FOI reference: FOI-2026-3597
You asked
On 8 June 2020 Deputy National Statistician Iain Bell sent an email seeking the views of all staff on how to do things differently and better for Black and Minority Ethnic members. Details can be found in First Tier Tribunal decision [2026] UKFTT 811 (GRC).
Please send me, with all personal identifiers removed, copies of the 12 withheld email responses referred to in the above decision.
We said
Thank you for your request.
The requested information is withheld under s.40(2), s.38(1)(a), and s.36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Much of the requested information contains personal data about the author’s thoughts and feelings on non-work matters, so disclosure under FOI to the public would not be necessary, proportionate, nor fair and therefore would contravene the data protection principles.
Disclosure of some of the requested emails would likely prejudice the mental health of the author, as the email was sent directly and privately with the expectation of confidence to a senior member of staff conveying their personal thoughts and feelings about their own and their family’s experiences. Disclosure under FOI would likely cause distress to the authors, who would not have expected their emails on such private matters to be publicised. Given the subject matter, the risk of distress is significantly increased.
In addition to the above, disclosure of the information would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. We have a duty as an employer to protect our staff. The requested emails are particularly candid, not related to work matters, and clearly sent with the expectation they would not be made public. Disclosure would therefore damage the trust relationship between senior management and staff, leading to reduced engagement with leadership, lower staff morale, and potential resentment towards the organisation.
This exemption is subject to a public interest test. Arguments in favour of disclosure are minimal. The emails are not work-related, and disclosure would only provide a limited selection of the personal views of a handful staff working at the ONS. There is also no evidence to suggest that these views impacted or influenced ONS’s functions. Further to this, we must retain a safe space for our staff to express their personal views and circumstances to senior management. Any action that would stifle the ability for staff to express how they feel to their line management chain is not conducive to a productive working environment. This could lead to individuals not feeling heard or recognised, which would be disruptive to organisational morale, which is essential to continue to provide our services to the public. It would not be in the public interest for us to cause this disruption for little reason. The public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure in this case.