When Viscount Younger was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State he said in select committee on 18th January 2023:
“Could I just say that being new into the department, I am already aware, having seen some correspondence, that I’ve had to sort of look at and sign off, on some absolutely tragic cases and I think it’s absolutely appalling that this can, or cases can lead to people taking their own lives. I mean that’s absolutely dreadful and we must look at all ways in which we can avoid that or have systems, processes which do not lead to that…”
WE asked the DWP FOI team to provide the Ministerial Briefing information that led Viscount Younger to state what he did. The DWP continues to deny any causal link between itself and people taking their lives so watch this cover up unfold gradually as STOPSuuicides UK will continue to press the department, ministers and MPs on this matter of a National Emergency:
Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FoI) internal review request received on 26
November relating to FOI2025/92321. You wrote:
“I am writing to request an internal review of your response to my FOI request (Ref:FOI2025/92321), dated 25 November 2025. Having reviewed your decision, I believe that the exemption applied under Section 36(2)(b)(i) has been incorrectly and inadequately applied.
1. Failure to Demonstrate the Qualified Person’s Opinion
Your response states that the exemption is applied “in the reasonable opinion of a qualifiedperson”, but no evidence has been provided of who the qualified person was, the date their opinion was given, the reasoning behind their opinion, or the submissions presented to them.
ICO decision notices make clear that this information must be evidenced for Section 36 to be engaged.
2. Public Interest Test Misapplied
Your public interest test uses generic language and does not assess the specific facts of this case. The withheld documents relate to:
• A Work & Pensions Committee inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service (Viscount Younger’s Ministerial Briefing for 18th January 2023).
• A Ministerial meeting with Lord Palmer
There is a substantial and well‑established public interest in transparency around CMS policy decisions, given parliamentary concern, safeguarding risks, maladministration, and public trust considerations.
3. Failure to Demonstrate Likelihood of Prejudice
You have not shown how disclosure of the requested material, in this specific case, would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. Mere assertion is insufficient under FOIA.
4. Disclosure Would Promote Public Confidence
Ministerial briefing materials prepared for parliamentary scrutiny carry a strong public interest in transparency. Hansard is not an adequate substitute as it does not disclose underlying advice.
Request:
I therefore request that:
• The decision to apply Section 36 be reconsidered and the documents disclosed.
• If Section 36 is upheld, full evidence of the qualified person’s opinion is provided.
If this review does not address these concerns, I will escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”
DWP Response
In response to your internal review request, we can confirm that the handling of your original
request and response has now been appropriately reviewed by someone unconnected with the handling of your original request. As a result of this review, we are satisfied that the original response was handled properly and that the outcome of your original request was correct. Your complaint is therefore not upheld and the reason for this is as follows:
1. Failure to Demonstrate the Qualified Person’s Opinion
• no evidence has been provided of who the qualified person was,
• the date their opinion was given,
• the reasoning behind their opinion, or the submissions presented to them.
In our response, we informed you that the qualified person in this respect is a Minister of the Crown and the information is being withheld from release under section 36(2)(b)(i) ie: The information is being withheld as its disclosure would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. The reasoning behind the use of this qualified exemption was also provided. We are not required to share the submissions presented to the Qualified Person when responding to a freedom of information request.
2. Public Interest Test Misapplied
3. Failure to Demonstrate Likelihood of Prejudice
We are satisfied that our response demonstrated sufficient rationale and reasoning behind the use of this qualified exemption.
4. Disclosure Would Promote Public Confidence
We are satisfied that our response demonstrated sufficient explanation that there is a strong public interest in maintaining the ability of the civil service to provide free, impartial and candid advice to ministers as confidentiality is required in order for advice to be effective.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact us quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely,
Central FoI Team
Department for Work and Pensions
Leave a Reply