Dear HM Treasury,

Please provide copies of email and written correspondence held by the Private Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding Infected Blood Compensation during the period 1st April 2022 - 20th August 2022.

Yours faithfully,

JJ Evans

Dear FOIClearances,

This seriously long overdue FOI request will go to ICO at 8:30am on Monday 22nd May, in the absence of a full response by then.

Yours sincerely,

JJ Evans

Dear FOIClearances,

Gone to ICO today.

Yours sincerely,

JJ Evans

Dear FOIClearances,

The ICO has now issued a decision notice against HMT in relation to this request. Reference: IC-234052-L7R7

Yours sincerely,

JJ Evans

Dear HM Treasury,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of HM Treasury's handling of my FOI request 'Infected Blood Compensation'.

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for Work and Pensions's handling of my FOI request 'IBI Corr'.

I am writing to request an Internal Review of your response to my FOIA request FOI2022/15844

I do not wish to challenge the application of S40. I do, however, wish to challenge the applications of S35(1)(a), S35(1)(b) and S35(1)(d).

Firstly, To be exempt, the information must relate to the formulation or development of government policy. It is disputed that the information meets this test.

The ICO is clear that "the exemption does not cover information relating purely to the application or implementation of established policy. It is therefore important to identify where policy formulation or development ends and implementation begins."

The government has already accepted the moral case for compensation (Citation: HC Deb, 15 December 2022, c1249). Indeed, the government has already paid £100,000 in interim compensation payments to those infected still alive and bereaved partners. It is, therefore, incorrect to assert that the formulation of policy relates to the principle of Infected Blood compensation itself. It is far more likely the information requested refers to "the application or implementation of established policy". The information likely relates to what the Paymaster General referred to in the House of Commons as "taking forward work strands" relating to infected blood compensation.

As part of the public interest test, I do not believe enough weight, if any, has been given to the fact that many of those infected and affected by infected blood products do not think that the government is progressing with the established policy of paying compensation in relation to infected blood. Releasing this information would increase public confidence that the government is doing what it says it is doing. Furthermore, if the information shows the opposite, then the public interest favours the public knowing that is the case.

Even if it could be shown that some information is captured by S35, it is disputed that all of the information requested is captured by S35.

The government asked Sir Robert Francis KC to undertake a compensation framework study some years ago, separately from the Infected Blood Inquiry. Sir Robert's independent study was delivered to the government well over a year ago and the Paymaster General informed the House of Commons in December 2022 that Sir Robert was advising the government on how best to introduce his compensation framework. It is not known, then, why HMT argues the formulation point.

"The term 'formulation' of policy refers to the early stages of the policy process". That is not where infected blood compensation is. Indeed, it would be very concerning to all if this were the case. Interim payments have been paid and the framework has existed for well over a year. Infected blood compensation is clearly in the implementation stage and the ICO has already agreed with this view when assessing a similar request made to DWP.

The term "framework" is specifically used by the ICO in their guidance. Given Sir Robert has delivered the compensation framework to the government a year ago, this is of particular significance: "In this context, the policy can be seen as a framework of ‘rules’ put in place to achieve a particular objective. This framework sets in stone some fundamental details, but also inevitably leaves more detailed decisions to be made by those implementing the plan, thus giving some inbuilt flexibility on how it can be delivered. Any such adjustment or decision that can be made within this inbuilt flexibility – ie without altering the original objectives or rules – is likely to be an implementation decision rather than policy development."

Even if some information is shown to be captured by S35(1)(a), it does not mean that the same information is also covered by S35(1)(b) or S35(1)(d) and vice versa.

It is disputed that release of the information would significantly undermine Ministerial unity and effectiveness or result in less robust, well-considered or effective Ministerial debates and decisions.

I again emphasise that Infected Blood compensation is at the implementation stage according to the guidance laid down by the ICO, not the formulation stage.

It is argued that even if S35(1)(b) applies to some of the information, the public interest will fall in favour of the disclosure of the information, mainly for the same reasons described above. Lack of transparency from the government is a significant factor in the story of infected blood, and so special and increased weight should be given to the disclosure of information in this area.

Given the gross delay in responding to the original request, I would expect priority is given in responding to this Internal Review request.

Yours faithfully,

JJ Evans

Dear FOI Requests,

Gone to ICO Today.

Yours sincerely,

JJ Evans