On Thursday 18th June 2025, I received a UK Govt refusal of a detailed FOI request into their nationwide rollout of 86 free zones, specifically regarding correspondence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and the National Audit Office (NAO), this concerned investigations into the UK’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Freeports.
The Governments’ Response
Dear Requester
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Internal Review
Thank you for your email dated 28 May, requesting an internal review of our response dated 28 May to your information request made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the FOI Act), under our reference: FOI2025/09680.
The department has now completed its internal review process and has carried out a thorough review of the case overseen by a senior official who was not involved with the original request.
Background
On 29 April, you made the following request under the FOI Act:
“I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding correspondence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and the National Audit Office (NAO) concerning investigations into the UK’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Freeports. I understand that submitting this FOI request is free, and I have requested the information in electronic format to avoid any potential disbursement fees for photocopies or postage. I also acknowledge that recent changes to the FOI may affect the scope of my request, such as the cost limit for processing (previously £600, now possibly £800 for central government) and tightened criteria for vexatious requests. I have tailored my request to be specific to minimize administrative burden.
Information Requested:
All correspondence (including but not limited to emails, letters, memoranda, meeting minutes, or notes) between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves (or her office, including special advisers and private secretaries), and the National Audit Office (NAO), or its representatives, from 5 July 2024 to 29 April 2025, concerning: The NAO’s potential or proposed investigation into the UK’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and/or Freeports, including but not limited to the Teesside Freeport, South Tees Development Corporation, or Tees Valley Combined Authority.
Any decisions, permissions, or refusals related to authorizing the NAO to conduct such investigations, particularly in response to the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee report (published April 2024) recommending NAO scrutiny of Freeport expenditure and governance. Any internal Treasury documents (e.g., briefings, memos, or policy papers) prepared for or by Rachel Reeves (or her office) from 5 July 2024 to 29 April 2025, that discuss or reference:
The NAO’s role in auditing or investigating SEZs or Freeports. The government’s response to the aforementioned Commons report’s recommendation for NAO involvement.
Scope and Format:
Please include correspondence and documents in their entirety, including attachments, where applicable. I prefer to receive the information in electronic format (e.g., PDF or Word documents) via email to [Your Email Address], ensuring no disbursement fees apply. If any part of the request is exempt under the Act (e.g., Section 35 for policy formulation), please provide as much information as can be released and explain the specific exemptions applied.
Clarifications:
I am not requesting personal data beyond what is necessary to identify official correspondence (e.g., names of officials in their professional capacity). If the scope of this request exceeds the cost limit under Section 12 of the Act, please contact me to discuss narrowing the request to fit within the limit, prioritizing correspondence directly involving Rachel Reeves or her immediate office. Alternatively, please direct me to any existing disclosure logs where this information may be available.
Response: Please confirm receipt of this request and provide the information within the statutory 20 working days.
Thank you for your assistance,
Yours sincerely,
David Powell
The Review
I have considered the response we provided to you and whether our handling was compliant with our obligations under the FOI Act. In our original response we withheld the information requested under Section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. The information that we have identified engages Section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act because the information in scope relates to the formulation and development of Government policy. This is a qualified exemption, and we are required to balance the public interest between disclosure and non-disclosure.
In relation to the release of this information, we recognise that there is an inherent public interest in transparency and accountability of public authorities. We also recognise the broad public interest in furthering public understanding of the issues with which public authorities deal. There is a clear public interest in the work of government departments being transparent and open to scrutiny to increase diligence. Balanced against this, regarding Section 35(1)(a) is the public interest in protecting the Government’s ability to discuss and develop policies and to reach well-formed conclusions.
The Information Commissioner has recognised that policy development needs some degree of freedom to enable the process to work effectively and we consider that there is a strong public interest in both protecting information where release would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the ongoing formulation and development of policy, as well as protecting against encroachment on the ability of ministers and/or officials to formulate and develop policy options freely and frankly.
In this case, HM Treasury can confirm that only one document falls in scope of your request. However, it would not be possible to disclose the information in scope within this document without compromising other live policy discussions outside the scope of this request. For this reason, I believe that on balance the public interest remains in favour of withholding this information.
Conclusion
After careful consideration of your request for internal review and the points you have made to support the public interest in disclosure, we have decided to uphold our original decision as we feel it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. While I am aware you may find these conclusions disappointing, I hope that by setting out the basis of the review, its findings and conclusions above, you will be assured that the Treasury has, on your behalf, carried out a thorough and considered review of the request you made and the responses that the Treasury gave under the FOI Act.
If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely
Head of Freedom of Information
HM Treasury
My response in the form of an appeal.
Subject: Complaint Regarding HM Treasury’s Handling of FOI Request (Refs: FOI2025/09680, IR2025/11832)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to complain about HM Treasury’s handling of my Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 29 April 2025 (Ref: FOI2025/09680) and its internal review response dated 18 June 2025 (Ref: IR2025/11832). I believe the Treasury’s decision to withhold all information under Section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act 2000 is unjustified, and I seek your intervention to ensure compliance with the Act. Below, I outline my grounds for complaint and the actions I request.
Background
On 29 April 2025, I requested correspondence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves (or her office), and the National Audit Office (NAO) from 5 July 2024 to 29 April 2025, concerning the NAO’s potential investigation into Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Freeports, particularly Teesside Freeport. I also requested internal Treasury documents discussing the NAO’s role or the government’s response to the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee’s April 2024 report recommending NAO scrutiny. I explicitly asked for partial disclosure with redactions if exemptions applied and offered to narrow the request if needed.
On 28 May 2025, the Treasury withheld all information under Section 35(1)(a), claiming it related to policy formulation. On 28 May 2025, I requested an internal review, arguing that the exemption was applied too broadly, the public interest favored disclosure, and partial disclosure was not considered. The internal review (18 June 2025) upheld the decision, confirming that only one document is in scope but cannot be disclosed without compromising “other live policy discussions.” I am dissatisfied with this outcome for the following reasons.
Grounds for Complaint
- Overbroad Application of Section 35(1)(a)
The Treasury’s application of Section 35(1)(a) to the entire document is overly broad. ICO guidance requires public authorities to separate exempt from non-exempt material (ICO, Section 35 – Government Policy, para. 38). The Treasury claims the document contains mixed content, including “other live policy discussions” outside my request’s scope, but made no effort to redact policy-related parts and release factual or administrative content. My request included such content (e.g., scheduling meetings), which the Treasury claims it does not hold, but this is unverifiable without a detailed description of the document. I request that the ICO review whether non-exempt material can be released with redactions. - Inadequate Public Interest Test
The Treasury’s public interest test is generic and fails to address the specific context of my request. ICO guidance requires a case-specific assessment (ICO, Section 35 – Government Policy, para. 65). The Treasury acknowledges transparency but provides no evidence that disclosure would harm policy formulation. Significant public and parliamentary interest exists in Freeport governance, as evidenced by:- The Business and Trade Committee’s April 2024 report recommending NAO scrutiny of Teesside Freeport.
- The Tees Valley Review (January 2024) criticizing transparency and recommending improvements.
- Media and parliamentary concerns about cronyism and value for money.
Disclosure would enhance accountability for the £560m+ of public funds committed to Teesside Freeport. I request that the ICO assess whether the Treasury adequately balanced the public interest and require evidence of harm.
- Failure to Provide Partial Disclosure
The Treasury’s refusal to provide partial disclosure violates the FOI Act’s principle of maximizing openness. My request asked for redacted documents if exemptions applied, but the Treasury did not consider this option, claiming the entire document is exempt. ICO guidance emphasizes redaction over blanket withholding (ICO, How to Apply Exemptions, para. 22). The reference to “other live policy discussions” suggests severable material exists. I request that the ICO investigate whether partial disclosure is possible. - Insufficient Specificity About Withheld Information
The Treasury’s response lacks detail about the withheld document, limiting my ability to assess the exemption’s appropriateness. ICO guidance requires sufficient information about withheld material (ICO, Communicating a Refusal, para. 15). The Treasury confirms one document but provides no details about its type or content beyond vague references to “live policy discussions.” I request that the ICO require a detailed description of the document’s general nature. - Failure to Provide Advice and Assistance
The Treasury failed to comply with Section 16, which requires advice and assistance. I offered to narrow my request, but the Treasury did not engage or suggest refinements. Given the single document, partial disclosure or a narrowed scope should be feasible. I request that the ICO assess compliance with Section 16 and direct engagement if needed.
Requested Actions
I kindly request that the ICO:
- Review the withheld document to determine if non-exempt material can be released with redactions.
- Assess the Treasury’s public interest test and require specific evidence of harm to policy formulation.
- Direct the Treasury to provide a detailed description of the withheld document’s type and general content.
- Ensure compliance with Section 16 by engaging with me to refine the request if necessary.
- Order disclosure of any non-exempt information, in whole or in part, with redactions where appropriate.
Attachments
- Original FOI request (29 April 2025)
- Treasury’s initial response (28 May 2025)
- Internal review request (28 May 2025)
- Internal review response (18 June 2025)
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your decision.
Yours sincerely,
David Powell