Summary
Correspondence with Simon Case at the Cabinet Office
The correspondence concerns a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by Chris Hodgkins regarding the UK Government’s negotiations with the European Union on mobility arrangements for creative professionals, particularly musicians and artists, following Brexit. The request sought disclosure of:
- The specific proposals made by the UK Government to the European Commission concerning work permits for creative professionals.
- The proposals made by the European Commission to the UK.
- The reasons why visa-free and carnet-free access for UK musicians was not secured.
Following an initial refusal and a request for an internal review in March 2021, Chris Hodgkins experienced a prolonged delay, receiving the review outcome only in February 2022, almost a year later. In a subsequent letter to Simon Case, he challenged both the delay and the continuing refusal to disclose the requested information. He argued that the passage of time, evolving political circumstances, and public statements by former Brexit negotiator Lord Frost, acknowledging shortcomings in the deal for touring artists and musicians, weakened the Government’s justification for secrecy. He also contended that greater transparency was now in the public interest and questioned whether disclosure would genuinely prejudice future trade negotiations.
The Cabinet Office, through Tarley Smith, upheld the original decision to withhold the information under Section 27(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The department maintained that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the UK’s international relations, future trade negotiations, and broader national interests abroad. The review argued that negotiating offers are inherently confidential, that future trading partners could use such information to gain negotiating advantages, and that publication would undermine the trust necessary for effective international negotiations. The Cabinet Office acknowledged the importance of touring for the UK’s creative industries but concluded that these considerations did not outweigh the exemptions protecting the information. The original refusal was therefore upheld.
Conclusion
This exchange highlights a fundamental tension between governmental confidentiality in international negotiations and public demands for transparency and accountability, particularly where policy decisions have significant consequences for a specific sector. Chris Hodgkins argued that the impact of Brexit on musicians and creative professionals, coupled with subsequent acknowledgements by key architects of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, justified renewed scrutiny of the Government’s negotiating position and a reassessment of the public interest balance. [Correspond.
The Cabinet Office, however, maintained a consistent position that protecting the confidentiality of negotiating proposals was necessary to safeguard the UK’s future trade and diplomatic interests. While apologising for the substantial delay in completing the review, it concluded that disclosure would create a real risk of prejudice to future negotiations and therefore remained exempt under the Freedom of Information Act.
Viewed more broadly, the correspondence serves as a case study in the post-Brexit debate over mobility for musicians and artists. It demonstrates both the sector’s continuing concerns about lost opportunities and administrative barriers, and the Government’s reluctance to disclose negotiating details which might reveal how these outcomes arose. The exchange ultimately ends with transparency arguments unresolved, leaving the question of political accountability and negotiating strategy open to continued public and parliamentary debate.