Pendle MP, Gordon Prentice, claimed last night that huge delays in getting answers to requests for information are making a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act. 

The MP told the Commons that had has been waiting 16 months for answers to two “simple and straightforward” questions concerning the elevation of the Belize based  Conservative donor, Michael Ashcroft, to the House of Lords in 2000.  

“In March 2000, Number 10 said it had received a “clear and unequivocal assurance” that Ashcroft would take up permanent residence in the UK by the end of the year—by the end of 2000. On the basis of that undertaking he was raised to the peerage and yet, to this day, he stubbornly refuses to say whether he is a UK resident for tax purposes.” 

Speaking from his Pendle constituency earlier today, the MP said: “I want to know to whom that undertaking was given and the form that it took, e mail, letter, phone call or whatever.” 

“I am giving the Information Commissioner another four weeks. That’s long enough.”

Note to Editors: In the debate on the Summer Adjournment Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab) said:

I do not need seven minutes to say what I have to say, which is about delays in investigating freedom of information complaints.  

Maurice Frankel, the director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, had an interesting piece in The Guardian exactly two weeks ago entitled “A slow and sluggish trudge to transparency—A backlog of cases and a budget shortfall is making the Freedom of Information Act toothless”. That is what he believes, and he tells us that the backlog in the Information Commissioner’s Office is such that 

“on average it takes eight months before an investigation into a complaint even begins. More than a quarter of cases wait for over a year” 

to get started. That is just unacceptable. 

At the beginning of this month, on 3 July, the campaign published a report entitled “Delays in Investigating Freedom of Information Complaints”. It states that 

“46 per cent. of cases took between 1 and 2 years from complaint to decision notice” 

and that 

“25 per cent. of cases took between 2 and 3 years to a decision”. 

In the long run, we are all dead and a Parliament runs for a maximum of only five years, yet people are waiting for years for the Information Commissioner to come forward with a decision—I am one of those people. 

In November 2007, in the Public Administration Committee, I raised the case of Michael Ashcroft with the Cabinet Secretary. I did so because in March 2000, No. 10 issued a press release that said that Michael Ashcroft had given—I paused for effect there— 

“a clear and unequivocal assurance” 

that he would take up permanent residence in the UK by the end of the year—by the end of 2000. To this day, he refuses to answer the question on that. I, therefore, raised it with the Cabinet Secretary in the Select Committee in November 2007. Sir Gus O’Donnell got back to me, saying that the Cabinet Office has no jurisdiction over either House of Parliament and he did not see a role for him on the issue of the undertaking, as it was really not a matter for him.

On the other question of residency, he said that it was exempt information because it involved a conferring by the Crown of an honour or dignity—that refers to Michael Ashcroft’s peerage. The second reason the information was exempt was that it related to personal information provided, by Michael Ashcroft, in confidence. 

Those reasons were bogus and spurious, so I appealed. My appeal was considered by the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office and it was turned down in March 2008. At the end of that month, I wrote to the Information Commissioner and the matter has been with the Information Commissioner ever since.

To this day, I do not know why there has been a huge delay of 16 months. I am asking only for two simple pieces of information. I do not want to know how much tax Lord Ashcroft is paying, but I want to know the answer to the following questions: to whom did Michael Ashcroft give that assurance and what form did that assurance take—was it oral, in a letter or in an e-mail? I have been denied those two straightforward pieces of information for 16 months.

I have also tabled a question to the Cabinet Office. As I had this vision of the Information Commissioner’s office being submerged in a tidal wave of information from the Cabinet Office relating to those two simple requests, I asked the Cabinet Office how many documents the Department had supplied to the Information Commissioner about my request. The Cabinet Office refused to say. I did not want it to specify the nature of the documents; I asked how many documents the Cabinet Office had passed over to the ICO, but the shutters came down. This makes a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This issue involves someone who was given an honour, but he is in our legislature, down there 

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Up there. 

Mr. Prentice: He is up there voting on, formulating and participating in the laws of the land. I am talking not about the laws of Belize, but about the laws of the United Kingdom, so I want the new Information Commissioner to listen to what I am saying today and ensure that I have this information within the next four weeks. If I do not have it by then, I will raise this matter again when we return in October.