Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk devolution proposals - Mayor of East Anglia
Dear Department for Communities and Local Government,
Cambridge City Council has formally written to The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury informing the Government of its position regarding your proposals for a Regional mayor for East Anglia covering Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. (See item 3b at http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieList... due to be debated by the council on Wed 23 March 2016).
I also note your press release at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/radic... which talks about the 'Northern Powerhouse' but makes no reference to Cambridgeshire or East Anglia.
At The Budget, the Chancellor announced proposals for a regional mayor for East Anglia covering Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The draft document, signed by the relevant local authorities but NOT Cambridge City Council, nor the Greater Cambridge and Greater Peterborough LEP is included in the papers on the Cambridge City Council website link above.
This draft document appears to have been put together in a rush, and indicates that the Government's original proposals were for Norfolk and Suffolk only. For example there are ***nine*** separate references to "the LEP" when you know full well that there are two local economic partnerships that fall within the three counties. This strikes me as more than just a simple oversight.
Therefore, I would like you to confirm that the following pieces of information exist, as you are required to do under Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
1) A ministerial/private office commission to start work on a Norfolk Suffolk devolved area
2) A draft final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk and Suffolk only
3) A commission from ministerial/private office to start work on expanding the Norfolk/Suffolk devolved area to cover Cambridgeshire
4) Any final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire
5) Any briefing (whether stock briefing or specifically requested briefing) regarding why Cambridgeshire and specifically Cambridge should be included
6) Any requests from other Government departments regarding the inclusion of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire - including but not limited to the Department for Business, the Department for Health, Treasury, Cabinet Office and Number 10 Downing Street
7) Any correspondence between your department and Lord Lansley
8) Records of any meetings between ministers and/or officials with Lord Lansley
9) Confirmation that your department has done a policy risk assessment and maintains a risk register related to this new policy area.
If, having identified any of the above documents I would like you to release the information held within them, subject to any exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The information I have requested is of considerable local interest as both Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council will be debating and voting upon the Government's proposals this month. Therefore I consider that there is a strong public interest that the information I have requested be disclosed in order for elected councillors to hold more informed debates.
Yours faithfully,
Antony Carpen
Our reference: 2228810 Information request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your email. We are currently processing your request. If you
have any questions, please ask by return email. Please don’t change the
subject line when replying as this could delay your message getting to the
right person.
Department for Communities and Local Government
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
Our reference: 2228810 Information request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Carpen
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for contacting us on 21 March 2016 requesting 1) A
ministerial/private office commission to start work on a Norfolk Suffolk
devolved area
2) A draft final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk and Suffolk only
3) A commission from ministerial/private office to start work on expanding
the Norfolk/Suffolk devolved area to cover Cambridgeshire
4) Any final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk, Suffolk and
Cambridgeshire
5) Any briefing (whether stock briefing or specifically requested
briefing) regarding why Cambridgeshire and specifically Cambridge should
be included
6) Any requests from other Government departments regarding the inclusion
of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire - including but not limited to the
Department for Business, the Department for Health, Treasury, Cabinet
Office and Number 10 Downing Street
7) Any correspondence between your department and Lord Lansley
8) Records of any meetings between ministers and/or officials with Lord
Lansley
9) Confirmation that your department has done a policy risk assessment and
maintains a risk register related to this new policy area.
I am dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and aim to send you a response by 20 April 2016.
If you have any questions, please ask by return email. Please leave the
subject line unchanged when replying, to make sure your email gets
straight to me.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Lock
FoI Business partner - Localism
020333 42137
[email address]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
Our reference: 2228810 Information request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Carpen
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thank you for your request for information concerning 1) A
ministerial/private office commission to start work on a Norfolk Suffolk
devolved area
2) A draft final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk and Suffolk only
3) A commission from ministerial/private office to start work on expanding
the Norfolk/Suffolk devolved area to cover Cambridgeshire
4) Any final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk, Suffolk and
Cambridgeshire
5) Any briefing (whether stock briefing or specifically requested
briefing) regarding why Cambridgeshire and specifically Cambridge should
be included
6) Any requests from other Government departments regarding the inclusion
of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire - including but not limited to the
Department for Business, the Department for Health, Treasury, Cabinet
Office and Number 10 Downing Street
7) Any correspondence between your department and Lord Lansley
8) Records of any meetings between ministers and/or officials with Lord
Lansley
9) Confirmation that your department has done a policy risk assessment and
maintains a risk register related to this new policy area., which we
received on 21 March 2016.
We are handling it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
We do hold this information, but unfortunately I will not be able to give
you a response within the normal 20 working days. I need additional time
to give extra consideration to the public interest in releasing it.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows this when one or more qualified
exemptions apply to the information. In this case the exemption I am
considering is section 35 (1) (a).
I estimate that it will take an additional 20 working days to take a
decision on where the balance of the public interest lies. Therefore, I
will respond to you by 19 May 2016.
Complaints procedure
If you are unhappy with this response, we will review it and report back
to you. (This is called an internal review.) If you want us to do this,
let us know by return email within two months of receiving this response.
You can also ask by letter addressed to:
Department for Communities and Local Government
Knowledge and Information Access Team
1st Floor NW, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF
If you are unhappy with the outcome of this internal review, you can ask
the independent Information Commissioner to investigate. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at email address [1][email address] or
use their online form at [2]ico.org.uk/concerns or call them on 0303 123
1113.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Lock
FoI Business partner - Localism
020333 42137
[email address]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://ico.org.uk/concerns
Our reference: 2228810 Information request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Carpen
Thank you for your request for information concerning 1) A
ministerial/private office commission to start work on a Norfolk Suffolk
devolved area
2) A draft final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk and Suffolk only
3) A commission from ministerial/private office to start work on expanding
the Norfolk/Suffolk devolved area to cover Cambridgeshire
4) Any final copy of the agreement covering Norfolk, Suffolk and
Cambridgeshire
5) Any briefing (whether stock briefing or specifically requested
briefing) regarding why Cambridgeshire and specifically Cambridge should
be included
6) Any requests from other Government departments regarding the inclusion
of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire - including but not limited to the
Department for Business, the Department for Health, Treasury, Cabinet
Office and Number 10 Downing Street
7) Any correspondence between your department and Lord Lansley
8) Records of any meetings between ministers and/or officials with Lord
Lansley
9) Confirmation that your department has done a policy risk assessment and
maintains a risk register related to this new policy area..
Unfortunately I am unable to provide all of this information. I have
attached my formal response which sets out the reasons for this, as well
as the information that I am able to provide.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Lock
FoI Business partner - Localism
020333 42137
[email address]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Antony Carpen left an annotation ()
The purpose of this request was to find out about the policy-making process that the department undertook.
Re the risk register, as it is a live risk register, as expected the department has (in my opinion correctly) identified Section 35 exemption and, following an assessment of the public interest in releasing or withholding the information, has assessed that the public interest is best served withholding the information.
Yes, it would be nice from my perspective if the register was released, but from a point of law, the decision they made was IMO the correct one.
The explanations officials have given for each of my points preceding this speak volumes - and again, also at no embarrassment to the civil servants concerned. The major policy flaws in the devolution proposals are the fault of ministers, not officials. What does each point tell us?
1) The proposals come from local partners - I may follow this up and ask them to name the partners and the timeline of communications
2) This surprises me - as surely there would have been a draft copy for the local authorities to state what they were and were not comfortable with. This indicates that councils did not have the opportunity to input into the proposals at all - even though they might (according to 1) have proposed the devo deal.
3) Who in Cambridgeshire asked for our county to be included/covered by the deal?
4) Nothing to add
5) This ***astonishes me*** given how high profile the rejection by Cambridge city and Cambridgeshire County Councils was. My recommendation to civil servants is to start writing that briefing and quick given the level of local opposition.
6) I'm tempted to test this with FoI requests to other departments.
7) Which then makes me wonder how Lord Lansley's name ended up as headline news as the front runner for Mayor of East Anglia if there is no record in the department.
8) Ditto
9) As discussed at top
Antony Carpen 28 April 2016