Keith Vaz nominators to the Justice Committee

The request was partially successful.

Dear House of Commons,

Please could you send me the proposers, seconders, nominators of Keith Vaz to the Justice Committee.
Could you also send me any rules and guidelines for members of the committee and in particular any procedures for conflicts of interest and statements thereof required of members.
Please could you send me any links to information about the committee

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

FOI Commons, House of Commons

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Fox,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 1 November 2016, received
by us on the 2 November 2016, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 30 November 2016.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted above and in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sarah Price

IRIS Support Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for details about Freedom of Information

in the House of Commons and to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Commons,

Further to my previous request please I add to the request.
The full request now reads as follows

Could you send me the correspondence between the speaker and Andrew Budgen that Jake Berry referred to in the Hansard of the "Vaz nomination motion "and referred to in this post https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/11/0.... Even if redacted, some release is necessary for confirmation that it occurred.

Please could you send me the proposers, seconders, nominators of Keith Vaz to the Justice Committee.
Could you also send me any rules and guidelines for members of the committee and in particular any procedures for conflicts of interest and statements thereof required of members.
Please could you send me any links to information about the committee

Yours sincerely,

Cathy Fox

FOI Commons, House of Commons

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Fox,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F16-475

 

Thank you for your two requests for information as copied below. You have
asked three questions about the Justice Committee on 1 November and a
further question on 2 November, which we have sought to answer below.

 

1)  Please could you send me the proposers, seconders, nominators of Keith
Vaz to the Justice Committee.

 

Some information is held by the House of Commons.

 

The names of members to be nominated to select committees, other than
Chairs of committees, are decided by a process of election within their
respective political parties. Those names are then put to the Committee of
Selection for that committee to table the appropriate motions for
consideration by the House of Commons. The House does not hold the
information which you request in relation to the electoral process used by
the Labour Party in this case. You may wish to ask the Labour Party, but
you should note that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, so is not obliged to respond.

 

The motion to appoint Kate Green and Keith Vaz to the Justice Committee in
place of Chris Elmore and Dr Rupa Huq, which was agreed to by the House of
Commons on division on Monday 31 October 2016, was tabled and moved by
Bill Wiggin MP in his capacity as Chair of the House’s Committee of
Selection. Under the rules of the House (Standing Order No 121), Mr Wiggin
or another member of the Committee of Selection tables and moves all such
motions to enable the House to decide on them.

 

2)  Could you also send me any rules and guidelines for members of the
committee and in particular any procedures for conflicts of interest and
statements thereof required of members.

 

This information is held by the House of Commons. Rules and guidelines for
members of select committees are contained in various documents. The main
one, consolidating and summarising other guidance, is the Guide for Select
Committee Members, which is sent to all select committee members when they
first join a committee, and which is publicly available on the
parliamentary website here:
[1]http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commo....
Guidance on declaration of interests is on page 12 of the guide.

 

As the information you request is reasonably accessible to you otherwise
than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), your request is
refused. In refusing your request the House is applying the exemption set
out in section 21 (1) and (2) (a) of the FOIA. This is an absolute
exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

 

3)  Please could you send me any links to information about the committee

 

This information is held by the House of Commons. Information about the
Committee, its membership and work is available on its webpages on the
parliamentary website:
[2]http://www.parliament.uk/business/commit...
.

 

As the information you request is reasonably accessible to you otherwise
than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), your request is
refused. In refusing your request the House is applying the exemption set
out in section 21 (1) and (2) (a) of the FOIA. This is an absolute
exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

 

4)  Could you send me the correspondence between the Speaker and Andrew
Budgen that Jake Berry referred to in the Hansard of the "Vaz nomination
motion" and referred to in this post
[3]https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/11/0....
Even if redacted, some release is necessary for confirmation that it
occurred.

 

We have interpreted your request to be for correspondence between Andrew
Bridgen MP and the Speaker of the House of Commons, relating to Keith Vaz
MP. The House holds correspondence relevant to your request. This
information is withheld under the following sections of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA):

 

Section 34 (1) (parliamentary privilege)

Some of the information you requested is subject to parliamentary
privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 34(1) of the
FOIA. The exemption applies in order to avoid an infringement of the
privileges of the House of Commons. This is an absolute exemption and the
public interest test does not apply.

 

Section 40 (2) (personal data)

Some information is exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the FOIA (the
exemption for personal data), as disclosure of this information to the
public generally, in the House’s view, would not be consistent with data
protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This is an
absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

 

Section 41(1) (information provided in confidence)

Section 41(1) provides that information is exempt if it was obtained by a
public authority from any other person and that disclosure to the public
by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence
actionable by that or any other person.

We consider that unauthorised disclosure of some of the information which
is held would amount to an actionable breach of confidence. Section 41 is
an absolute exemption and therefore not subject to the public interest
balancing test.

 

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request. Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [4][House of Commons request email]. Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

Following an internal review, if the decision to apply section 34
(parliamentary privilege) of the FOIA is upheld, a certificate signed by
the Speaker may be issued. This certificate provides conclusive evidence
that the exemption was required for the purpose described in our response.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[5]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lauren

 

Lauren Puckey | IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

Tel: 0207 219 4025 | Text Relay: 18001 219 4025 | Fifth Floor, 14 Tothill
St, London SW1H 9NB

 

[6]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [7]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

show quoted sections

Dear House of Commons,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling of my FOI request 'Keith Vaz nominators to the Justice Committee'.

Thank you for the information provided.
I request a review on question 4
"Could you send me the correspondence between the Speaker and Andrew
Budgen that Jake Berry referred to in the Hansard of the "Vaz nomination
motion" and referred to in this post
[3] https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/11/0...
Even if redacted, some release is necessary for confirmation that it
occurred."

In the reply was stated-

Section 34 (1) (parliamentary privilege)

Some of the information you requested is subject to parliamentary
privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 34(1) of the
FOIA. The exemption applies in order to avoid an infringement of the
privileges of the House of Commons. This is an absolute exemption and the
public interest test does not apply.

Section 40 (2) (personal data)

Some information is exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the FOIA (the
exemption for personal data), as disclosure of this information to the
public generally, in the House’s view, would not be consistent with data
protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This is an
absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

Section 41(1) (information provided in confidence)

Section 41(1) provides that information is exempt if it was obtained by a
public authority from any other person and that disclosure to the public
by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence
actionable by that or any other person.

Could you give me in the review an explanation of why s34 (1) parliamentary privelege is invoked, what infringements occur, and provide a statement from the speaker that it is indeed required.
Can you tell me in quoting s41 (1) if you have contacted Andrew Bridgen to ascertain if he regards it as a breach of confidence otherwise this exemption does not appear to be valid.
Could you be more precise as to which part of s 40 (2) you are relying on and why and which data protection principles would be breached.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/k...

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

FOI Commons, House of Commons

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Fox,

 

Internal Review Request IR F16-475

 

Thank you for your email dated 20 November 2016, requesting an internal
review of Freedom of Information request ref: F16-475, which was received
by us on the 21 November 2016.

 

We will endeavour to respond within 20 working days, i.e. on or before 19
December 2016. However, it may be necessary to extend this deadline by
another 20 working days, for example if the review is complicated and
requires the assistance of multiple resources. If this is the case, and
your review cannot be completed in the shorter timeframe, we will inform
you of this.

 

If you have any queries about the review, please contact me with the
reference in the subject line.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sarah Price

IRIS Support Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for details about Freedom of Information

in the House of Commons and to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI Commons, House of Commons

3 Attachments

Dear Ms Fox,

 

 

Further to your request for an Internal Review, copied below, please find
our response attached.  We have also attached a copy of the section 34
certificate signed by the Speaker of the House, as requested.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

Dear House of Commons,

 

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

 

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons's handling
of my FOI request 'Keith Vaz nominators to the Justice Committee'.

 

Thank you for the information provided.

I request a review on question 4

"Could you send me the correspondence between the Speaker and Andrew
Budgen that Jake Berry referred to in the Hansard of the "Vaz nomination
motion" and referred to in this post [3]
[3]https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/11/0...

Even if redacted, some release is necessary for confirmation that it
occurred."

 

In the reply was stated-

 

Section 34 (1) (parliamentary privilege)

 

Some of the information you requested is subject to parliamentary
privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 34(1) of the
FOIA. The exemption applies in order to avoid an infringement of the
privileges of the House of Commons. This is an absolute exemption and the
public interest test does not apply.

 

Section 40 (2) (personal data)

 

Some information is exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the FOIA (the
exemption for personal data), as disclosure of this information to the
public generally, in the House’s view, would not be consistent with data
protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This is an
absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

 

Section 41(1) (information provided in confidence)

 

Section 41(1) provides that information is exempt if it was obtained by a
public authority from any other person and that disclosure to the public
by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence
actionable by that or any other person.

 

Could you give me in the review an explanation of why s34 (1)
parliamentary privelege is invoked, what infringements occur, and provide
a statement from the speaker that it is indeed required.

Can you tell me in quoting s41 (1) if you have contacted Andrew Bridgen to
ascertain if he regards it as a breach of confidence otherwise this
exemption does not appear to be valid.

Could you be more precise as to which part of  s 40 (2) you are relying on
and why and which data protection principles would be breached.

 

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/k...

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Cathy Fox

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[5][FOI #368569 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

 

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

 

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

 

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org