Share the document referred to in EMail 10 in the response to FOI2022/59249

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

An FOI was made in September 2022 and that finally resulted in the publication of EMails as per this link https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/9....

I am requesting sight of the briefing note that was sent to the FST and that is referred to in EMail 10 on pages 30 & 31 of the PDF above. That note relates to addressing the 7 points raised by the FST and that needed answering by 4:30 pm that same day.

For clarity, these points start with :

1. Who signed off release of numbers to the Reviewer?

and end with

7. Given the evident sensitivity of the data, how was that allowed to occur?

I am requesting that the responses to each of these points that were sent to the FST are shared in full.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Campbell

Dear Team, FOI,

I refer to your response to my FOI request and the partial response provided. I am not satisfied with your response and I am therefore giving you the opportunity to reconsider your response.

Your use of the quoted reasons for withholding the information request are understood. However, it must be possible to provide the responses to the questions 1 to 7 in a way that allows the identity of the individuals involved to be redacted. I would request that you do that, leaving the other data of interest intact.

The underlying statistics provided that relate to "members of the public" and businesses who are subject to Loan Charge will, by their nature, be summarised and will not contain any personal data. The attempt to suggest otherwise could be seen as disingenuous and I am giving you an opportunity now to reconsider this and provide all the information requested where that relates to why and how an out of date set of figures continued to be provided to the Morse review, despite these clearly being factually incorrect. The erroneous split between employers and employees was yet another deliberate attempt to subvert the review.

The use of section 35(1)(d) is unlikely to be applicable in this case. Section 35 is subject to a public interest test in any case where it might be applicable. Given the huge impact of this legislation, with people losing their lives to suicide, the public interest aircraft is significant. That's before the other examples of interference in this review are considered.

This request has nothing to do with the operation of a ministerial office; rather it relates to the reasons why civil servants provided incorrect data that provided a misleading picture on a crucial aspect of the evidence provided to Morse. Please explain why you believe Section 35 is applicable in this case? I am providing you with an opportunity to reconsider this response and provide the information in full and without recourse to internal review , the inevitable ico appeal and possible FTT case.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Campbell