Letter to Information Commissioner (Richard Thomas) seeking publication of the minutes of the cross-party working group on House of Lords reform
In August last year I made an application under the Freedom of Information Act to the Ministry of Justice for the release of the minutes of the proceedings of the Cross-Party Committee on the reform of the House of Lords. This was declined in a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, dated 22 August.
I followed this with a request to the ministry’s Access Rights Unit that they should review the decision. This was declined by the Minister of State, Michael Wills, in a letter dated 18 October.
Since then I have pursued the matter privately with ministers, in the hope that they would have a change of heart. These efforts too have been unsuccessful, and I finally decided to ask an oral question on the House of Lords, requesting the publication of the minutes of the cross-party working group. This gave rise to a short debate on 12 March, and produced a further refusal from the Government.
In parallel with my efforts Sir Patrick Cormack MP has asked a written question in the House of Commons, and on 18 February received a similar response. Interestingly, Mr Jack Straw’s reply concludes with the words “It is in the public interest that these discussions can take place away from public scrutiny”.(Hansard Column 186W).
I would be most grateful if you would now accept this application from me to review this matter. I hope you will agree with me that Mr Straw’s “public interest” defence is wholly mistaken. Indeed I would argue that as there is no representation on the cross-party group from the back benches of either the Conservative and Labour parties in the House of Lords – where opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to a partly or wholly elected house –the public interest would actively be served if the deliberations of the group were open to scrutiny.
As I pointed out in my email to the Access Rights Unit, it cannot be claimed that the cross-party group is a formal part of government and that advice from officials is provided to it on a confidential basis. Instead it is a party political entity whose purpose is eventually to influence the content of party election manifestos. Given that, the work of the group does not appear to be covered by any of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act.
A further consideration is that media reports are now appearing which purport to describe the deliberations and preliminary conclusions of the working group. The latest of these was in the Financial Times on 19 March. I hope you will agree that the public interest is not served by selective briefing of journalists by those close to, or part of the working group in obvious attempts to condition public opinion in advance of publication of a future white paper.
I am sending you with this letter a number of enclosures:
· Lord Hunt’s letter to me of 22 August 2007
· My emailed reply to the Access Rights Unit of 30 August 2007
· Mr Michael Wills’ letter to me of 18 October 2007
· Copies of a series of letters published in The Times between 6 and 29 February 2008
· The answer to Sir Patrick Cormack’s written question in the House of Commons on 18 February
· The Hansard report of the exchanges in the House of Lords on my oral question on 12 March
· Press reports from the Financial Times of 19 March.
If you would like me to provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to ask. I look forward to hearing from you.
Richard Faulkner
29 March 2008
I followed this with a request to the ministry’s Access Rights Unit that they should review the decision. This was declined by the Minister of State, Michael Wills, in a letter dated 18 October.
Since then I have pursued the matter privately with ministers, in the hope that they would have a change of heart. These efforts too have been unsuccessful, and I finally decided to ask an oral question on the House of Lords, requesting the publication of the minutes of the cross-party working group. This gave rise to a short debate on 12 March, and produced a further refusal from the Government.
In parallel with my efforts Sir Patrick Cormack MP has asked a written question in the House of Commons, and on 18 February received a similar response. Interestingly, Mr Jack Straw’s reply concludes with the words “It is in the public interest that these discussions can take place away from public scrutiny”.(Hansard Column 186W).
I would be most grateful if you would now accept this application from me to review this matter. I hope you will agree with me that Mr Straw’s “public interest” defence is wholly mistaken. Indeed I would argue that as there is no representation on the cross-party group from the back benches of either the Conservative and Labour parties in the House of Lords – where opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to a partly or wholly elected house –the public interest would actively be served if the deliberations of the group were open to scrutiny.
As I pointed out in my email to the Access Rights Unit, it cannot be claimed that the cross-party group is a formal part of government and that advice from officials is provided to it on a confidential basis. Instead it is a party political entity whose purpose is eventually to influence the content of party election manifestos. Given that, the work of the group does not appear to be covered by any of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act.
A further consideration is that media reports are now appearing which purport to describe the deliberations and preliminary conclusions of the working group. The latest of these was in the Financial Times on 19 March. I hope you will agree that the public interest is not served by selective briefing of journalists by those close to, or part of the working group in obvious attempts to condition public opinion in advance of publication of a future white paper.
I am sending you with this letter a number of enclosures:
· Lord Hunt’s letter to me of 22 August 2007
· My emailed reply to the Access Rights Unit of 30 August 2007
· Mr Michael Wills’ letter to me of 18 October 2007
· Copies of a series of letters published in The Times between 6 and 29 February 2008
· The answer to Sir Patrick Cormack’s written question in the House of Commons on 18 February
· The Hansard report of the exchanges in the House of Lords on my oral question on 12 March
· Press reports from the Financial Times of 19 March.
If you would like me to provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to ask. I look forward to hearing from you.
Richard Faulkner
29 March 2008