Freedom of Information Team
S1715
Mr Alexander Tiffin
6 Floor
Central Mail Unit
By email:
Newcastle Upon Tyne
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
NE98 1ZZ
Email
xxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
Web
www.gov.uk
Date: 14 September 2018
Our ref:
IR 2018/01845
Dear Mr Tiffin
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Thank you for your email, which we received on 17 August 2018, requesting an internal
review of the way HMRC handled your information request.
Your initial request
On 23 July 2018, you asked for the following information:
“I would like to know if you have unreleased Brexit related assessments. If so can you
release them to me in full.
It has been reported today that you do indeed have, a so far unpublished impact
assessment relating to our exit from the European Union.
This is very much within the public interest and ask that it be released without delay.
I would like to know what the HMRC envisages the impact on the UK's tax and VAT
revenues would be in the event of a no deal.
Will revenues initially fall in the event in the event of a no deal? If so why?
What precautions you are taking and what is the cost of these precautions?”
Our response
We replied on 17 August 2018 confirming we held information within scope of your request.
However, we considered any Brexit related impact assessments were exempt from release
under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA as that information supported the formulation and
development of government policy;. We explained that section 35 is a qualified exemption
and we had weighed the public interest in providing the information but concluded the
exemption still applied.
Internal review
On 17 August 2018, you wrote to HMRC expressing dissatisfaction with our response.
You stated:
‘This is one of THE most important things our country is going through. The public interest in
Brexit and the possible outcomes of a No Deal is extremely high.
Information is available in large print, audio and Braille formats.
Text Relay service prefix number – 18001
While you may argue that this undermines the UK ability to negotiate, but the case for public
transparency is far more important in this case. People living in the UK have an absolute
right to know what a government department thinks will happen in different scenarios.
To withhold them undermines public trust in our government. There is no case to say that
the public interest case isn't compelling enough.
I again ask you to consider what is more important.
Public trust in our government or withholding what are merely scenarios.
Even more compelling is the fact several government ministers have stated that the UK will
be fine in a no deal situation. Therefore the case for disclosure is hard to refuse.
Failure to release them undermines the right we have to hold our elected representatives to
account. They have made these claims so we now have the right to know whether or not
they are true in the HMRC’s opinion.
Please ensure that the original reports are kept and remain unaltered from the date of my
original request as I will take this to the ICO and the High Court with NUJ help if necessary.’
The purpose of this review is to consider whether your request was handled correctly under
the terms of the FOIA. Our response was issued on 17 August 2018 which I note was within
the statutory time period specified in section 10(1) of the FOIA. In accordance with section
17(7) of the FOIA our response included details on how you could complain to the
Information Commissioner.
Outcome
Your email of 17 August 2018 questions our handling of your request. I have reviewed our
response and after careful consideration have determined it was correct to withhold the
information.
We do have the information you requested. We declined to release it because of the
exemption under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA, which states:
(1) Information held by a government department or by the National Assembly for Wales is
exempt information if it relates to –
(a) the formulation or development of government policy.
I consider the information you requested clearly relates to the formulation and development
of government policy. However, as stated in our response section 35 is a qualified
exemption which means I need to consider whether it is in the public interest to release the
information. The decision that it was not in the public interest to release the information was
a balanced decision. While recognising some public interest arguments in favour of
disclosure (such as that releasing the information will promote government transparency,
accountability and wider understanding for the public.) I conclude that those are substantially
outweighed by arguments against disclosure.
Public Interest
I recognise there is an inherent public interest in transparency and accountability of public
authorities. I also recognise the broad public interest in furthering public understanding of the
issues which such authorities deal with. There is a clear public interest in departments being
transparent and open to scrutiny to increase diligence.
Balanced against this is the public interest in protecting the Government’s ability to discuss
and develop policies and to reach well-formed conclusions. There is a need to preserve a
‘safe space’ to debate live policy issues. The whole policy area is still under active
development. Disclosure at this time may cause unhelpful debate based on an incomplete
picture of the policy. That in turn may distract officials from developing the policies effectively
and may close off better options from being considered.
Where information sets out policy options, release would, or would be likely to, curtail the
space in which officials operate in as part of the thinking space to develop, test, and
converse on policy options in order to advance ideas and prepare them for a decision. The
2
policy process must afford officials and ministers the opportunity to develop, and consider a
full range of options to enable a set of balanced decisions to be reached.
The Information Commissioner has recognised that policy development needs some degree
of freedom to enable to process to work effectively and I consider there is a strong public
interest in protecting information where release would be likely to have a detrimental impact
on the ongoing development of policy. There is a strong public interest in protecting against
encroachment on the ability of ministers and/or officials to develop options freely and frankly.
In this instance, impact assessments are dependent on the outcome of negotiations with the
EU and the positions that the Government will take in those negotiations. I believe the
integrity of the policymaking and negotiating processes would be undermined if early details
of the assessments are disclosed. Therefore the public interest in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
I have reviewed the position and the points you raise and on balance conclude that it is not
in the public interest to set aside this exemption. Any decision to apply the exemption should
be made taking a balanced view and I believe I have done this in this case.
Furthermore, the Government has recently published a set of technical notices to help
businesses and citizens prepare for March 2019 in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario. These
notices, which support the transparency agenda, can be accessed via the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-
deal
Appeal process
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you can complain to the
Information Commissioner’s Office. You can do this by accessing the following link:
https://ico.org.uk/concerns/
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information Team
3