Commissioner v Commons
Tony Blair - remember him? What about Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy? Once upon a time they were party leaders. That time was when freedom of information came into force in 2005. And it was in March 2005 that my colleague Nicola Beckford put in an FOI request for greater detail about the expenditure of several MPs, including these three.
After a three-year battle, it now looks as if that information should be released. The Information Commissioner's Office has just issued a decision over-ruling objections from the House of Commons authorities. The Commons now has to provide the material within 35 days, unless it decides to appeal.
The decision notice makes clear the lack of full cooperation from the House of Commons during the Commissioner's investigation. In an unusual move, he had to serve a formal Information Notice on the Commons authorities in order for him and his staff to get access themselves to the disputed information, so that they could assess the implications of releasing it.
Coming soon - full details of the office spending of Gladstone and Disraeli.
UPDATE: For some comment on the Derek Conway case, see this more recent entry.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I've just stumbled across this blog (suddenly noticing there are quite a few more Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú blogs than I thought) and FOI is something I am very interested in, both here and in the US.
A while ago I was considering filing a FOI request to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. The reason is that I was quite annoyed that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú were very consistently referring to mercenaries in Iraq as "Private Contractors" or some other euphemism that companies like Blackwater prefer.
I pointed out in several letters that there is no such thing as a "Private Military Contractor" under the Geneva Conventions and that these men would be classed as Mercenaries.
I though to myself that surely one or two Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú journalists would agree with this widely held point of view and refer to them as Mercenaries, but alas no. The word was consistently avoided even though it is the correct term under the Geneva Conventions.
I began to wonder whether there was an "order from above" that all Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú journalists should not use the term Mercenary. I though this would be the perfect opportunity to see if the FOI act could bring such information to light.
Sadly I quickly found out that journalism is largely excluded from the FOI. Because of this it is impossible for a member of the public to find out if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú instructs its journalists to avoid certain words or topics.
I am wondering, do you think that journalism at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be excluded from the FOI act in this way? How can the public trust news at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú if it is so closed off in this way?
Quote from Steve Martin "Sadly I quickly found out that journalism is largely excluded from the FOI. Because of this it is impossible for a member of the public to find out if the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú instructs its journalists to avoid certain words or topics" Unquote
I would only say, Mr Martin, if everything the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú did and said was open to EVERYBODY who could bother to complain - it would be a less able reporting medium. Second guessing who might object to what etc in every topic covered.
Steering a middle way. I would hate it anyway but if one was buffeted from perhaps extreme left or right FOIing everything - I would walk away. No message would ever be got out to listener or viewer because the wording would never be agreed.
That old saw - if they are all criticising you - assume you are doing something right (or left?) works for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. And as far as I can see - they are ALL criticising.
"I would only say, Mr Martin, if everything the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú did and said was open to EVERYBODY who could bother to complain - it would be a less able reporting medium."
That doesn't really follow at all. At a time of waning trust in main stream news, transparency is surely more important that ever.
"No message would ever be got out to listener or viewer because the wording would never be agreed."
But that's just the thing. Why should wording be agreed? If all the reporters say exactly the same thing, what's the point? You may as well just reprint Reuters/Associated Press releases verbatim (if that isn't already the case). That's not really journalism at all, it's more like some version of 1984.
If a journalist has the opinion that armed Blackwater employees are classed as mercenaries under the Geneva Conventions, should he not be allowed to report that? Many people have noted that there is no diversity of opinion in western TV media. Everyone says the same thing in the same way using the same terminology.
For example, the government defines a word, such as "insurgent" in a press release, and then the media obediently stick to it from then on. What happens if a journalist actually bothers to look in a dictionary and discovers that an "insurgent" is a revolutionary, and that someone attacking occupying troops is actually defined in the dictionary as "resistance". What happens if that journalist decides to stick to the dictionary definitions rather than those dictated to him? It is my belief that at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú he would be told to change the article. It's only a belief because with the FOI crippled in this respect, I can't actually submit a request to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú and find out for sure.
"That old saw - if they are all criticising you - assume you are doing something right (or left?) works for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. And as far as I can see - they are ALL criticising."
That's a nice saying, but it may equally well be true that you are doing something wrong. For example, as far as the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is concerned it seems that the History of Iran begins with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. All the nasty things that came before such as the US/UK instigated destruction of their democracy and the installation of a dictator, rarely gets a mention. If I complain about that, should the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú therefore conclude it must be doing something right?
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú gets a lot of criticism not because it's doing more badly than other media outlets, but because there is a lot less point in complaining to privately owned media.
Steve Martin,
I suggest that you read up on your history, and perhaps tone down your anti-west rhetoric.
Paul makes a perfectly valid point which you should take another look at rather then dispute it because it does not fit your outdated worldview.
Thank you, Joseph. You said it just right.
I had two goes trying to reply to Mr Martin and both were on their way to becoming small books.
Brevity, Paul, brevity.
Martin,
I undestand that both Disraeli and Gladstone were partial to a good quality wine, could you perhaps find out in a league format where each PM position is in relation to to the quality of the wine they served at Number 10?.
I'm guessing that Blair was challenging for a UEFA cup spot, Major in the relegation places and Thatcher a mid-table position!
Dear Steve Martin,
Very well put, and I cannot understand the objections to your analysis of the history of Iran.
It is surely beyond dispute that Britain sent in troops to protect the interests of BP - a private company - in that country (not unlike US troops sent in to Guatemala to oust the Arbenz regime who had had the temerity to offer fair price to nationalise parts of the land controlled by United Fruit) and that Britain and USA had installed a pro-Western, pro-oil head of state (the Shah).
I would venture that you are not anti-Western, but a proponent of democracy and freedom of expression, the values which we hold to be the basis of the Western way of life.
Secondly, I think your original point about the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú falling within the scope of the FOI act is valid. Unlike the other media, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is publicly financed via the licence fee and should be fully impartial in its reporting and be publicly accountable.
It is good to see that parliamentarians can no longer hide their expenses behind Data Protection legislation (privacy), what they do and what they get is of public interest and as such it should be published. I have similar problems ascertaining how much 'bonus payments' senior Police Officers get...suffice to say it is like 'pulling teeth. The public pay more precept whilst senior officers 'feather their own nests'...it has nothing to do with more officers on the street.
It's a crying shame that this blog isn't pinned on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú News front page, along with Peston and Mardell's excellent work. Now I know about it I shall read it more often.
Eddie B,
Quote "Very well put, and I cannot understand the objections to your analysis of the history of Iran" Unquote
Let me help clarity then. You agree in this instance and the objections are differences of opinion by others.
And I completely understand objections to my analysis of anything and often change my opinions in the wonderful cut and trust of debate.
Martin, spot on with following this case through to make public MP's expenses. At the end of the day, we employ MPs through the tax we pay and we have a right to make sure our money is spent wisely - under Labour the quality of MP's have dramtically reduced, along with MP's hiding the fact of employing partners as a paid role. However, in the private sector those paid relatives would get no such opportunity because they are just not up to the job. In this country too many people just accept this is the way of life and this very behaviour enables MPs to escape with unacceptable behaviour. Keep up the good work.
It's nice to see that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú holds itself to the same standards that it expects of others...
"The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú was criticised by MPs for refusing to discuss the salaries of highly paid stars or to say how much of the licence fee is being put into a new Freesat digital satellite service."