Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill — Exempt constituents' letters only — rejected — 18 May 2007 at 11:30

The majority of MPs voted against changing the proposed Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill (designed to remove Parliament and MPs from the power of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) so that the exemption for MPs' correspondence applied only to constituents' letters.

The vote to keep this section was made in Division 120

  • For the purposes of section 41(1), information which—
  • is held only by virtue of being contained in a communication between a member of the House of Commons, acting in his capacity as such, or a member of the House of Lords, and a public authority, and
  • in the case of a member of the House of Commons, consists of information relating to the personal affairs of a constituent of that member,
  • shall, unless the contrary is indicated, be deemed to have been communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.

Like the votes during the previous debate, Division 94 and Division 95, this proposed change tested the official reason given for this change in the law[1] by targeting it at that reason (confidentiality of constituency business) more specifically.

When a question was raised about the subsequent lack of progress of this Bill through the House of Lords,[2] the Leader of the House correctly pointed out that correspondence relating to constituents was already exempt from disclosure.

The next move during the debate was the break the filibuster in Division 122

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con21 (+1 tell) 5013.8%
Lab75 (+1 tell) 12025.0%
LDem0 13 (+2 tell)023.8%
PC0 1033.3%
Respect0 10100.0%
Total:96 32021.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
James ClappisonHertsmereCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
John MaplesStratford-on-AvonCon (front bench)aye
John RedwoodWokinghamConaye
Richard ShepherdAldridge-BrownhillsCon (front bench)aye
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
Jim CousinsNewcastle upon Tyne CentralLab (minister)aye
Mark FisherStoke-on-Trent CentralLabaye
Neil GerrardWalthamstowLab (minister)aye
Kate HoeyVauxhallLabaye
Glenda JacksonHampstead and HighgateLabaye
Gerald KaufmanManchester, GortonLab (minister)aye
Fiona MactaggartSloughLab (minister)aye
Dan NorrisWansdykeLab (minister)aye
Barry SheermanHuddersfieldLab (minister)aye
Peter SoulsbyLeicester SouthLab (minister)aye
David WinnickWalsall NorthLab (minister)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

TWe're working on updating the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive