FOI Response (Finally!) - The UK Government are DEFINITELY hiding their COMPLICITY in the Second Holocaust and genocides!

What legal advice was received regarding providing arms, troops and surveillance equipment to Israel?”

We refer to your request where you asked:

FOI reference: FOI***** 20 March 2025

“1. How many letters, approximately, about stopping the genocide in Gaza, have been received by Ministers of the Cabinet Office, since 8th October 2023 or, at least, since the Labour Party were elected into power?

2. What legal advice was received regarding providing arms, troops and surveillance equipment to Israel?”

We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the Cabinet Office holds some information in scope of part 1 your request. 101 items of correspondence (including letters, emails and correspondence received ]via the Cabinet Office public webform and Public and Ministerial mailboxes). This total is based on searches for correspondence that includes the words ‘gaza’ and ‘genocide’ in the subject, and includes a high proportion of correspondence sent by one source. Please note that the provision of this information is not an endorsement, or indicator of any Government position, over the use of the terminology ’genocide’ when applied to the conflict in Gaza.

Following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the Cabinet Office holds some information in scope of part 2 your request. However, the information that is held by the Cabinet Office is being withheld because it is exempt, in particular under Section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). Section 42(1) applies to information that would be subject to legal professional privilege. Legal professional privilege covers confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. Section 42(1) is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and we recognise that openness in government may increase public trust in and engagement with the government. There is also a definite public interest in understanding the legal justification for decisions taken by the government. Against this there is an inherent public interest in protecting the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients. This confidentiality encourages clients to seek legal advice and allows for full and frank exchanges between clients and their lawyers. It is particularly important for the government to seek legal advice in relation to sensitive and difficult decisions, and for any advice given to be fully informed and fully reasoned. Without confidentiality, clients might fear that anything they say to their lawyers, however sensitive or potentially damaging, could be revealed later. They might be deterred from seeking legal advice at all, or from disclosing all relevant material to their lawyers. Or the advice given may not be as full and frank as it ought to be. The information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 27(1)(a) of FOIA. Section 27(1)(a) exempts information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other State. Section 27 is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this material. The Cabinet Office recognises there is a general public interest in openness in public affairs in order to ensure that the public are able to scrutinise the manner in which public authorities reach important decisions. This makes for greater accountability, increases public confidence in government decision-making and helps to encourage greater public engagement with political life. The Cabinet Office also recognises that there is a general public interest in being able to evaluate the foreign policy of the government. We have weighed these public interests against a strong public interest in the United Kingdom being able successfully to pursue our national interests. We are more likely to do so if we conform to the conventions of international behaviour, avoid giving offence to other nations and retain the trust of our international partners. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we have concluded that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this information. Finally, the Information you have requested is also exempt under Section 24(1) of FOIA. Section 24 exempts information from disclosure if its exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. Section 24 is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information. There is a general public interest in disclosure of information and we recognise that openness in government may increase public trust in and engagement with the government. There is a definite public interest in members of the public being able to understand matters related to national security. We have weighed these public interests against a very strong public interest in safeguarding national security. It is important that this sensitive information is protected, as disclosure of information would damage national security. This interest could only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Finally, the Cabinet Office, by virtue of Sections 2(1)(b) and 35(3) FOIA neither confirms nor denies whether any of the information it holds constitutes Law Officer advice. Any documentation that may or may not be held by the Cabinet Office in relation to advice provided by the Law Officers would relate to their function as chief legal advisers to the Government. Either confirming or denying that the Cabinet Office held such advice would undermine the long-standing Convention, observed by successive Governments, that information about the seeking, preparation or content of advice relating to the Law Officers’ advisory function is not disclosed outside government. This Convention is recognised in paragraph 5.14 of the Ministerial Code. We take the view that the public interest does not support confirming or denying whether any information held relates to Law Officer advice. Maintaining the Law Officers’ Convention protects fully informed decision making by allowing government to seek, and Law Officers to prepare, legal advice in private, without fear of any adverse inferences being drawn from either the content of the advice or the fact that it was sought. It ensures that government is neither discouraged from seeking advice in appropriate cases, nor pressured to seek advice in inappropriate cases. While recognising that there is a public interest in citizens knowing whether matters have been considered with the benefit of sound legal advice, in the circumstances of this case, this public interest does not outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the Convention. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we have concluded that the balance of the public interest in relation to all three exemptions favours withholding this information.

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your request or wish to request an internal review, you should write to: Head of Freedom of Information Cabinet Office 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ email: foi-team@cabinetoffice.gov.uk