Forum Topic

Dominic Grieve's motion

MPs are now voting on Dominic Grieve's motion that the government publishes the Yellowhammer document.Gove's response is rather unusual I think:Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove summed up for the government. He argues it is a "basic principle of good government" that advice from civil servants should be a "safe space". “This convention that advice should be private has applied to governments of all parties throughout the history of the civil service," he says. Mr Gove also says the motion is a "fishing expedition" and may even be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on privacy.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2620d16 Comments

Whatever Gove feels the  motion has passed in Grieve's favour.

Lucille Grant ● 2620d

Yes, I know!!  But don't you find it extraordinary that Gove quoted Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on privacy????

Ivonne Holliday ● 2620d

I did indeed. But nothing should surprise us any more Ivonne. This government is beyond the pale.

Lucille Grant ● 2620d

It's not just about the Yellowhammer report.It's about the use of private communication channels to discuss prorogation of Parliament prior to Boris seeing the queen. As Ben Bradshaw MP tweeted:-"Dominic Grieve tells Parliament he has received information from inside Government, the implication of which, is that Boris Johnson misled the Queen about his reasons for requesting the prorogation of Parliament"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-49636684/page/218:00"The current Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, intervenes in the former Attorney General's speech to ask what legal right the government has to require its employees to give up their personal emails and mobile messages.Dominic Grieve says, as government employees, it is "their duty to observe the civil service code... including not using private communications to carry out official business".He adds: "It shouldn't be a question of coercion, but a question of willingness."Mr Cox comes back again, saying the motion "is a blunt instrument" and needs "careful refinement so that it complies with legal rules".He adds that it has "no binding legal effect on individuals", but instead has a risk that it will "trespass on fundamental rights of individuals as it is currently drafted".But Mr Grieve says he has to "disagree politely".He says his motion is clearly defined as only wanting messages to do with prorogation - nothing else."Of course [Mr Cox] may argue the government cannot get this information but what No 10 is saying it will not seek to provide it and this again is absolutely illustrative of the slide we are experiencing at the moment that won't respect the conventions.""

Alex Greenbank ● 2620d

I agree.But the extract I posted related to Yellohammer (or sledge hammer as Geraint Davies called it).Respecting conventions is a must.  But for Gove to quote an EU convention?  Goodness, that takes the ticket!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2620d

@AlexRegardless that this motion has been passed the MPs' private communications cannot be included because that would breach the GDPR and possibly also the ECHR.

Sue Hammond ● 2620d

I'm not sure as it's about 18 months since I last read the GDPR and to be honest this aspect wouldn't have been of interest at the time but there are  certain  exclusions about government processing of data. Hence, it may be that if use of private communications breaches the civil service code, official secrets act, contract of employment, etc then the government may have the rights to request access to the data. Publication without redaction of personal identifying information might be a separate issue. From a general freedom of information perspective, this correspondence does seem to be of public interest, particularly if parliament may have been mislead.

Michael Ixer ● 2620d

"Regardless that this motion has been passed the MPs' private communications cannot be included because that would breach the GDPR and possibly also the ECHR."You believe that civil servants can avoid freedom of information requests by hiding their work-related communications on their own private phones, rather than using their normal work communications?

David Ainsworth ● 2620d

We'll see. If allowed this will set a precedent that all MPs in Parliament should fear. I would like to see the private messages between Bercow and Grieve because I think they colluded in order to delay Brexit, therefore should my FOI request be allowed?

Sue Hammond ● 2619d

Sue, I seem to remember your thoughts a few years ago on whether the gov should be able to read our emails/texts etc went something along the lines of "if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide"Same applies surely?

Matt Palmer ● 2619d

Yes, the Regulatory Investigative Powers Act already allows surveillance of electronic communications (which would be considered private) under certain circumstances, so I see no reason Parliament can't request to see private communications which may have been used to avoid scrutiny in the performance oif official duties. Parliament doesn't seem to be interested in any communications between Greive and Bercow. Of course the best way to have a private conversation is to meet in a quiet pub somewhere, but don't put the appointment in Outlook ...

Michael Ixer ● 2619d

Oops: should have been "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act"! 😞

Michael Ixer ● 2619d

I believe that in the US they have solved this for the president by saying that the pres has *no* private communications, so everything they write or type is recorded officially.Which is why Hillary got into trouble for hosting her own private email server - not allowed by the rules

Sean Hodges ● 2619d

I though when Hilary was in Obama's government she got into trouble for using a private server for government business. However, I don't think there was anything saying she couldn't use her private email for personal messages, like arranging dinner with Bill.Trump has confused the situation as his tweets which refer to government business but (I think) come from a personal account should be preserved as government records. The blurring of private/personal accounts on services such as Twitter, LinkedIn, etc is something many organisations have struggled with. There have been court cases over who owns LinkedIn accounts or, more importantly, the contacts within it ...

Michael Ixer ● 2619d

SH: "I think they colluded in order to delay Brexit". PROOF PLEASE.

Alexander MacLeod ● 2619d

Not sure they'd be anything wrong with Grieve and Bercow having discussions about parliamentary procedures now Grieve is no longer in government. But probably unnecessary as Johnson's actions seem to have been sufficient to unite Labour, Greens, LibDems the SNP and a few Tories he's alienated.

Michael Ixer ● 2619d