91热爆

yet again.. one rule for them, one rule for the rest!

Why? What's he afraid of getting out?

Martin,

Nice catch.

Oh dear, oh dear - why am I not surprised? Several old men without principles but sporting fig leaves come to my mind in my case.

What saddens me most is the example of Wilfred Fienburgh's wonderful and long serving behaviour(to what was by 1958, a former constituent of his) is being desecrated slowly but surely by his own Party. And he is remembered with so little fondness by all accounts.

I would want ALL MPs from all political parties to be so assiduous in their work on behalf of their constituents.

Surely this Bill cannot relate to MP's correspondence of over 50 years ago? It isn't retrospective that far back is it?

It is a catch all Bill, isn't it?

Were I that suspicious man I oft speak of...... Under the FOI, if applied properly, I consider I cannot be denied the 1952 onward correspondnece of the late MP for North Islington to the Westminster County Council. Of course it IS being denied me under faily outrageous circumstances. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle! This whole business is common knowledge on several continents given my family. The book "No Love For Johnnie" is out there for anyone to read, partly "translated" on the Web.

I am going to keep it honest, Martin and watch this play itself out.

Yes were I that suspicious man I may begin to believe, I was personally to blame for this travesty of a Bill to avoid Government blushes but it is so much more important than that. What else are "they" hiding?

Laughs hysterical - sorry people! I only wanted my life back.

We found using that FOI that Bill Rammell, MP had met with Yvette Cooper Housing Minster during a period when respresentations on a planning matter were prohibited by Government policy, PPS11. The meeting was titled "to discuss housing and infrastructure issues".
We were then refused any detail of the meeting itself under the public interest test.
The Government said " Ministers must be able to engage in the formulation or development of policy, or be able to receive advice and exchange views, without undue concern that information about this will be routinely released."
Using current legislation the Government can block any request it so desires.

Martin, Please forgive me for disagreeing with your assessment of this Bill. MPs already enjoy qualified exemption via Section 36 -"Prejudice to effective conduct ..."

Part II of Mr Maclean's Bill will give ABSOLUTE exemption to MPs' correspondance with public authorities - thus removing even the obligation to confirm or deny.

Part I goes much further, by removing both Houses of Parliament from the list of public authorities subject to the Act, thus all FOI requests to any part of Parliament can then be rejected ABSOLUTELY, without any comeback.

There will be no recourse to the Information Commissioner or the Tribunal in either Part.

Once free of the FOI Act, they wouldn't have to have a publication scheme or a disclosure log. They might even stop live parliamentary TV and refuse access to reporters.

Who said "Open government" ?

Please correct me if you think I have got this wrong. Peter HOAR

I suppose I should not be surprised at this, given this governments lamentable record on freedom of information, but it is a reflection of our MP's contempt for open democracy.

#6 Peter -
I do think you are overstating the likely impact. For example, I certainly don't think this Bill represents any threat to TV coverage of the Commons.
However you are right to point out that it would remove the authorities of both Houses of Parliament from FOI entirely - this would essentially affect disclosure of administrative information such as MPs' expenses.
But as the Bill stands the correspondence of individual MPs with public authorities would be subject to qualified exemption and the public interest test on disclosure.
Martin

I think that soon I will be able to talk to my Grandchildren about things we used to have in this country. Things like democracy, freedom of expression, freedom to follow your conscience and the quaint idea that the Government was not your enemy trying to control how you should think, speak and feel.

Well done for publicising this issue, which may otherwise sneak through into law virtually unnoticed by public or media.

The contrast with the situiation in devolved Scotland is stark, where the Scottish Parliament, faced with a similar decision by the Scottish Information Commissioner under the separate FoI Act, took the sensible steps of not challenging it further in the courts, but of making a virtue of the situation, by adopting an extremely open & transparent approach to publication of MSPs' expenses (https://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/MSPAllowances/searchGuidance.htm).
Though the Scottish Executive has, like the DCA down south, initiated a 'review' of the early operation of the devolved Scottish FoI scheme, there seems no question of the Parliament or the Executive wishing to exempt themselves from FoI. Perhaps this is because self-declared principles of openness and transparency are integral to the operation of Scottish devolution.

The UK's Information Tribunal's decision on the House of Commons cases made some positive references to the Scottish situation:

Decision
The Tribunal upholds both Decision Notices dated 22nd February 2006 (the
Decision Notices) and dismisses both appeals. This means that the Appellant must now comply with the Decision Notices within 30 days of the promulgation date of this decision.

..
26. Mr Walker [[HC Dir of Fince & Admin]] was aware that the Scottish Parliament discloses more information than Westminster and that it discloses the sort of information requested by Mr Baker and Mr Carr-Brown under their publication scheme. He was also aware that some individual MPs, like Mr Baker, disclose the detailed breakdown of their own travel expenses on their own web site but that as far as he was aware this practice was not widespread and certainly not the practice of anything like a majority of MPs.

...

93. Having considered all these interests we find that the legitimate interests of members of the public outweigh the prejudice to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of MPs. We consider our decision will only result in a very limited invasion of an MP鈥檚 privacy considered in the context of their public role and the spending of public money. In coming to this decision we have noted that the Scottish Parliament has for some years disclosed the detailed travel claims of MSPs supporting mileage, air travel, car hire and taxis. Also we note that in the Scottish Information Commissioner鈥檚 Decision 033/2005 in Paul Hutcheon, The Sunday Herald and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) the Scottish Commissioner went further and ordered the release of the destination points of taxi journeys of an MSP.

This coupled with the blatant dishonesty of the cabinet, Attorney General already mean that dictatorial powers exist for the man in number 10. He cannot even be removed by his own party. There must be an inquiry into constitutional reform. We need to encourage our judges, civil servants etc to stand up to this destruction of our rights and freedoms. Anyone who votes Labour at the next election (if there is another election) should be ashamed of themselves.

How do the government think they can be exempt from FOI?? His last days are proving very clearly what has been happening behind the scenes for 9 years.

I hope the media and the public will also ask their MPs how their actions over the FoI appeal and the new Bill square with their expressed desire to 'connect with the public'?

In June 2004, the HC Modernisation Committee issued its report on "Connecting Parliament with the Public" (https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmmodern/368/368.pdf). It is full of lofty phrases like "The House of Commons is the representative institution of the British people. It is here that our laws are made and it is from its Members that governments are formed. The sovereignty of Parliament is the fundamental expression of the sovereignty of the people", "It serves no-one if we make it difficult for voters to understand what their elected representatives are doing. Too often the impression is given that the House of Commons is a private club, run for the benefit of its Members, where members of the public are tolerated only on sufferance. ... However, the Commons can make itself more accessible to those outside, both as interested visitors and as citizens wishing to be more involved in proceedings, it can do more to make it easier for people to understand the work of Parliament, and it can do more to communicate its activity to the world outside" and "But for parliamentary democracy to thrive the public must understand and engage with Parliament itself". This Report was approved by the House on 26 Jan 2005 by 375-14.

The FoI pages on the Commons website (https://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/commons_foi.cfm) describe how it complies with the Act, which, of course Westminster itself passed, eg "The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 鈥淎ct鈥�) became law on 30 November 2000, and is intended to foster a culture of openness in government". Presumably the House's policy is to embrace that culture, and not merely to apply 'freedom of information' only so far, and for as long, as a statutory obligation requires it to do so?

I hope people will write to their MPs, asking them if they support the application of the FoI Act 2000 to Parliament or if they support the new Bill to exempt it; how much has been spent by, or on behalf of, the House of Commons in pursuing its refusal to disclose MP travel expenses, and how much it is estimated may be spent if the House decides to pursue this further through the courts. The same questions could be asked by the public and the media to the House of Commons Commission, which is the statutory body responsible for these matters, and whose members are, according to its website:

The Speaker, Rt Hon Michael J Martin MP (Chair);
The Leader of the House, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP (a Caninet Minister);
The Leader of the Opposition's nominee, Rt Hon Theresa May MP;
Sir Stuart Bell MP;
Nick Harvey MP;
Rt Hon David Maclean MP.

The HC Commission's contact details are on

You will see that it appears that the MP who has introduced the current 'exemption' Bill, David Maclean, is a member of the HC Commission. Is he doing so in a personal capacity, or as a member of, and even on behalf of, the House of Commons Commission? It seems at the very least to be a curious de facto 'conflict of interest'.

It is worth pointing out that this Bill is being proposed by a Conservative MP, and not the Government (though they are not seeking to oppose it), so party politics may not come into it. Although I am concerned about the exemption (which despite some comments here will be qualified if the Bill remains as it is, and not Absolute - Absolute meaning that a public interest test does not have to be carried out), I am more concerned about the removal of two public authorities from the Act, seemingly because they have been mildly inconvenienced. It sets a dangerous precedent. I also wonder whether this would have been allowed to creep through so quietly if it had been a Bill to remove some people's right to vote or right to free speech - other (more established) aspects of a democratic state.

Paul (No 12) The Conservatives may be starting the fire but if the Government stand by immobile whilst holding an extinguisher - they are equality culpable.

The Amendment if passed, benefits Labour too. I know this to my cost (see abve). There is a London Council already assuming this amendment IS law already and spuriously been denying me just such paperwork - the correspondence of a late Labour MP who wrote to Westminster Council - in 1952-58! How does THAT affect New Labour unless it is more unwelcome news for our Government?

Unlike Blair's lot, this Labour MP or at least what he tried to do I consider heroic.

Martin, Re my Post #6 and your #8 - Very sorry, the bit about banning Parliamentary TV and Journalists was meant to be a joke. Mind you, Mrs H says I would get more work done around the house if that happened.

Looking again at existing Section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 37 (communications with Her Majesty etc and honours) I note both are 鈥渟ubject to a public interest balance鈥� thus making them qualified exemptions. If MPs鈥� correspondence was included in the proposed new Section 37A that would on the face of it, also be subject to a public interest balance so you are quite correct, it is not absolute. MP鈥檚 would get their own personal QUALIFIED Sect 37A exemption, rather than having to trawl through the other exemptions for a refusal.

However, it is conceivable the new Sect 37A (Part II of the Bill) could be drafted to exclude a public interest test (like for a loose example, Sect 21 鈥� available elsewhere, Sect 41 - provided in confidence, Sect 44 - prohibition on disclosure etc.)

On the other hand, if Part I of the Bill succeeds, the House of Commons and House of Lords will be removed from the list of public authorities subject to the Act, and thus all FOI inquiries to both Houses could be told to get stuffed. 鈥淗ouse of Commons鈥� might be deemed to include MPs themselves and their correspondence. No exemption of any kind would be needed if they were not subject to the Act.

Reading the Guardian article, I guess anything could happen if he can put his mates on the Committee, and the Government is in favour. Have to trust in the Lords again to stop it! Back to the floor tiling. Peter HOAR

HOw nauseating it is to hear all those bloody MPs lining up to berate the Catholic Church for wanting to be exempted from certain provisions in the Equalities Bill.

It's true, then - scum does rise to the top.

Martin,

Now the Government are gunning for the likes of the British Library.

Sneaking amendments to the Freedom of Information Act that benefit only MPS and further secrecy through Parliament is not enough for them.

Now it is proposed the British Library and similar wonders of Britain are to either open less often or a charge is to be made to use them?

Another resource of research or enjoyment being denied everyone. The Library - it is always full when I go there. So the Government say in effect - this will not do. Too many people enjoying it.

It is not enough we the public have to pay to travel to these places - we do not all live in St Pancras in this instance but now we have to pay for a less satisfactory service too?

What are the Labour Government doing? The Iraq war, prisons, child care etc etc.

They appear to want to alienate the entire population of Britain. Making it a country fit for Gordon Brown to govern perhaps - that is "not fit - on purpose"

Freedom of Information Act being a joke and toothless(ask the Press)- in my family history search, I wanted to consult a particular book (on the Internet it cost 拢200)and guess where I found it? And it was invaluable - everything I wanted in one, two volume book. I didn't know it then but they had "No Love for Johnnie" too but I had already got my copy of the WWW.

Isn't it interesting that a family member was the author of the family history? Therefore no inconvenient delving where it wouldn't be appreciated by some eager upstart of a biographer who would reports warts and all. What is that word? Paen?

Now that treasure that is the British Library is to be buried under bureaucracy and charges - as well as art galleries etc?

I despair. Anthony Blair - begone and quickly please.

Martin,

My last contribution for a while. I feel sorry for Antony Adolph and his researchers who I got to look formally into my maternal family history. I now realise that I most likely had them chasing an alias in the supposed later husband of my maternal grandma. Jack Ford. I thought anagrams were Wilfred Fienburgh's weapon of choice because of a firm bought by one of those suspected of covering up something anagramming into an admission of keeping prostitutes. It hadn't occured to me until I read about Emails that talked about Ks and Cs that the simple name "Jack Ford" can be treated almost smugly as an admission of doing something for someone with a knighthood. Lance Price's "it is the coverup that gets you in the end"? Add smugness to that sentence.

I pick up on things as you note but after a while it seems like I am being drip fed things to react to. I only wished some of these people would just talk to me. The Professor who wrote on "No Love For Johnnie", the diarist and ex-MP who commented on it, Fivelive and The Independent.

I even told off the Independent when they ran a puff piece on a later member of the family group a couple days after I gave them my story. Establishment door's closing I think I said. Again no "what the hell are you on about Mr Dockree?" letter.

My constant fellow blogger on Fivelive is a guy called Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR - Roberto is so Miami centric I suspect he is the head of Sonny Crokett's fan club but a later new item on Miami in the Indy, with a photograph of someone called "Tom Byrne" and the legend "Army" written across his chest (don't ask) I ignored. Mr Bryne wasn't mentioned at all in the piece - just that photo - "as inconspicious as a tarantula on a piece of angel food" (Raymond Chandler).

This is my long goodbye (no self harm meant I assure you, Martin). I am just going to concentrate on my life for a change. It is pretty good.

The puff piece, My Mentor, in the Indy I felt was cruel but maybe was just coincidence. I have praised to the heavens the excellent philanthropic work this whole suspected family group has done - I was amazed by that two volume history book partly read at the threatened British Library.

But now I am aware something is up - I should continue to be a victim of all this silliness? What right have Greenwich Council and whomever else got to continue this farce?

Back to Mr Adolph - I deliberately told him I can be discreet if it was in the national interest importance but look at me now. Blogging and those who read thinking quite rightly "What the hell is that Paul Dockree on about?"

Take care

Paul Dockree

The more you read this Bill, the more problems arise, even apart from the backwards-looking policy of it all. For example,
(1) Is the idea that, once there is a public fuss about this Bill, the exemptions for the two Houses will be dropped, as a 'concession', leaving the provision about correspondence, which seems to be the real source of concern among some MPs, to become law?
(2) If the two Houses at Westminster are to be exempted, why not the Welsh and NI Assemblies (both included in the 2000 Act, sch 1 paras 4 & 5)?
(3) Will the undefined term 'Member of Parliament' also take out at least some Ministers' correspondence from FoI, but perhaps leave Peers' correspondence still covered?
(4) Why should all such correspondence be 'exempt' rather than what seems to be bothering MPs, ie 'constituency casework' (hard to define, but more limited)?

Today I received from the Committee on Standards in Public Life - 'A Review of The Electoral Commission' - the inside front cover contained the following:

The Seven Principles of Public Life

Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit

Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.