1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ
Information Rights Unit
Tel: 0207 270 4558
Fax: 0207 270 4861
Ian Davison
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk
[email address]
[request-8581-
[email address]]
Ref: 9/184
30 March 2009
Dear Mr Davison
Freedom of Information Act 2000:
Kaupthing,
Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) (KSF IoM)
Thank you for your enquiry of 1 March 2009, received 2 March, requesting
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).
2. You asked for:
“what progress has been made in the Government's discussions with the Icelandic
government on the status of British depositors with Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander
(Isle of Man).”
The Freedom of Information Act gives the right to be told whether information is held
and the right of access to information, subject to the application of exemptions. The
right of access applies to recorded information. Broad questions are not valid
requests under the Act except as far as we hold recorded information in relation to
such questions. The information Commissioner has published a ‘Charter for
Responsible Requesters’, which includes guidance about how to formulate a request
for the best prospects of succes s. A link to the charter is below:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_ap
plication/its_public_information_foi%20charter_final.pdf
3. Given its broad nature, we have interpreted your request as a request for
information relating to discussions with the Icelandic Authorities and the Government
of the Isle of Man regarding Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man). The
Government are continuing to work closely with the Icelandic authorities to ensure
that Iceland treats all creditors of the failed Icelandic banks, including Kaupthing
Singer & Friedlander (Is le of Man), in a fair and equitable manner.
4. The Government takes seriously its constitutional responsibilities for the Crown
Dependencies. Although the Ministry of Justice is the Government Department with
responsibility for managing the UK's relationship with the Crown Dependencies, HM
Government as a whole shares the constitutional responsibilities the UK has for
them. The Treasury is the UK Department with the necessary expertise to represent
the Isle of Man in negotiations with the Icelandic authorities and is fulfilling this role.
5. We judge that information relating to discussions with the Icelandic authorities and
with the Isle of Man falls under the exemptions at sections s27(1)(a) (international
relations) and 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of policy) of the Act. These
exemptions are qualified and we are required to consider whether, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions
outweighs the public interest in favour of disclosure.
6. As well as the general public interest in the manner in which Government policy is
formulated and developed, in this case we recognise that there is specific public
interest in knowing how the interest of those affected by the failure of Icelandic banks
is being represented.
7. We also consider that there are strong reasons for maintaining the exemptions
cited in this case.
8. Section 27(1)(a) applies to information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to
prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other State. In this case, to
the United Kingdom’s relations with Iceland and the Isle of Man. The effective
conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence
between states and international organisations. The disclosure of the information
held may affect the UK’s relationship with Iceland and the Isle of Man and inhibit the
ongoing discussions between the UK and Icelandic Authorities to ensure the fair
treatment of UK depositors and creditors. This would not be in the public interest.
9. Section 35(1)(a) applies to information relating to the formulation and
development of government policy. It is important that decision-making is based on
the best advice available and a full consideration of all the options. If advice was
routinely made public there is a risk that officials could come under public pressure
not to challenge ideas in the formulation of policy, thus leading to poorer decision-
making. The disclosure of information could also prevent Ministers and officials
conducting rigorous and candid risk assessments of the negotiation options available
to them as premature disclosure might close off discussions and the development of
better options. This is especially important where, discussions are not finalised.
10. On balance we judge that the public interest lies with not disclosing this
information.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. It will be helpful to us if
you remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Information Rights Unit
On behalf of HM Treasury
2
Your Rights to Complain under the FOI Act
If you are not happy with this reply, you may request a review by writing to HM Treasury, Information Rights Unit, 2/S2, 1
Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. Email public.enquiries@hm -treasury.gov.uk <mailto:public.enquiries@hm -
treasury.gov.uk>.
Any review request must be made within 2 months of the date of this letter.
It would assist our review if you set out which aspects of the reply concern you and why you are dissatisfied.
If you are not content with the outcome your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the
Treasury. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
3
