FOI requests to HM Treasury which have been referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house'
Dear Her Majesty's Treasury,
Please supply a list of all FOI requests which have been submitted to HM Treasury on the subject of, or containing a reference to, any of the specified subjects below, and which have been subsequently referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house'.
1. Loan Charge
2. Disguised remuneration (DR)
3. HMRC and/or RCDTS contractors
4. Emails to/from any of the following: Jim Harra, Mary Aiston, Amyas Morse, Tom Scholar, Ruth Stanier, Justin Holliday, Jesse Norman, Mel Stride, Beth Russell
5. Counter Avoidance
Yours faithfully,
Adam Bridgen
Our ref: FOI2021/14626
Dear Adam Bridgen,
Thank you for your request for information which we are considering under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
This is to confirm receipt of your request and to let you know that it is
receiving attention. If you have any enquiries regarding your request do
not hesitate to contact us.
Please note: HM Treasury has a dedicated email address for the public to
make Freedom of Information requests: [email address]
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Unit | Correspondence and Information Rights | HM
Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ [1]www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
Correspondence and Information Rights | HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road,
London, SW1A 2HQ [2]www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
References
Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
2. http://www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
Dear Adam Bridgen
Please find attached a response to your recent FOI request.
Kind regards
Information Rights Unit
| HM Treasury | Ground Orange | 1 Horse Guards Road, SW1A 2HQ |
[1]www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
References
Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
Dear Her Majesty's Treasury,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Treasury's handling of my FOI request 'FOI requests to HM Treasury which have been referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house''.
You have refused my request, citing section 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOI Act.
You justify that decision by making the statement 'in order to identify if we hold any information would require searches of an unlimited number of Freedom of Information requests'. I could perhaps understand (and accept) your reasoning if I were asking you to provide a total number of all FOI requests received by HM Treasury on the subject of, or containing a reference to, any of those which were specified in my submission - but I am not.
I am asking - specifically - WHICH of THOSE have been referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house'. This is, to all intents and purposes, a very simple request - unless you are instead explicitly stating that 'an unlimited number of Freedom of Information requests' HAVE been previously referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house' - but which itself would seem to be a most unlikely scenario. Please therefore clarify this point and provide confirmation of your position.
It would be a reasonable assumption to expect HM Treasury's Information Rights Unit to maintain an internal register, or detailed list, of ALL those selected FOI requests which have been internally categorised as requiring referral to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house', as that would indicate that a sound and clearly defined records management process is in place. Given that section 46 and its related Code of Practice place such an emphasis on records management, any authority that might fail to fulfil its obligations due to demonstrably poor records management could subsequently face further inquiry from the Information Commissioner.
It is also my understanding that the Cabinet Office produces a daily list which is circulated across Whitehall, and which very helpfully includes a column entry titled 'department received' - a clear indication as to which department has received the original request and then referred it to the Cabinet Office. Again, it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that the authority responsible for referring those selected requests to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house' would maintain their own internal register or list in order to monitor progress on any feedback from the Cabinet Office. Any competent technician would be able to search documents related to this register, or list, within seconds. Evaluating whether the requests in scope reference the subject matter I have listed would (again) take a matter of seconds.
To further aid (and if necessary, to cross-reference) any required analysis, it would surely be reasonable to assume that HM Treasury Information Rights Unit has a central mailbox which acts as a primary 'group' mailbox for any referred Freedom of Information requests. Searching this singular mailbox in parallel for those requests referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house' should, again, be a straightforward exercise for anyone with even the most basic technical ability.
I am aware (from publicly available news reports) that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) has announced a probe into the Cabinet Office’s controversial ‘clearing house’ unit, and the operation of FOI across Whitehall. This investigation follows a legal victory by openDemocracy, which forced the Cabinet Office to disclose information about the “Orwellian” unit run by Michael Gove’s department. The presiding judge (Chris Hughes) stated that there was a “profound lack of transparency about the operation”, which might “extend to ministers”. It is anticipated that a short, targeted inquiry will be held around the time of the summer recess. I am confident in saying that all interested parties await that outcome with extreme interest.
Returning to this FOI request, and on the basis of my comments above, I consider both your estimate and the reasoning behind that estimate uncooperative, obstructive and unhelpful - it could even be described as vexatious. The Tribunals Service have previously adjudicated that estimates don’t have to be precise, but they do have to be “sensible, realistic and supported by cogent evidence”. Whilst you have offered no 'cogent evidence' nor a 'sensible or realistic' estimate of the time required to support your claim, I am nonetheless prepared to narrow my request on this occasion by restricting the dates across which your searches can be made.
Please therefore provide all the information as originally requested and laid out in my FOI request, but with the date range restricted to those which have been referred to the Cabinet Office 'clearing house' between September 2019 through to July 2021 (inclusive).
Dependent on the subsequent response to this Freedom of Information submission, I will determine whether or not to provide PACAC / openDemocracy with additional evidence on the handling of my own request.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
Yours faithfully,
Adam Bridgen
Dear Adam Bridgen
Thank you for your email regarding your request for an internal review.
I can confirm that your review request was received on 10 August 2021 and
is receiving attention under our reference IR2021/19848.
There is no statutory deadline for responding to internal review
requests.
However, in line with the Information Commissioner’s guidelines and the
2018 FOI Code of Practice, we aim to complete internal reviews within 20
working days.
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Unit | Correspondence and Information Rights | HM
Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1A 2HQ
[1]www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
use of the individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify
the sender and delete the email. This footnote also confirms that our
email communications may be monitored to ensure the secure and effective
operation of our systems and for other lawful purposes, and that this
email has been swept for malware and viruses.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
Dear FOI Requests,
It has now been 25 working days since you acknowledged my request for an internal review (IR2021/19848).
As you have been unable to meet your aim of completing the internal review within 20 working days, it is presumed that you need longer to consider the issues and respond. The ICO Code of Practice states that In these instances, the public authority should inform the applicant and provide a reasonable target date by which they will be able to respond to the internal review.
Please would you provide an explanation for the delay and supply a revised target date as per the ICO Code of Practice.
Yours sincerely,
Adam Bridgen
Dear Adam Bridgen
Please find attached a response to your recent IR request.
Kind regards
Information Rights Unit
| HM Treasury | Ground Orange | 1 Horse Guards Road, SW1A 2HQ |
[1]www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
References
Visible links
1. http://www.gov.uk/hm-treasury
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