“People should continue to avoid public transport whenever possible. But, as restrictions are carefully eased when it is safe to do so, it’s likely that we will see more people needing to use public transport. So while respecting social distancing and maintaining good hand hygiene remains the most important steps we can all take to stay safe wearing a face covering can play a role in helping us to protect each other This is about the small changes we can take to help control the virus, which is why I would urge everyone using transport to use a face covering to help keep us all safe.”
“We have therefore come to the decision that face coverings should be mandatory in shops and supermarkets. Last month we made face coverings mandatory on public transport and in NHS settings. This has been successful in giving people more confidence to go on public transport and to hospital setting when they need to … Providing people with additional protection when they are not able to keep 2 metres from others, particularly people they do not normally come into contact with. Under the new rules, people who do not wear a face covering will face a fine of up to£100 , in line with the sanction on public transport.”
“The Inquiry will examine, consider and report on preparations and the response to the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, up to and including the Inquiry’s formal setting-up date,28 June 2022 .”
“The minutes of the meetings on which the two policy decisions to make face masks compulsory in shops and public transport were finalised. Clarification: Therefore, for the decision regarding compulsory face coverings on transport, I am seeking the specific minutes of the meeting in which that policy was finalised and agreed by the government, and likewise for the policy decision to make face coverings compulsory in shops. The time frame for these two meetings would presumably be within the same months the policies were implemented (June 2020 and July 2020). Justification: The request is being made in the interest of accountability for decisions that affected the entire country throughout the pandemic period.”
“I can confirm that the Cabinet Office holds information relevant to your request but I must advise you that I must extend the time limit for responding to your request.”
“As part of our consideration of your letter (and of the request's handling generally) we consulted with relevant colleagues, including the Cabinet Secretariat, and concluded that the Cabinet Office does hold information in scope of the request.”
“It is acknowledged that there is a public interest in there being a greater understanding of the deliberations of Ministers in Cabinet committees, together with a public interest in there being better public knowledge of the factors which motivated the decision to extend the mandatory use of face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we consider that the public interest factors against disclosure are much stronger and we endeavour to demonstrate this below.”
“The Commissioner observes in his guidance on section 35 of the Act that the provision at section 35(1)(b) of the Act concerning Ministerial communications: ‘...should not be used simply to protect Ministers from embarrassment, or from being held accountable for their decisions.’ We consider that it is primarily the role of Parliament to hold Ministers to account for the decisions that they make. We also consider that, in respect of the decisions made by the Government in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 Inquiry has a statutory responsibility to examine those decisions. Being chaired by Baroness Hallett, a former Court of Appeal judge, it is well qualified to consider such matters, including the basis of it having introduced measures in respect of face coverings. We note that in submitting his request, the requester stated: ‘Justification: This request is being made in interest of accountability for decisions that affected the entire country throughout the pandemic period.’ While we note that the Act is an important means by which to bring to light the internal workings of government (and we noted above the public interest factors in favour of disclosure), we consider that in these circumstances, the COVID-19 Inquiry is a more appropriate means by which Cabinet minutes should be examined than by their general disclosure via a request made under the Act. Indeed, we consider that the public interest is in favour of the Inquiry carrying out its functions without confidential evidence (which it may currently be examining) being drip fed into the public domain. We also note that, being the subject of an ongoing public inquiry, the information within the scope of the request is still very much live and its subject matter a contentious one. We consider that its disclosure is still very much against the public interest as a consequence. Concerning the COVID-19 Inquiry, Government established the Inquiry to examine how decisions were made, communicated, recorded and implemented. In doing so the Government recognised, in the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of examining the actions of the state concerning the pandemic as rigorously as possible, in order to learn lessons for the future. The disclosure of Cabinet and Cabinet committee material by the Inquiry therefore takes place in an exceptional context and does not set a precedent for the release of this information in other contexts. We are satisfied that, in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in favour of withholding the information within the scope of the request is much stronger than those factors weighing in favour of disclosure.”
“I simply don't believe the cabinet office don't hold the information I'm asking for. They acknowledged they did hold it by talking about 'public interest' and then claimed they don't hold it. The other institution that the Cabinet Office claimed held the information (Department of Health and Social Care) already confirmed to me that that they do not and recommended the Cabinet Office as the public body that holds the information. I've been messed around by the cabinet office and their uneasiness about releasing the information justifies exactly why they should be releasing it. They've avoided being transparent.”
“as there were widely differing views about the use of face coverings during the pandemic, it was important that Ministers discussing their mandatory use should have been able to do so without being concerned about public reaction to their individual opinion on this highly debated topic.”
“The subject matter and content of the withheld information is key here. This concerns discussion on measures taken to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of immediate impact upon the daily lives of the entire population, these discussions were exceptional. The date of the withheld information is also significant: June and July 2020, a time when the pandemic was dominating the national discourse. The Commissioner’s view is that the subject matter and content of the withheld information leads to an exceptionally weighty public interest in disclosure, in order to serve transparency about the discussions within Cabinet on the pandemic at that time.”
“1.3 The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life. They are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life, set out at Annex A, and the following principles of Ministerial conduct: a. The principle of collective responsibility applies to all Government Ministers; … 2.1 The principle of 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. … 2.3 The internal process through which a decision has been made, or the level of Committee by which it was taken should not be disclosed. Neither should the individual views of Ministers or advice provided by civil servants as part of that internal process be disclosed. Decisions reached by theCabinet or Ministerial Committees are binding on all members of the Government.”
“of immense public importance. They were the most sweeping public health measure ever adopted in this country”
“Can I turn to the issue of Cabinet collective responsibility? In establishing this Inquiry, the government recognised the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response in order to learn all possible lessons for the future. The Government is not currently withholding any information from the Inquiry on the basis of Cabinet collective responsibility and, given the purpose of this Inquiry, the government does not expect to seek any redactions to relevant information due to be disclosed to core participants.”
“it is entirely reasonable for ministers to draw further conclusions from release that disclosure of their candid contributions to cabinet and Cabinet committees could take place within a small fraction of that time period. If upheld by the Tribunal, this would significantly undermine ministers’ confidence in the safe space they need to speak frankly in Cabinet and Cabinet committee meetings. That would, in my view, be contrary to the wider public interest in effective and responsible Government.”
“The constitutional importance of the maintenance of confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings, as an aspect of the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility, has long been recognised by the courts, including as a basis for the withholding of such documents from disclosure on a public interest immunity basis.”
“…An exceptionally weighty public interest in disclosure, in order to serve transparency about discussions within cabinet on the pandemic at that time (DN29) ...given the truly exceptional nature of the subject matter of the withheld information (DN29)” ...given the truly exceptional nature of the subject matter of the withheld information (DN29)”
“The covid regulations imposed significant restrictions on the freedoms of members of the public. They had a right to expect their Prime Minister to have read the rules, to understand the meaning of the rules—and, indeed, those around them him to have done so, too—and to set an example in following those rules. What the Gray report does show is that No. 10 Downing Street was not observing the regulations they had imposed on members of the public, so either my right hon. Friend had not read the rules, or did not understand what they meant—and others around him—or they did not think the rules applied to No. 10. Which was it?”
“Having reviewed the withheld information, the Commissioner has identified content relating to face coverings within the minutes which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not consider the content within the minutes which does not relate to face coverings to be within the scope of the request, therefore that content is not covered in the analysis below.”