Dear Prime Minister's Office,

I am writing under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request access to documents pertaining to the appointment of David Cameron as a Lord. Specifically, my request includes:

1. Official Instruction Document: I seek a copy of the document or directive issued to the relevant authority concerning the appointment of David Cameron as a Lord. This may include details of the attributes and qualifications considered for this distinction.

2. Timing of the Decision: I request any documents or correspondence that elucidate the timing of this decision, particularly since Mr. Cameron had long resigned as an MP.

I understand that certain information within these documents may be of a personal nature and not pertinent for public release. I acknowledge and agree that such information can be redacted in compliance with the Act.

Public Interest Justifications:

1. Transparency in Political Appointments: Revealing the process underpinning such appointments enhances transparency.

2. Public Accountability: This information ensures accountability for the decisions in bestowing honours.

3. Democratic Processes: Accessibility to such information is crucial for democratic engagement and scrutiny.

4. Public Trust: Insight into the criteria and timing bolsters public trust in the political appointment process.

5. Historical Context: These details offer significant historical insights into governmental decision-making.

6. Policy Understanding: Disclosure aids in understanding the policies and criteria for appointing Lords.

7. Speculation and Rumour Prevention: It mitigates unfounded speculation or rumours.

8. Scrutiny of Potential Political Favours: This information enables scrutiny of the basis for appointments – merit or political favour.

9. Cabinet Composition: Understanding the reasons behind such appointments is critical, especially amidst discussions of Mr. Cameron potentially being considered for Foreign Secretary by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

10. Public Engagement: The release of this information will foster public engagement and discourse regarding the political process.

I understand your obligation to respond within 20 working days. Should any part of this request be denied, I request a detailed justification for each exemption applied. I reserve the right to appeal against any refusal to disclose the requested information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this request. I anticipate your timely response.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
For Stop UK Lies and Corruption

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Internal Review Request: FOI2023/13568

'Documentation Pertaining to the Appointment of David Cameron as a Lord and Related Timing'.

I am writing to request an internal review of Prime Minister's Office's handling of my FOI request, ref: FOI2023/13568, concerning the appointment of David Cameron as a Lord.

1. Challenge to Section 37(1)(b) Exemption: While I acknowledge the necessity for confidentiality in certain aspects of the honours system, the public interest in understanding the process and criteria for such appointments is paramount. Transparency in political appointments is essential for maintaining public trust, democratic engagement, and accountability. The brief details provided in Hansard's record do not suffice for a meaningful understanding of the appointment process. The transparency interest here is not merely procedural but is substantive, seeking to understand the basis upon which such significant political honours are conferred.

2. Challenge to Section 40(2) Exemption: I wish to clarify that my request does not seek personal information about individuals, and I am aware of and support the redaction of such details to comply with the Act. The information sought is about the process and criteria, not individuals' personal details. Therefore, the application of Section 40(2) should not preclude the release of non-personal procedural information.

3. Challenge to Section 21(1) Exemption: The reference to the press release and Hansard record provides only the outcome of the appointment process, not the insights into the process itself, which is the essence of my request. The public interest in understanding the criteria and policy behind such appointments goes beyond mere announcements of outcomes.

4. Public Interest Justifications:
* Transparency and Accountability: Understanding the reasons behind such appointments, especially those involving former Prime Ministers, is critical for public scrutiny.
* Prevention of Speculation and Rumours: Full transparency mitigates unfounded speculation or rumours about the basis of appointments.
* Democratic Scrutiny: Access to this information is crucial for democratic engagement and scrutiny, providing insights into potential political favours versus merit-based appointments.
* Historical Context and Policy Understanding: These details offer significant historical insights into governmental decision-making and help the public understand the policies and criteria for appointing Lords.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the public interest in transparency, democratic scrutiny, and understanding the process of political appointments significantly outweighs the interests served by withholding the information. I request a thorough reconsideration of the decision and look forward to a response that aligns with the principles of transparency and accountability.

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

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
For Stop UK Lies and Corruption

Dear Cabinet Office,

Thank you for conducting an internal review, reference IR2024/01076, dated 16th February 2024, providing further limited information regarding our Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

Before we escalate this matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), we wish to share some observations and concerns for your consideration.

Section 40(2) Personal Information: Our request does not seek personal information. However, we acknowledge a potential divergence in views on what constitutes 'personal information.' While we do not seek the release of personal data per se, we believe the public has a right to be informed of any considerations that may question the suitability of a candidate for appointment. This doesn't necessarily mean sharing personal details, but the existence of any concerns should be transparently acknowledged.

Section 37(1)(b) Honours and Dignities: We understand the rationale behind invoking Section 37(1)(b) but emphasise that this exemption is subject to a public interest test. We have not found evidence of a comprehensive public interest test being conducted in your responses. Transparency in the appointment processes, especially those involving significant public figures, is crucial for public trust and accountability. The details provided in Hansard and the press release, while informative, do not fulfill our request for specific information regarding the timing and rationale behind the appointment of David Cameron as a Lord.

Your internal review response stated: "We have fully answered your question about the timing of the decision through the document provided under Section 21(1) of the Act."

The lead-up to the document you refer, in your initial response, in fact, stated:

"The information exempt under Section 21(1) is a press release which was sent to the media by 10 Downing Street on 13 November 2023 at 10:00. The content of this was as Follows"

The actual content of the document you refer stated:

"The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of the Rt Hon David Cameron as Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. His Majesty has also been pleased to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon David Cameron. The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP remains as Chancellor of the Exchequer."

The press release you cited under Section 21(1) merely announces the appointment of David Cameron as Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and the conferment of a Barony.

This therefore does not answer our question about the timing of the decision:

"2. Timing of the Decision: I request any documents or correspondence that elucidate the timing of this decision, particularly since Mr. Cameron had long resigned as an MP."

It does not include the detailed criteria, processes, or considerations involved in the timing of his appointment as a Lord, which was the focus of our request.
This announcement does not address the procedural transparency or the criteria for appointing Lords, which are central to our inquiry.

The provided links and the Cabinet Manual offer general information about the appointment processes to the House of Lords but do not specifically address our query about the detailed criteria, discussions, and considerations unique to David Cameron's appointment. This general information, while valuable, does not meet our request for transparency and insight into the specific process for his appointment.

[https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords...
[https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-...
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

Our concern is further amplified by the broader context of appointments to the House of Lords, which has seen numerous appointments perceived by the public as politically motivated. The late Baroness Betty Boothroyd's criticisms echo the need for merit-based appointments, devoid of political patronage or financial contributions influence.

Given the significant public interest in this matter, we believe a more transparent disclosure, subject to appropriate redactions for privacy, would serve the public interest better than the current level of disclosure. Such transparency would not only clarify the process but also potentially restore public faith in the integrity of the appointments system.

As we take this matter to the ICO, we ask that you consider these points before they get in touch with your office about this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
Stop UK Lies and Corruption.