´óÏó´«Ã½

What have we learnt from the material by the House of Commons about the second home expenses of 14 current and former MPs?

Apart from the details of Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's taxpayer-funded kitchen refurbishments, we now know that the Blairs were late payers of bills, that Margaret Beckett unluckily experienced lots of plumbing problems, that Barbara Follett likes clean windows, that Peter Mandelson reads lots of newspapers, that Ming Campbell prefers other people to do his sums for him, and that John Prescott was worried about the 'adverse press coverage' over the arrangements for paying his council tax bill.

We can also see that Tony Blair took out a new mortgage in 2004 and that the former Tory MP John Wilkinson informed the Commons authorities that his main home was in the Isle of Man while claiming for his constituency home in Northwood in north west London.

All of this was approved by the Commons authorities, and it's just some of the information contained in the three boxes of photocopied documents distributed to journalists by Parliamentary officials this afternoon. When the detailed receipts and invoices are examined at greater leisure they may yield further stories.

Many MPs are now very exercised at the possibility that this kind of material will reveal their home addresses. There are three addresses which have been blanked out in the information released today. The Commons was allowed to do this only in the case of a specific security threat to the individuals involved.

The addresses blanked out are those of Gordon Brown's flat in Westminster, Margaret Beckett's constituency home in Derby, and the central London flat of Alan and Ann Keen (but their other address in Brentford is revealed).

As well as the Keens' other address, the documentation discloses home addresses at the time for Tony Blair, David Cameron, John Prescott, Mark Oaten, Sir Menzies Campbell, George Osborne, William Hague, Peter Mandelson, Barbara Follett and John Wilkinson.

It's taken three years and an extensive and costly legal battle. There are several hundred pages of financial information. For some FOI campaigners this is a test case that establishes a fundamential principle of transparency in the spending of public money; for some of the MPs on the receiving end it's a pointless intrusion into their privacy.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The House of Commons is going to release the long-awaited information about selected MPs' expenses tomorrow, but, it seems, only to the journalists who initially requested it - so that the rest of us will have to wait a little longer until Sunday to read all about it.

Naturally if it happens this will deeply annoy the rest of the media - but of course as journalists (a profession which generally follows the principle that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds) we'd also complain furiously if it was us losing our scoop to all our rivals.

However, what's interesting to me is that, assuming the Commons authorities do let the journalists who have tormented them keep their scoop, it will be in line with an increasing tendency among public authorities - and one which I did not expect when FOI was being introduced.

Lord Falconer, the cabinet minister responsible for freedom of information when it came into force in 2005, that government departments would publish interesting FOI releases simultaneously in disclosure logs on their websites: "If information can appropriately be released to one member of the public it is by definition suitable for releasing to all."

While some public authorities do abide by this, if a little haphazardly in some cases, it's clear (as I've noted before) that many have lost whatever initial enthusiasm they had for posting FOI releases on web disclosure logs. The , for example, has hardly posted anything since the middle of 2006. And this is all in line with the recent findings of research for the Information Commissioner that most public authorities appear to be reducing the proactive disclosure of information which is not forced on them.

My view is simple: it is clearly in the public interest that I should be given access to everyone else's scoops, but no one else should get access to mine.

UPDATE: It now seems that the Commons authorities may have changed their mind and the material will be made widely available. For reasons outlined above, I believe this decision is entirely in the public interest.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Do you have a good grasp of the key points of freedom of information law? Could you help a prominent public authority, which has lately experienced one or two legal over FOI, successfully fight its cases with the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal and the High Court?

If so, has the job for you: "The House of Commons is now recruiting to the prestigious position of Speaker's Counsel. This crucial role will see you providing first class legal advice to the Speaker and the House of Commons Authorities on a diverse range of legal issues."

You'll also need to show diplomacy, authority, deftness of touch and intellectual agility. And if you get the job, good luck - judging by recent events you'll probably need it.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The British government the highly sensitive rulers of Saudi Arabia - but on the other hand it has a to support UK nationals in difficulties abroad.

And these two motives can clash, as in the of three Britons Sandy Mitchell, Les Walker and Ron Jones, and the joint Canadian/Briton Bill Sampson, who say they were tortured several years ago in Saudi Arabia and forced to confess to bombings of which they were innocent.

In 2006 a Law Lords ruling denied the former detainees the right to sue Saudi officials for damages. They complain that the British government has been unenthusiastic about pursuing their case for compensation with the Saudi authorities.

Foreign Office documents - obtained by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ under freedom of information - show some of the anguish of British civil servants trapped between what they called the 'realpolitik' and not wanting to appear 'shoddy' and 'spineless' in their actions over the ex-detainees.

One official wrote in June 2006: 'Whilst I recognise the realpolitik considerations to be factored into any follow-up action ..., our position must look pretty spineless to the former detainees ... We need to do something soon to reassure them that we do want to help them. So my instinct is to recommend a meeting with the FS [Foreign Secretary].'

Not all officials favoured ministerial meetings with the men. One had only wanted to meet their solicitors but another countered that 'it will look pretty shoddy given the way they were treated when they came down last year'.

This followed the fact that 'all of them traipsed down to London for what they expected to be a joint meeting with B Symons [junior Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons] and the FS last March only to be told on arrival that Ministers would not be able to see them. They are still miffed about that'.

The then Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett did agree to meet them later, but this left officials with the problem of what she was actually going to say to them. As one wrote, 'we need a strategy on where we are going with this - the FS would need to explain the realities and difficulties of raising the matter too forcefully ... and take a good deal of flak.'

A British diplomat based in Jeddah gave the Foreign Office back home this advice: 'I am sure that, having promised, Mrs Beckett must see the detainees: it would be quite wrong to back out, just because we don't have an encouraging message. She should be briefed to want the meeting to listen to their case. She should tell them that we'll have raised the case, and got no joy.'

Mrs Beckett duly told the men 'that she would look for suitable opportunities to raise the matter of compensation for the detainees but that she would only do so should she judge that action might be effective'.

The Foreign Office held back other material on various grounds, including that publishing it would 'compromise the UK's access to, and relationships with, senior Saudis' and so damage UK-Saudi relations.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

When MPs voted through the Freedom of Information Act eight years ago, they probably didn't guess that one consequence could be having to list their expenses publicly in the manner now adopted by the Tory MP Ben Wallace. On his he lists everything from £1 parking fees to £250 in petty cash.

The latest High Court decision today (see previous item) will intensify the pressure on his more reluctant colleagues to accept detailed publication of the sums they claim as expenses. And it does further reputational damage to the House of Commons, which already been badly losing the public relations aspect of its battle to resist full disclosure.

MPs have become the real 'victims' of freedom of information. So far the government has only suffered mild embarrassment from FOI revelations, it's the legislators who are being hit (as similarly in the in Scotland of the former leader of the Tory MSPs, David McLetchie).

The Commons has to decide next week whether to appeal or release the material about what the 14 MPs involved were paying out and claiming on their second homes. It remains to be seen whether the information itself will do more damage to the public perception of Parliament than that already caused by the Commons authorities trying to keep it secret. Since it would set a precedent for other MPs, there may be a few who would find it particularly embarrassing, even if the majority have little or nothing to fear.

The of today's High Court judgment is dismissive of the Commons arguments, much to the delight of the journalists who requested the information such as the Sunday Telegraph's and . There were two issues at stake. The first is whether it is fair to force MPs to release full documentation of expenses claims when they may not have expected the FOI Act would require this. The second is that invoices and receipts thus released could reveal the MPs' addresses and this would create a security risk.

The judges decided that this was not a matter of 'idle gossip' or public curiosity about 'trivialities', but it had 'a wide resonance throughout the body politic'. They referred to 'evidence which suggests that one MP claimed ACA [Additional Costs Allowance] for a property which did not exist, and yet further evidence may demonstrate that on occasions MPs claiming ACA were letting out the accommodation procured from the ACA allowance.' They argue that this means there is 'a legitimate public interest' in the disclosure of MPs' addresses' (subject to some exceptional security cases).

They only offered the House of Commons one concession - that if the 'deeply flawed systmem' for oversight and control of the ACA is sufficiently tightened up, then there might be no need in future for the disclosure of addresses. The Commons is indeed in the process of tightening up the rules. But that still won't affect information from previous years such as that involved in this case.

But as Nick Robinson reports, whatever the Commons is forced to do on the 14 MPs in this case, there are those in the Commons who are planning to resist hard the future release of any features of the expenses information for others which they assert could imperil security. So even if there is no appeal now, the issue may not be over.

It is particularly interesting to note that this is another case in which the High Court has backed the Information Tribunal in over-ruling the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner, Richard Thomas, originally decided that MPs should only have to publish a breakdown of expenses by category. The Tribunal went much further in insisting on a receipt-by-receipt release, and it is that stance which the High Court has backed.

Two months ago the High Court ruled that the Export Credits Guarantee Department had to release communications with other government departments about the controversial Sakhalin energy project in Russia. This was in line with the Tribunal and in disagreement with the Commissioner, who had supported ECGD's initial refusal to supply the material.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

MPs have lost the latest round in their battle to keep secret the full details of what they have been spending on their second home.

In its decision issued today the High Court has backed the earlier Information Tribunal that receipt-by-receipt details should be published.

Due to other freedom of information requests the House of Commons authorities has already been forced to concede the of the amount spent under sub-headings such as mortgages, cleaning and groceries. This decision would take that much further into the release of individual invoices and receipts for spending for the 14 MPs involved in this case.

The decision is a huge embarrassment for the Commons authorities. The High Court has dismissed their argument that release of MPs' addresses would be a security risk. And they have been told to pay over £33,000 in costs for the journalists who requested the information.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I haven't written as much in the past as I possibly should have done about access to information held by the institutions of the European Union.

But it's worth noting that the European Commission has now issued a new which would amend the rules on access to EU documents.

It would narrow the range of documents covered by the principle of public access and extend the time limits which EU bodies have when reconsidering requests. But it would also open up the right of access to those who are not EU citizens.

This draft follows a consultation exercise in the past year. Those who are unhappy include , and there is more discussion on the site.

The draft regulation will soon be considered by the European Parliament. It remains to be seen whether the recent fuss over their reluctance to publish an audit report on their own expenses will affect the enthusiasm of MEPs for freedom of information in general.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Today sees the next instalment in the conflict over to what extent information about MPs' expenses should be public knowledge.

The High Court is hearing the from the House of Commons against having to disclose the details of MPs' spending on the additional costs allowance for second homes.

This case revolves around 14 MPs but could set precedents for others, although Sam Coates of the Times that the Commons might try to resist any precedent-setting impact and fight other cases from scratch.

Although the Information Commissioner has now decided numerous cases on MPs' expenses, currently there are still another three in the pipeline awaiting decision. According to the Commissioner's office, two of these complaints relate to Dan Norris, Labour MP for Wansdyke, and are still awaiting allocation to a complaints officer, while the other concerns Irene Adams, who was Labour MP for Paisley North until 2005, and is now assigned to a complaints officer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Open government - is it a matter of being reactive or proactive? Is it about how you react when you're asked for information, or is it about what you publish anyway whether or not anyone has gone to the trouble of asking you for it?

If it's the latter, then public authorities are becoming a lot less open, according to the latest issued yesterday by the Information Commissioner.

This reveals a significant decline in the number of public authorities who automatically release a wide variety of information. In 2007 the proportion of authorities who automatically disclosed material was significantly lower than in 2006 for all the following categories of information (which was nearly all kinds covered by the survey):

Future strategies and objectives; information about decisions made; internal policies; details of what public money is spent on; statistics about the organisation; information about the organisation's performance; minutes of meetings; details of consultations and research; and personal information about staff.

To take one example, in 2007 just 45 percent of authorities proactively released meeting minutes compared to 75 percent the year before.

The survey covered a wide range of public bodies from government departments to local NHS organisations. The decreases in 2007 were seen for both large and small/medium authorities.

The report comments that the significant decline 'may be due to organisations becoming more aware of what needs to be published in order to comply with the Act'. In other words, they've realised it's not legally required so they're not going to do it. A prudent approach to the spending of public money?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What do business and government say to each other? Many people want to know, some of them hoped that a freedom of information law would help them find out.

And it looks like we are going to find out more about this, following an important issued today by the Information Tribunal.

The Tribunal has ordered the government to release records of meetings held soon after the last general election between the and the Department for Trade and Industry (as it was then called). This material was requested by .

FoE are happy, but the CBI aren't. Its deputy director John Cridland said, according to Financial Times: 'I hope we aren't going to reach the point where people need to meet by the lake in St James's Park with a rolled-up copy of the Financial Times under their arm in dark glasses'.

When freedom of information came into force, some people reckoned the lobbying activities of large companies would be a major focus of FOI requests and disclosures. So far that hasn't happened much (athough there have been a few examples, especially under the Environmental Information Regulations). This Tribunal decision (which however may well be appealed against by the government) could set an important precedent in this area. You should buy shares now in the cafe by the lake in St James's Park.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

One reason which a public authority can use to turn down an FOI request is that the information is already 'intended for future publication'.

But how soon do they have to be intending to publish it? In , this exemption can only be used when the information is to be published within twelve weeks.

In the rest of the UK, there's no fixed time limit - it's a matter of what is 'reasonable in all the circumstances' and where the balance of the public interest lies. I've found requests which have been rejected where it's planned to make the material public a lot more than twelve weeks away - several months for example -but until now nothing quite like .

As reported in paragraph 48 of the Information Tribunal's judgment, one argument proposed in this case by the Office for National Statistics is that the information should be withheld because they were going to release it anyway - in 2021, a small matter of 15 years after the request was made.

The Tribunal describes this argument as 'questionable' but did not have to consider it fully because the ONS actually had a much stronger reason for not revealing the records at issue (census data from 1921), which it upheld.

But perhaps the ONS approach could be extended a little to turning down requests because information would be disclosed in 30 years time under the current 30 year rule? (Or maybe I should have kept that idea to myself).

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?