Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
Government
1/NW Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
T 030 3444 0000
www.gov.uk/mhclg
Mr Abdul Hai
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date:
7 September 2018
Dear Mr Hai
Freedom of Information Act 2000 –
3492745
I refer to your request for information which was received on 22 September 2017 and
our response dated 5 March 2018.
Following correspondence with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) would like to
revise its response to you; please find our revised response below. I would like to
offer my apologies for the change in the Department’s position in relation to your
request.
Your request was:
"
Who decided that Tower Hamlets should be excluded from the voter ID pilot in
2018?
All correspondence between:
a) DCLG Ministers and Officials in this regard since 2015;
b) Commissioners and DCLG since 2015;
c) Council officers including Will Tuckley since 2015; and
d) Elected members of Tower Hamlets or members of the Commons and Lords
since 2015 in this regard.".
Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(“FOIA”).
The decision to not participate in the voter ID pilot was made by Tower Hamlets.
I can confirm that the information requested is held by MHCLG and we are able to
provide you with some of this information. I have enclosed copies of the information
subject to redactions of personal data under the provisions of section 40(2) of FOIA,
since disclosure would breach one of more of the data protection principles.
However, I am unable to provide all of the information we hold. A briefing note
prepared for the Secretary of State prior to a telephone conversation with Chris
TEMPLATE FRAMEWORK – NOT TO BE USED FOR SUBMISSION
OF DRAFT ANSWERS
Skidmore, Elections Minister, referred to in the email from Lead Inspection and
Intervention, dated 06 September 2017, is exempt from disclosure as the exemption
as section 35(1)(b) of the FOI Act is engaged. This exemption applies to information
which relates to ministerial communications; as the primary purpose of the document
concerned was to brief the Secretary of State prior to a telephone conversation with
the Elections Minister this exemption is engaged.
Should the exemption at section 35(1)(b) be found not to apply to any of the
information in this document , we consider that the exemption at section 36(2)(c)
would be engaged in the alternative as disclosure would harm the effective conduct
of public affairs. The briefing note is internal correspondence to the Secretary of
State, from officials, and was never intended for disclosure beyond this, containing
as it does advice regarding matters that may or may not be raised as part of that
conversation. If such advice was not provided to Ministers it would risk their ability to
respond accurately to issues; officials must feel able to provide candid
recommendations without fear of inappropriate disclosure.
Information falling within these exemptions must still be disclosed unless the public
interest served by doing so is outweighed by that served by maintaining the
exemption.
There is always a degree of benefit in making information held by public authorities
available as it increases public participation in decision making, and aids the
transparency and accountability of government. This, in turn, may serve to increase
public trust and confidence in good governance. Specific to this situation, there is a
further public interest in transparency and the relationship between the council and
central government due to the police investigation into election fraud in Tower
Hamlets.
However, there is a contrasting public interest in Ministers across Departments being
able to discuss issues candidly and for officials within the Department being able to
provide advice to Ministers regarding the handling of such conversations without
disclosures which could potentially undermine the collective decision making process
of government Ministers. It is key to the operation of Government that Ministers can
debate and discuss issues in a free and frank way before reaching a collective
decision. Briefing notes prepared by officials to support these conversations ensure
that Ministers have all the facts and high quality advice needed to be able to discuss
issues effectively. Disclosing the information in question would make this advice less
candid in the future, and Ministers could not be certain of receiving the high quality
advice they require; this would clearly not be in the public interest.
Based on the above I have decided, on balance, that it is not in the public interest to
disclose this briefing note at this time.
We will provide the ICO with a copy of this response, together with the information
released. We will also explain to the Commissioner our reasons for withholding the
remaining information so that she can make an informed decision regarding
MHCLG’s handling of your request.
TEMPLATE FRAMEWORK – NOT TO BE USED FOR SUBMISSION
OF DRAFT ANSWERS
Yours sincerely
FOI Business Partner