Recommendation 4

HM Government Acknowledged

All FOI requests are handled on an applicant blind basis. Clearing House’s processes are completely in line with relevant legislation and we work closely with the ICO to ensure our approach remains fully compliant with our obligations to protect personal data. The Cabinet Office’s handling of casework complies with the legislation as well as the underlying intention that requests are treated as applicant and motive blind except in those circumstances permitted by the legislation (sections 12 and 14 FOI Act). All FOI requests are treated exactly the same, regardless of the identity or occupation of the requester. Departments may take the occupation or interests of the requester into account when considering if press teams should be prepared to respond to any queries arising from a FOI response, but this is separate from the consideration of the request under FOI and is not contrary to the applicant-blind principle. As set out in the ICO guidance, this principle means that requests for information should generally be considered without reference to the identity of the requester or the motives behind the request. It does not mean that the public authority should not make sensible preparations for possible media interest in information it is proposing to release. We are unaware of any ICO or Tribunal decision made against the Cabinet Office or any other government department which substantiates the un-evidenced allegations that the identity of the requestor influenced the outcome. The Cabinet Office circulates to departments a list of those requests made to more than one department that have repeat characteristics (sometimes referred to as ‘the round robin list’). This list does use the name of the requestor to help identify the request; each department will have their own reference numbers, so the name is used to practically help with the multiple requests being grouped into a table. The identity of the requestor is not a material consideration and the occupation of the requestor is not included in the list. We welcome the Committee’s recognition of the leading role that the Cabinet Office should play in setting standards, and maintaining the direction across all government departments. Outside the context of Clearing House, the Cabinet Office already offers guidance and assistance through regular catch-ups with departments, by hosting a twice- yearly forum for FOI practitioners across government and facilitating regular meetings between departmental FOI teams and the Information Commissioner’s Office. We also provide guidance on cross cutting policy issues. The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers sets out, among other things, that Special Advisers may give assistance on any aspect of departmental business, and give advice. In working with other civil servants, Special Advisers can, on behalf of their Minister, convey to officials Ministers’ views, instructions and priorities, including on issues of presentation. Special Advisers must not, though, exercise any statutory or prerogative power. It is completely legitimate and in line with the FOI Act for Special Advisers to give assistance and advice on any aspect of department business, including on requests for 4 The Cabinet Office Freedom of Information Clearing House: Government Response information made under the Act, and to convey a minister’s views to officials. This has been the case under successive Administrations. Annexed is the relevant guidance note that was circulated to cross-government FOI practitioners in 2021. Also in line with the FOI Act 2000, officials will refer to Ministers any requests which require the opinion of a qualified person as to whether or not the exemption at section 36 of the Act is engaged. If the Minister decides that it is, then officials will proceed to weigh up the public interest test and will decide whether or not to release the information sought. Occasionally and where appropriate, Ministers may be made aware of specific FOI requests in the context of discussions about the handling of wider policy issues. With regard to the suggested robust approach to compliance, departments are listed as public authorities in their own right and it would be wrong for the Cabinet Office to intervene in another department’s procedures and decisions. The Cabinet Office will continue to offer advice and guidance, but it is for individual departments to account for their compliance with the Act through the mechanisms set up by Parliament, i.e. the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Tribunal system.