All communications related to the prorogation of Parliament

The request was refused by Cabinet Office.

Dear Cabinet Office,

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act I am requesting the following:

All correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones) to, from or within the present administration, since 23 July 2019 relating to the 9th September prorogation of Parliament, sent or received by the following individual: Dominic Cummings

Yours faithfully,

Lee Wilkinson

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  FOI329251 

Dear Lee Wilkinson

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received on
13/1/2020 and we are considering if it is appropriate to deal with under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

When corresponding with the Cabinet Office, you may wish to be aware of
how we treat your personal Information.  This is set out in our personal
information charter, at the following
link: [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

 Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [2][Cabinet Office request email]

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,

The response to my request, by law, was due promptly and by 7th February 2020, however, I haven't received a response.

Please can you provide an explanation for this delay and an update on the status of my request.

Yours sincerely,

Lee

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][Cabinet Office request email] 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Cabinet Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office's handling of my FOI request 'All communications related to the prorogation of Parliament'.

The response states that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information, however there are communications which exist in relation to my request. For example, a memo on 15th August 2019 from Nikki Da Costa which was cc'd to Dominic Cummings on the subject of prorogation. This memo was revealed during the court proceedings last year which ruled that the prorogation was unlawful and should have been provided to me in the response to my request.

Also, the response, by law, was required to be sent no later than 7th February 2020. I followed up on 8th February 2020 asking for an explanation about the delay, but was not provided one in the response. The response was received on 13th February 2020, four working days after the deadline.

I would therefore like the internal review to provide the following:

1. An explanation for the delayed response to my request.
2. A list of all sources/accounts which were checked in relation to my request.
3. All communications relating to my request which were sent/received by the Cabinet Office, FOI team and Dominic Cummings/his associates during the handling of this request.
4. All communications which should have been provided in the response to my request.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Although there is no official timeframe for completing a review, the ICO does recommend 20 working days. I think that is sufficient and if I do not receive an adequate response by close of play on Friday, 13th March I will progress my complaint directly with the Information Commissioner's Office.

I appreciate your timely and detailed consideration of this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Lee Wilkinson

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  IR329251

Dear LEE WILKINSON

Thank you for your request for an internal review. Your request was
received on 17/02/2020 and is being dealt with under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  FOI329728

Dear LEE WILKINSON

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received
on 17/02/2020 and we are considering if it is appropriate to deal with
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

When corresponding with the Cabinet Office, you may wish to be aware of
how we treat your personal Information.  This is set out in our personal
information charter, at the following
link: [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

 Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [2][Cabinet Office request email]

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
2. mailto:[email address]

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached further information regarding your recent FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

 

Email – [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached further information regarding your recent FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

 

Email – [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached further information regarding your recent FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

 

Email – [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][Cabinet Office request email] 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Cabinet Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review (IR) of the Cabinet Office's handling of my FOI request 'All communications related to the prorogation of Parliament'.

Please note: This request for an IR is in relation to the response I received from your office on 10th June. The pre-existing IR request which was made on 16th February is still outstanding and has been escalated to the ICO who has been in touch with you.

This FOI request is for the communications involved in the handling of my original FOI request. Your response on 10th June refused this request using sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Freedom of Information Act.

The FOI Act states that exemptions under section 36 must be made by a 'qualified person'. As my request is to the Cabinet Office, the qualified person is 'any Minister of the Crown' (section 36(5)(a)).

Without a qualified person's opinion, this exemption cannot be engaged.

I would also like the IR to explain why section 36 has been engaged by a non-qualified individual. As experts respresenting the Cabinet Office in this matter, you must surely be aware of the 'qualified person' requirement.

Until I receive a response from the qualified person I cannot comment on the public interest test, as this person may release the requested information.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

Lee Wilkinson

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  IR2020/09095

Dear Lee Wilkinson

Thank you for your request for an internal review. Your request was
received on 03/07/2020 and is being dealt with under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your IR request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][Cabinet Office request email] 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Eirian Walsh Atkins

Thank you for your response on 28th July with the apology and acknowledgement that on 10th June you incorrectly engaged a section 36 exemption without the opinion of a qualified person.

Although your apology was a response to my request for an Internal Review (and I have therefore ‘used up’ my IR option) I am writing to you now with regard to the public interest test. In my response on 3rd July I did specifically state that I was withholding my public interest arguments until I received an opinion from the qualified person. It should therefore be no surprise to you that I am now addressing the public interest test, as I made you fully aware that I would be doing so.

The ICO guidelines on section 36 exemptions and the public interest state (paragraph 74):

“Furthermore it should always be possible for the public authority to review the public interest arguments.”

As your public interest test response and the qualified person’s opinion only came with your IR response, it would be unfair to not give me the opportunity to provide my arguments regarding the public interest test, especially as it was the fault of the Cabinet Office in creating the need to use my IR option to challenge your unlawful section 36 exemption.

In your response on 28th July you stated that the public interest test was weighed in favour of non-disclosure. I respectfully disagree.

The basis for the public interest being weighed in favour of disclosure is several suspicions of wrongdoing. It is important to note that the FOI guidelines do not require me to provide evidence of wrongdoing, only a plausible suspicion.

It is in the wider public interest if individuals within the Cabinet Office are not acting with the transparency required by the FOI Act. Also, the ‘meta request’ and original request are related to communications about the prorogation of Parliament, which the government was found to have illegally invoked in a Supreme Court case last year. If communications related to this are being actively prevented from disclosure, it is in the wider public interest to know the discussions leading to non-disclosure and any possible implications for the government’s illegal action.

I will now lay out my specific reasons for having these suspicions of wrongdoing:

1. The unlawful use of the section 36 exemption by a non-qualified person on 19th June 2020 was only challenged by me because I was aware of this part of the Freedom of Information Act. Had I not been aware of the law, this unlawful exemption would have gone unnoticed. To enact that exemption when you know it is not lawful, because you had not sought the opinion of a qualified person, raises a valid concern about your intentions and is a misfeasance of duty. I am considering this in the wider context of the lack of response to my original Internal Review request (IR dated 16th February 2020). These are deliberate actions taken by a civil servant in the Cabinet Office and raise the serious concern of why, therefore being an evidence-based suspicion of wrongdoing.
2. As mentioned in my last point, there has been a lack of response to my Internal Review request from 16th February 2020, other than taking point three and treating it as a ‘meta request’. Addressing point three is proof that you have seen my IR request, which means you have taken a deliberate action to ignore the rest. This is even with the ICO directly following up with you, asking for a response to my IR request. I make an adverse inference from this and have a suspicion of wrongdoing. Releasing the communications in this ‘meta request’ will allow the public to assess whether the IR request was ignored as part of an attempt to hide wrongdoing.
3. Dominic Cummings has a history of using personal email for government business, as discovered by the ICO in 2012. The ICO makes it clear that such emails are covered by the Freedom of Information Act. As a special advisor to the Prime Minister it would be practically impossible to not have discussions about the prorogation of Parliament. Given Cummings has a history of being found in contempt, allegedly breaking the law regarding lockdown rules and being challenged by the ICO about his failure in revealing personal emails related to his work in the Department for Education, I have strong suspicions that he would not comply with a request if he didn’t want to.
4. In my IR request on 16th February, I highlighted an example (point 17 in this judgment) to prove that prorogation communications involving Dominic Cummings do exist, therefore the communications about handling my request either failed to check for this information, or deliberately prevented the release. Again, this is an evidence-based suspicion of wrongdoing.
5. This point is about a lack of a qualified person’s detailed opinion from the Minister of the Constitution. Stating that you have their opinion isn’t sufficient, considering the great degree to which the FOI Act expects the qualified person to assess the section 36 exemption. If the qualified person has reviewed the communications and those communications attempt to block my original FOI request, that Minister is implicated in preventing that blocking from being brought to the public’s attention. A minor point is that you did not provide her name (Chloe Smith). This was either a mistake or a deliberate action to avoid providing a name for accountability.
6. An additional point is that you have provided a blanket response to being able to have full and frank discussions about FOI requests. I saw nothing to address the particular circumstances of my request, specifically in relation to the 16th February IR request, which you have still not provided a response to.
The reasons I have given above make it clear that the interest in releasing this information isn’t simply a personal interest (as you stated in your response on 28th July). It is an interest based on the public being able to see whether, given these suspicions of wrongdoing, the Cabinet Office has acted fully, impartially and in full compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

I have highlighted numerous, plausible evidence-based suspicions of wrongdoing to strengthen my case.

While I appreciate that there is a need for full and frank discussions, if those discussions have in any way been an attempt to prevent disclosure of a Freedom of Information request, the individuals are not acting withing the spirit, word or intent of the law and are benefitting from the section 36 exemption to hide their wrongdoing. It is important to note that as the Minister for Constitution has also provided an opinion, that opinion must be based on all the evidence and therefore has been made with full awareness of any attempt by individuals to block any part of my request and any failure to provide information regarding Dominic Cummings’ communications on the prorogation of Parliament.

I also want to draw your attention to aspects of the Civil Service Code. Firstly, the code is part of your contract of employment. The code also states the following:

• You should report evidence of criminal or unlawful activity to the police or other appropriate regulatory authorities.

If, at any point, you have seen communications which are an attempt by any party or individual to block my request by refusing to comply with the release of information, you are contractually obliged to report this.
Finally, in a previous response to an IR request of mine, instead of addressing the points I made, you simply stated that your opinion was that the public interest did not require disclosure. I expect more from a Civil Servant. I expect your response to fully respond to each point I have made, should you still consider disclosure to not be in the public interest. Failure to do so will be taken into account in any complaint I make to the ICO.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and I look forward to either receiving the information from my request or a full and detailed counter-argument to each point I have raised regarding my suspicions of wrongdoing.

Regards
Lee Wilkinson

FOI Team Mailbox, Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Please find attached the reply to your IR request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

Room 405

70 Whitehall,

London, SW1A 2AS

E-mail -[1][Cabinet Office request email] 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]