Byline Times Free News SiteByline Times Digital / Print EditionSubscriptions + BookshopFree from fear or favour

No tracking. No cookies

SubscriptionsSectionsFactArticles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligence.ArgumentHonestly held opinions and provocative

argument based on current events or our recent reports.ReportageImmersive and current news, informed by frontline reporting and real-life accounts.CultureHistory, music, cooking, travel,

newspaper’s extensive reporting and analysis of the various threats to democracy from populism, oligarchy, dark money and online disinformation.The Cost of Living CrisisByline Times

investigates the causes and consequences of Britain’s biggest recession for 30 yearsThe Crisis in British JournalismByline Times investigates media monopolies, their proximity to

politicians, and how the punditocracy doesn’t hold power to accountIdentity, Empire and the Culture WarByline Times explores the weaponisation of Britain’s past as a key tool in a dark

project of division and distractionThe Coronavirus CrisisByline Times exposes the Government’s dangerous ‘herd immunity’ approach towards the Coronavirus pandemic, as well as how

incompetence and conspiracies contributed to the UK’s shocking death tollCronyism and CorruptionByline Times uncovers the nepotism that greases the wheels of British politics.Russian

InterferenceByline Times leads the way in exposing the anti-democratic influence of the Kremlin over the affairs of other nationsA Hostile EnvironmentJournalists & AuthorsStuart SprayFizza

QureshiDavid HenckeThomas PerrettRevd Joe HawardStaff Writers & ColumnistsHardeep MatharuAdam BienkovJosiah MortimerNafeez AhmedPeter JukesStephen ColegraveRachel DonaldDateThis yearLast

yearAbout & ContactAbout Byline TimesContact Byline TimesSubscribe & Support UsSubscriptionsGift cardsBuy back issuesBuy BooksCrowdfund campaignLog in to your accountIdentity, Empire & the

Culture WarCrisis in British JournalismWar in UkraineClimate EmergencyIsrael-Gaza ConflictInstitutionalising IslamophobiaSearch Subscriptions

Democracy in DangerDid the Cabinet Office Lie? Despite years of asking for the former special advisor’s WhatsApp messages under Freedom of Information laws, the Cabinet Office may never have

asked Dominic Cummings for them. Why? Iain Overton reports

Iain Overton21 March 2023Dominic Cummings. Photo: PA Your support matters:

Sign up to emails

Subscribe to Byline Times

SHARE THIS:

MailTwitterFacebookThreadsBlueskyDid the Cabinet Office Lie?Despite years of asking for the former special advisor’s WhatsApp messages under Freedom of Information laws, the Cabinet Office

may never have asked Dominic Cummings for them. Why? Iain Overton reportsShareEmailTwitterFacebook Newsletter offer Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline

Times Team.

Sign up Dominic Cummings has said that he believes he was never asked to share his WhatsApp conversations with the Cabinet Office – despite repeated Freedom of Information requests asking

for them, Byline Times can reveal.

The claim, made earlier this month on Twitter, came as Boris Johnson’s former chief advisor said that he “couldn’t swear to it” but “don’t think so” when asked if he had ever had a request

from the Cabinet Office FOI unit for his WhatsApp correspondence.

It raises questions as to whether the Cabinet Office’s FOI team deliberately failed to follow protocols in order to dodge the sort of WhatsApp revelations seen in the Telegraph‘s Matt

Hancock leaks.

Initially, dropping into a conversation on Twitter about the use of WhatsApp for government business, Cummings asked: “What WhatsApps of mine were you after?”

The one-time political consigliere then wrote that “officials do much of government business on WhatsApp/Signal but don’t want it FOId, obviously”.

Byline Times – along with The Citizens – submitted an FOI request in September 2019 to the Cabinet’s press office regarding the use of encrypted communication software by then special

advisor Cummings. This was rejected – on the grounds that the information was not held.

A year later, in September 2020, another FOI was submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office, which was also rejected.

In April 2021, Byline Times and The Citizens again wrote to the offices of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office to request confirmation or denial as to whether special advisors used

WhatsApp for civil servant work. The offices finally replied to the request respectively in November, stating that they did not hold any relevant information. In December, they stated that

the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit.

In response to more questions as to why the Prime Minister’s office claimed that it did not hold his WhatsApp messages, Cummings tweeted “’don’t hold’ is deliberately vague!” and “never

asked the PM so we… don’t hold’!”

The concerning use of private messaging apps by UK Government officials to conduct business has been widely reported. This includes the use of WhatsApp, Signal, text messages and private

email accounts.

Several high-profile present and former government officials – including Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron – have all been identified as using private messaging apps to conduct

government business.

Most recently, WhatsApp messages sent by former Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock were leaked following a betrayal of trust by political pundit Isabel Oakeshott. These messages –

exactly the sort sought after by Byline Times through Freedom of Information requests – provided insight into the inner workings of the UK Government during the pandemic. 

Hancock’s messages include conversations with ministers and officials on various topics such as testing, lockdowns and school closures. In one exchange with then Education Secretary Sir

Gavin Williamson, Hancock criticised teaching unions. In another, he sought a favourable front page from George Osborne, former Chancellor and Evening Standard editor, as he tried to reach

his target of 100,000 daily Coronavirus tests.

In other conversations, Hancock discussed schools reopening with Sir Gavin, who expressed concern that some might use a lack of personal protective equipment as an excuse not to open. Then

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, on the other hand, compared the risk of dying from COVID to falling down stairs for over-65s in a discussion about shielding.

WhatsApp use is clearly endemic in government, despite the refusal of the Government to accept that this is the case and to allow journalists to access such messages under FOI. The extensive

use of private messaging apps has raised concerns about transparency and accountability in government decision-making.

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act allows requesters to ask for any information held by a public authority. Public authorities may refuse an entire request if it is too costly, vexatious

or a repetition of a previous request. The Act also includes an exemption for personal data that conflicts with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) or the Data Protection Act

2018 (DPA2018).

While some exemptions are ‘absolute’, most require a public interest test – weighing public interest arguments before deciding on disclosure. Importantly, the Act does not allow for

prohibiting the question itself from being asked to the holders of the information.

In the case of Cummings’ WhatsApp messages, the reasons for rejecting the FOI requests included exemptions whereby: disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the

exercise of public authority functions; and disclosure of information that would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs and the ability to carry out an inquiry. The

Cabinet Office also stated that the requested information was not held.

Last year, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) condemned the Cabinet Office for a number of failings in relation to its FOI process regarding WhatsApp messages. It found that the

Cabinet Office had failed to conduct comprehensive searches for communications relating to the prorogation of Parliament in September 2019 involving Cummings, despite FOI requests for such.

It also ruled that the office did not follow proper procedures in applying the exemption and did not ask for searches of private email accounts or personal devices.

UP TO EMAIL UPDATES

Interestingly, the report also noted speculation that the aversion to email within the Cabinet Office was due to an incident in 2011 when Michael Gove was forced to release messages sent on

his wife’s email account under the Freedom of Information Act – and that it was this incident that made Cummings, then an advisor to Gove in the Department for Education, realise that

alternative means of communication were needed that would not be liable to discovery by future inquiries.

In April 2021, David Davis called for the strengthening of the FOI Act, stating that avoiding FOI requests has become a “political strategy in its own right”. He advocated for a presumption

of disclosure and the removal of the exemption for commercially sensitive information. 

Jolyon Maugham, founder and director of the Good Law Project, told Byline Times: “Public records and our FOI act regime have become, in fact, like Mob accounting. Ministers and special

advisors have the official record for public consumption and also the record that reflects the reality. I remain shocked that our courts are, so far, tacitly endorsing this conduct.”

For The Citizens’ Clara Maquire, that Cummings has claimed he was never asked for his WhatsApp messages “tells us all we need to know about this Government’s attitude to transparency”.

“The Cabinet Office assured us that electronic communications of note were exported and filed on the public record,” she said. “Now, we find out that messages deemed significant by Cummings

never found their way into public record – and it seems that the Cabinet Office didn’t even mention it to him.

“It’s not just evidence of a woefully inadequate process, it demonstrates a total disregard for the concept of public accountability.”

It is hard not to conclude that the Cabinet Office’s apparent evasion of FOI requests and failure to ask Cummings for his data suggests a deliberate attempt to avoid disclosure and obstruct

public scrutiny – undermining the principles of an open and democratic government.

The Cabinet Office said: “All FOI cases are processed in line with due process and all legal requirements. We also make applicants fully aware of how they can request a review or appeal when

responding to FOI requests. Each request is looked at and handled on a case-by-case basis and, where there is a non-disclosure or exemption applied, the reasons and rationale are clearly

explained in the response.”

Social Media, Tech, Data and Algorithms, UK Politics, Whitehall and the Civil Service

Byline Times is brought to you by a dedicated team of journalists and contributors – producing independent, fearless, investigative and thought-provoking journalism not found in the

established media. We are regulated by Impress.

To find the nearest newsagent stocking this month’s edition, search here.

AboutContactSubscriptions

Complaints

Byline TimesByline InvestigatesByline FestivalByline TVByline SupplementByline BooksByline AudioBylines Network

Byline Media Holdings Ltd, Byline Times & Yes We Work Ltd