Request Internal Review: FOI2025/14063.

Subject: Request for Internal Review – FOI2025/14063 (Blair Washington visit; education fellowships 1995–97)

Dear Head of Freedom of Information,

I am requesting an internal review of the Cabinet Office’s response to my request FOI2025/14063 regarding:

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to Washington, D.C. on 10–12 April 1996 (itineraries, schedules, visitor logs, briefings, correspondence, reports); and
UK education-officer placements/fellowships in 1995–1997 (including any records referencing Matthew Dunkley and/or Theresa Makey), and any cross-government communications or material arising from such fellowships; and
Cross-references between UK and US records (cables, memos, or communications) connected to the April 1996 visit.

Your reply dated 30 September 2025 states that the information is “not held.” I contend that the conclusion is likely incorrect or, at a minimum, insufficiently evidenced given the nature of the records sought.

I have already informed you that there is an international warrant of arrest for my daughter, who is also required to appear in court in respect of her Child Trust Fund (CTF). You have previously confirmed that it is your responsibility under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide a response within 20 working days. However, you did not respond until Monday, 29 September 2025 at 4:47 PM, which exceeds the statutory time limit. Therefore, your position that an internal review cannot be processed is void.

It has now come to my attention that there may exist a potential mechanism of modern slavery enabling the movement of young women and potentially children from Northern Ireland through what appears to be a network connected to the Epstein abduction routes. When I telephoned the Modern Slavery Helpline, I was informed that it is a charity and cannot conduct investigations.

Clearly, when Sky News reporter Beth Rigby asked the Prime Minister about Peter Mandelson at the meeting with Donald Trump in 2025, he publicly stated that he did not support paedophilia or modern slavery. Yet, his own safeguarding mechanisms have historically misidentified people of the same name in my daughter’s case, who are not the same identity, and appear to be negligent in their duty to protect children and young women.

The questions concerning the 430,000 unaccounted-for Child Trust Funds are consistent with the data provided on affidavit served on Hastings Court and shared with the police, before this government’s exposure. Your department was also informed of this through an NSPCC briefing document, which appears to have been ignored, with no protocol enacted in response.

The Cabinet Office has been aware of this abduction issue for many years, and there still appears to be no protocol to address it.

Where is my daughter, Emily?

Please conduct an Internal Review of FOI2025/14063.

In addition, please escalate and route this safeguarding note to the appropriate government unit(s) (including safeguarding, policing, or modern slavery coordination teams) and acknowledge routing. This context underscores the strong public interest in the timely and thorough handling of this FOI request.

Grounds for review

Likely records and/or metadata should exist (FOIA s.1(1)(a))
Overseas prime-ministerial visits are typically coordinated across No.10, the Cabinet Office Private Office, and relevant secretariats (e.g., Overseas/Defence). Even where originals have been transferred to The National Archives or another department, the Cabinet Office would ordinarily retain file references, transfer schedules, cover sheets, or registries/metadata confirming existence and location. The same applies to cross-departmental material circulated to the centre concerning education policy exchanges/fellowships (1995–1997).
Duty to advise and assist (FOIA s.16)
If the Cabinet Office does not hold the substantive records, please discharge your s.16 duty by identifying who does hold them (e.g., No.10, FCDO, Department for Education (and predecessor bodies), or The National Archives) and provide file titles/references, transfer certificates, and retention/disposal schedule identifiers where known.
Adequacy of searches
Please have the reviewer confirm the systems and locations actually searched, including but not limited to:
- Cabinet Office Knowledge & Information Management (KIM) catalogues/registries;
- relevant shared drives/email archives for April 1996 and calendar 1995–1997;
- the Prime Minister’s Private Office holdings and secretariat files relevant to overseas visits; and
- search terms used (e.g., “Washington”, “Clinton”, “10 April 1996”, “April 1996”, “Commonwealth Fund”, “Harkness”, “fellowship(s)”, “Matthew Dunkley”, “Theresa Makey”).
If any locations were not searched, please explain why they were excluded.
Timeliness (FOIA s.10)
The response appears to have been issued outside the 20-working-day limit. If you maintain it was within time, please state the date of receipt you recorded and your deadline calculation.

Remedies sought

Re-run or extend searches as set out above and provide any information located.
If the Cabinet Office does not hold the material, provide documented evidence of transfer/retention (file/series references, transfer certificates) and identify the most likely holding authority to satisfy s.16.
Provide a description of the original searches performed (systems, date ranges, search terms, and staff/units consulted).
Confirm that the internal review is undertaken by a senior official not involved in the original decision, and aim to conclude within 20 working days in line with ICO good practice.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Newbold

thestealingofemily.co.uk