- Burials
- Care proceedings reform
- Coroners
- Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
- Cremation
- Data protection
- Devolution
- Elections
- EU funding
- Flu pandemic
- Forced labour
- Forced marriage
- Forms of address
- Freedom of information
- Funding for the victim and witness voluntary sector
- Human rights
- Justice impact test
- Mental Capacity Act 2005
- Mentally disordered offenders
- Pleural plaques former claimants payment scheme
- Referral orders
- Regulatory offences
- Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
Cabinet and Cabinet Committee information
What information does this cover?
Any papers prepared for, or relating to, Cabinet or Cabinet Committees.
Please note: All Cabinet and Cabinet Committee papers should be held by Cabinet Office, though departments will hold copies of (for example) correspondence between Cabinet Committee members.
Working Assumption
Any papers prepared for or relating to meetings of Cabinet or Cabinet Committees should be withheld citing:
- section 35(1)(a) - formulation of government policy, or
- section 35(1)(b) - ministerial communications.
Section 36(2)(a) specifically draws attention to the important of maintaining the convention of collective responsibility, and should be relied on in the unlikely circumstances that section 35 does not apply.
In the case of environmental information, regulation 12(4)(e) should be cited.
Departments should also consider the same exemptions in relation to requests for Cabinet or Cabinet Committee correspondence.
In certain very limited circumstances such as where the information is very old, Cabinet papers may be released or their release may be ordered on review, but the presumption should be that they will not be released as to do so will risk the public interest in collective responsibility and the full and frank discussion of policy. If you think that there is a strong public interest in releasing Cabinet or Cabinet Committee correspondence, you must first refer the request to the Clearing House.
Reason for the working assumption
The Ministerial Code states that:
'Collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees, including in correspondence, should be maintained.'
The doctrine of collective responsibility is underlined in the Freedom of Information Act - Ministerial communications in general and proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees in particular are explicitly identified as deserving of protection from disclosure, subject to the operation of the public interest test (section 35(1)(b) and section 35(5)).
Collective responsibility is a central tenet of the UK constitution. Protecting collective responsibility is in the public interest as it allows for the maintenance of space to formulate, develop and refine policy. This space also allows for all options to be considered.
If ministers thought that their policy discussions in Cabinet, with colleagues or with officials, would be revealed publicly, the nature of those discussions would be very different. It might deter ministers and officials from raising radical or controversial options and having free and frank discussions about all available possibilities in relation to any given policy or idea. This would have a detrimental effect on both the process of collective government and the quality of the decisions made at the highest level, undermining good government.
If policy disagreements within government were to be revealed, the government would be unable convincingly to put forward a united front, and properly accept collective responsibility for its decisions.
Inappropriate disclosure has the potential not only to limit discussion of policy between ministers, but may also distort public perceptions of the advice provided by officials. The prospect of early disclosure could affect the impartiality of advice provided.
Referral points
If the department proposes to handle a request in line with this working assumption, there should be no need to refer the case to the Clearing House; however, more sensitive and high profile cases should be referred.
If any Cabinet or Cabinet Committee information is proposed to be released, the case should be referred. This includes if you are proposing to release Cabinet or Cabinet Committee correspondence.
Where an internal review proposes to uphold the original decision this should not be referred unless the case is high profile or sensitive.
Any case that is appealed to the Information Commissioner or Information Tribunal must be referred to the Clearing House.
