www.foij.com ISSN 1745-1825 Freedom of Information

Volume 3, Issue 3 January / February 2007 The MPs exemption— Headlines: Falconer warns off Ministers

The Lord Chancellor has crucial because, as the guidance to 100,000 • Ryanair deal must be warned ministers that leader of the house, he public authorities on disclosed, p.14 exempting MPs from can control the Parlia- releasing MPs’ letters is • Liverpool to release freedom of information mentary timetable. complex and unclear. If inquiries will damage brought in, the new law prostitution public confidence in the Lord Falconer has ex- would also exempt the information, p.15 principles of open govern- pressed concern that the Commons and the Lords • Excessive expenses ment. measure would add to from FOI requests, limit- claims to be released, the perception “of being ing wider disclosure Apparently the cabinet is an increasingly secretive of MPs’ expenses and p.16 split on whether to back government.” allowances. a private member’s Bill to exempt Parliament and The measure, The The Bill itself is fairly MPs’ correspondence from Freedom of Information simple—it just deletes Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, was the House of Commons Act requests. Jack Straw, tabled by the Conserva- and the House of Lords Margaret Beckett and tive party’s former chief from the Schedule to the Peter Hain want to back whip, David Maclean. He Freedom of Information the Bill so it can be wants to exempt Parlia- Act which sets out which Inside this issue: debated in Parliament. ment and MPs’ letters public bodies are covered. from disclosure because It also inserts an addi- Mr Straw’s support is he says new government (Continued on page 14) Editorial 2

Freedom of Informa- 3 Council ordered to disclose tion—not at a cost!

Information—for free 6 property addresses or for sale? The Information Commis- The Information sure would contravene sioner has ordered Brain- Commissioner ruled that any of the principles Court orders disclosure 10 tree District Council to although the address defined in Schedule 1 of of medical information release the addresses of could amount to ‘personal the Data Protection Act council properties owned data’ under the Data 1998 or section 10 of that by the authority. Protection Act Act (the Right to prevent Scottish Executive 11 ordered to release (particularly where that processing likely to cause sensitive government Following a freedom of the complainant is able to damage or distress). information information request, the link addresses of council Council refused to release houses to other records The argument of the the list of addresses on the they either already hold Council that disclosure Recent decisions 12 grounds that the informa- or could obtain), the ex- would breach the Second tion constituted personal emption for personal data Data Protection Principle FOI News 14 information and disclosure in section 40 of the Free- (effectively that disclosing would breach data protec- dom of Information Act the data would amount tion rules. The Council did not apply. This is to a ‘different purpose’ for also cited health and because that section processing than that for safety as a reason for provides that the exemp- which the data had been refusing the request. tion only applies if disclo- (Continued on page 14)