forward the review it would also be helpful if you would kindly confirm whether or not you would like the review only to deal with the delay in replying, or whether (given this letter) you would also like it to address the fact that some of the information held is exempt from disclosure (see below).

We will not take your internal review forward until/unless we hear from you and you have confirmed how you would like to handle things.

Second, the Privy Council Office holds some information which comes within the scope of your question, and which is releasable. This is attached.

However, some of the information that falls within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure under section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 35(1)(a) exempts information if it relates to the formulation or development of government policy. This exemption is subject to the public interest test and I have considered whether the public interest falls in favour of releasing the information, or whether it falls in favour of maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.

We recognise that there is a public interest in the release of information where this leads to a better understanding of how Government formulates policy and this may increase public confidence that decisions are properly made. Greater transparency makes government more accountable to the electorate, and as knowledge of how government works increases, the public contribution to the policy making process can become more effective.

On the other hand, while the process is taking place, officials need be able to consider all policy options without being constrained by the possibility of public disclosure; and they need to retain the ability to debate issues relating to policy formulation freely and in confidence, before putting advice to Ministers. This is an iterative process and may include amendments and proposals which are not subsequently taken forward. It is also important that the collective responsibility of government is not undermined by disclosure of interdepartmental consideration.

Having considered the circumstances of this case, I believe the balance of public interest falls in favour of withholding that information which is exempt under section 35(1)(a) of the Act.

Second, you asked for a full list of other government departments and agencies who were involved in the decision-taking process (for Lord Mandelson's statement). Again, some information is held - see the names of government departments included in the attached emails and also listed in the attached Minutes extract as attending a meeting on the subject. This is not necessarily a full list, but is quite comprehensive.

The lead Minister for the arrangements for The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Department was Lord Mandelson, supported by officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where the Diamond Jubilee Unit is still based. Although Lord Mandelson was referred to in the Hansard record of his statement as “The First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council” - i.e. by all his Ministerial titles - he was in practice making the statement as the Government Minister responsible for the Diamond Jubilee arrangements, and not because he had responsibilities in relation to the subject matter as Lord President of the Council. Although you kindly suggested transferring your request, since the Privy Council Office hold information relating to the request we are obliged to respond to you under the Freedom of Information Act. However, you may wish to note that the Department for Culture Media and Sport will also hold relevant information and you may like to contact them. You should contact Frances MacLeod, DCMS, 2-4 Cockspur Street, London SW1Y 5DH.

***********

As you are already aware, as part of our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privy Council Office has an independent review process and we will wait to hear from you whether you wish such a review to take place and on what basis.

The internal review would be carried out by someone who did not make the original decision, and they would re-assess how the Department handled the original request.

Please confirm if you wish an internal review to proceed, by writing or sending an email to the Clerk of the Privy Council at your earliest convenience, at the following address:

The Clerk of the Privy Council

Privy Council Office

2 Carlton Gardens

London SW1Y 5AA

Email: [PCO request email].

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner's Office under section 50 of the FOIA. You can contact the Information Commissioner's Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Internet:https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx.

Yours sincerely

M McCullagh

M McCULLAGH