Email correspondence regarding FOI 3387

FOI Ref: ​FOI/2021/2475

You asked

Please provide all email correspondence related to FOI #3387, which requested correspondence with the then Foreign Secretary. All of this would have been between 1 November 2017 and 24 November 2017. I'm particularly keen to see any discussion that prompted the decision to exempt some of the information in that request, but I would like to receive all relevant correspondence if it is held.

Request referenced: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/internalandexternaluksacorrespondence

We said

Thank you for your request.

Background

On 18/09/2017, we received FOI 3387, asking for all internal correspondence between the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) concerning the preparation, drafting and approval of a letter sent by Sir David Norgrove to the Foreign Secretary and for emails between the UKSA and the media regarding the aforementioned letter. The request, response, and released documentation was published on our website and is available via the following link: Internal and external UKSA correspondence

The consideration and the preparation necessary for us to answer this request unfortunately caused a delay in our response. Our final response was sent to the requester on 24/11/2017.

Consequently, in the interests of transparency, we have extended the period of our search for documentation in scope of your request to be from 18/09/2017 to 24/11/2017, rather than the requested 01/11/2017.

Alongside the 17 email chains and documents released in response to this request, we applied a Section 36(2)(b)(ii) and Section 36(2)(c) exemption to some of the information in scope of the request, as the release of this information would likely to have inhibited the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, and would likely prejudice the effect conduct of public affairs.

This exemption required approval from the nominated qualified person in order to apply. At this time, this person was the National Statistician, John Pullinger.

Our response to FOI 3387 was internally reviewed by our team, and was referred to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to handle as case work. When reviewed by both of these processes, our decision to withhold the information under Section 36(2)(ii) and (c) was upheld.

Documents

Following a search of our records, we have found the following documents to be in scope of your request:

1.     'Emails regarding FOI 3387.pdf'

This document contains all the emails held in scope of your request. This includes:

Email chain 1: This is an email exchange between the FOI Team and the office of the Deputy Director (DD) of the Central Policy Secretariat (CPS) regarding the sign off the final FOI response.

Email chain 2: This is the email exchange between the FOI Team and the requester when the final response was sent to them.

2.     'FOI 3387 Response.pdf'

This document is an attachment that was included in the email between the FOI Team and the DD of the CPS. This attachment includes the draft of the final response, which was published on the website.

3.     'Email regarding s.36 submission - FoI 3387.pdf'

This document includes emails between the FOI team and the National Statistician regarding the sign off of the Section 36 submission by the qualified person.

The documents that we were intending to release and the documents that we intended to withhold under Section 36(2)(b)(ii) and Section 36(2)(c) were also attached to this email. The documents that were released are published on our website here: Internal and external UKSA correspondence.

Following a reassessment of the sensitivity of the documents that we originally withheld, we have found that Section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) still applies to these, as the release of this material would likely inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation of important decisions and may cause a chilling effect on future discussions and the exchange of views. UKSA senior management and Board Members are occasionally required to make decisions that may impact political debate. To release the information may make these officials reluctant to offer open and honest views in the future and that may subsequently impact the future use and representation of statistics within the public domain.

We have found that Section 36(2)(c) of FOIA also still applies as, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure of the information would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. One of the functions of the UKSA as recorded within the s.8 of the Statistics and Registration Act 2007 is to monitor the production and publication of official statistics, with the ability to report concerns about the quality, good practice and comprehensiveness of the statistics, to the person responsible. Release of the information may undermine our statutory functions and thus have an adverse effect on our ability to offer an effective public service in the future. For a live, politically sensitive issue of this nature, we should be able to complete our functions within a safe space to allow us to make effective and informed decisions.

The use of the exemption is subject to a public interest test. The arguments in favour of disclosure are the promotion of transparency and public accountability. Furthermore, it could be argued that, as a number of years have passed since this information was produced, arguments against disclosure could be weaker owing to the passage of time.

However, to release the information would not provide any further detail about our views than has already been made publicly available. We publish correspondence with Ministers on the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) website and FOI responses on the ONS website. Arguments in favour of withholding the information are to ensure we have a safe space for current and future discussion with internal and external stakeholders. It would not be in the public interest for one of the key functions of the UKSA to be undermined in such a way that key stakeholders were no longer comfortable with making difficult decisions. This could in turn lead to the misuse of statistics without suitable reproach in the future. Also, the passage of time arguments may not be as strong due to the fact that this does not affect the need for a safe space.

In this instance we feel that the weight of public interest is in favour of withholding the information.

Personal data has also been redacted from these files under Section 40 (2) of FOIA.

Should you have any further queries about this request, please email FOI.Team@ons.gov.uk.