[reposted from LinkedIn]
Although the Information Commissioner’s Office is tasked with enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Act contains some provisions which have the effect of ousting the ICO’s jurisdiction. A little-seen one appears in a recent decision notice about a request to the House of Commons for information and correspondence in relation to events at the controversial Opposition Day Debate on 21 February 2024. Much of the controversy turned on the actions of the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who later apologised.
Section 34 of FOIA creates an absolute exemption (i.e. not subject to a public interest test) if the exemption is required for the purpose of avoiding an infringement of the privileges of either House of Parliament. But section 34(3) goes further, and says that
A certificate signed by the appropriate authority certifying that exemption…is, or at any time was, required for the purpose of avoiding an infringement of the privileges of either House of Parliament shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
Such a certificate closes things down: it is not open to the ICO (or a court) to say “we disagree – the exemption is not required to avoid informing the privilege of House Houses”.
All very interesting, and the decision notice is still worth reading, to see how it all works.
But, who, you might ask, is the “appropriate authority” who signed this certificate?
Well, dear friends, section 34(4) FOIA says that, when the privilege of the Commons is at issue, the appropriate authority is the Speaker of the House – a certain Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
informationrightsandwrongs 