Key Facts
- •Daniel Edwards appealed a decision notice (DN) from the Information Commissioner upholding HM Treasury's (HMT) refusal to disclose information on the impact of the income tax personal allowance taper on net tax revenue.
- •HMT relied on FOIA section 35(1)(a) (formulation/development of government policy) and section 29(1)(a) (prejudice to economic interests).
- •The Commissioner upheld section 35(1)(a), finding the information related to live policy and the public interest favored non-disclosure.
- •The Appellant argued that the policy was not 'live' and cited a previous decision ordering disclosure of similar information.
- •The Tribunal had access to the withheld information.
Legal Principles
Public authorities have a general duty to disclose information under FOIA, subject to exemptions.
FOIA section 1
Information relating to the formulation or development of government policy is exempt under FOIA section 35(1)(a).
FOIA section 35(1)(a)
Section 35(1)(a) is subject to a public interest balance; the material time is when the request is responded to.
DHSC v IC [2020] UKUT 299; Montague v Information Commissioner & Department of International Trade [2022] UKUT 104 (AAC)
Public interest factors against disclosure include maintaining a 'safe space' for policy discussions and avoiding a chilling effect.
Commissioner's guidance on section 35; Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v IC and Friends of the Earth EA/2007/0072
Previous decision notices are not binding.
Commissioner's Response
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found no error of law in the Commissioner's decision or the exercise of his discretion. They accepted the Commissioner's reasoning, agreeing that the public interest favored maintaining the exemption under section 35(1)(a).