Copies of correspondence between @parliament.uk and Statutory Officers
Request received 13 July 2026
Please see attached correspondence between any Statutory Officers:
Emma Grima – Chief Executive
John Hill – previous Chief Executive
Maggie Camp – Monitoring Officer
Jude Antony – S151 Officer
Cllr Anna Bailey – Leader of the Council
and any email address ending in @parliament.uk
Please note we have withheld one letter / email chain under Section 41(1) Information Provided in Confidence.
This information is exempt from disclosure under Section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In respect of those requests that are answered in full, partially or the total refused, please take this as notice under FOIA, that we:
a) Consider the information as exempt from disclosure under the Act.
b) Claim exempt under sections of the Act:
Section 41(1) Information Provided in Confidence
c) State why the exemption applies:
41(1) Information is exempt information if — (a) it was obtained by the public authority from any other person (including another public authority), and, (b) the disclosure of the information to the public (otherwise than under this Act) by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.
We have withheld one email chain under Section 42(1) Legal Professional Privilege.
This information is exempt from disclosure under Section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In respect of those requests that are answered in full, partially or the total refused, please take this as notice under FOIA, that we:
a) Consider the following exemption of FOI apply; and
b) Claim exemption under sections of the Act:
Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege
c) State why the exemption applies:
42 (1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.
(2)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.
ICO Guidance explains that there are two types of privilege (Litigation Privilege and Advice Privilege) within the concept of Legal Professional Privilege. We believe that the requested information falls under Advice Privilege. Advice privilege applies where no litigation is in progress or contemplated. It covers confidential communications between the client and lawyer, made for the dominant (main) purpose of seeking or giving legal advice.
As the Section 42 exemption is qualified, we are obliged to outline the harm in disclosure and explain why we consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:
There is a general public interest in authorities being accountable for the quality of their decision making and ensuring that decisions have been made on the basis of sound legal advice is part of that accountability. It could also be seen that there is a public interest in some cases in knowing whether or not legal advice has been followed. Whilst we appreciate the benefits in transparency and that disclosure could improve public knowledge and debate on planning enforcement cases, the public interest in preserving the course of justice is paramount.
Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information:
Section 42 reflects a strong public interest in the Council being able to communicate freely regarding legal proceedings, as well as provide and receive advice in confidence. The Council requires high quality and comprehensive legal advice for the effective conduct of their business, and that advice needs to be given in context. The legal adviser needs to be able to present the full picture to both internal departments and external legal advisers. Without being able to do this, the Council’s decision making would be reduced for the following reasons:
• It would not be fully informed, and this would be contrary to the public interest;
• To disclose information provided in a legal capacity to a third party could breach the confidentiality status of privileged communications with the internal legal team; and
• It may also affect confidential communications between the internal legal team and third parties when seeking evidence for the purpose of legal advice.
We have therefore reached the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information.