I’VE BEEN entertaining myself by having a look at the lists of Freedom of Information requests submitted to the Commons over the past few years.
Most of them, as you might expect, are for details on MPs’ expenses. Others are from people simply hoping the Commons authorities will carry out their research work for them. Many are sensible.
But some of them are simply bizarre. Below is a sample of them, with a summary of the request, the response and the date the response was made:
- Ethnicity, Sexual orientation, religious beliefs of the personnel in House of Commons – Information supplied where held – 21/04/08
“Sexual orientation”? Who on earth would ask that, and who has the right to divulge that information other than the individual whose sexual orientation is being discussed?
- How many times has the present speaker called MPs from each party to speak in PM question time and oblige – Information available by other means. Section 21 exemption applied – 02/05/08
The end of this request is cut off, so we don’t know what the requestor was going to ask after “and oblige”. But this is an example of someone who can’t be bothered having to trawl through Hansard himself. It’s also probably someone who thought Michael Martin called more Labour than opposition MPs at PMQs and wants the facts to substantiate his theories. in other words, someone who doesn’t understand how the Commons works; the Speaker always calls for questions from government and opposition benches alternately.
- Details of any policy that may exist on the use of fish from sustainable sources in parliamentary catering operations – Some information supplied other information not held – 10/04/08
Hmm… fish!
- When did a named MP eat or sleep and what is the make of her car? – Pre-2002 information held provided. [Provided in full.] – 26/04/07
Whoever said some FOI requests were intrusive?
- Cost of lease on the fig trees in PCH (Portcullis House) and whether there are arrangements on expiry of the current lease – Information provided in full – 18/07/07
Yes, those trees are leased. Don’t ask.
- How many .mp3 or other media files are stored on HoC computers? – Unable to determine whether files contain music, however total number of MP3 & WMA files on network provided – 24/05/06
Someone obviously wants to know about my Barclay James Harvest collection.
- Request for further info on: a) Internet browsing habits b) Email traffic c) Electronic parliamentary procedures – Information provided in full, though some information not held in form requested – 18/08/06
MPs’ internet browsing habits?! And was that request rejected? Oh, it was… phew…!
- The number of accident reports and near-miss reports filed relating to paper cuts over the last year in the Palace? – Information not held – 21/12/06
Paper cuts? Seriously? That’s elf ‘n’ safety gone made, that is…
- Brand, softness, and quantity of toilet paper bought by the Palace – Figures provided for 10/04 – 12/05. Information for previous years not held – 12/01/2006
“MPs get to use soft toilet paper? At our expense? Just shows how out of touch they are, the blimmin’ troughers, etc, etc…” But seriously, someone actualy wasted seconds of their life submitting this request?














Thursday 3 December 2009 at 12:22 pm
Considering the media reports that the House of Commons ran out of toilet paper the other day, maybe that last request came from a toilet roll supplier seeking a way to pitch their products at the buying officer.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 12:50 pm
Tom, are you suppressing the expat take on the Loo Roll Riots?
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 12:55 pm
If DC can have all-women shortlists due to the immoral male-biased make up of the house then why not an all-gay shortlist? or an all-Muslim shortlist.
While no MP should ever be compelled to reveal his/her gender, ethnic background, sexual preference, religion or toilet paper preference if they choose to do so the information should be available.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 12:56 pm
Er, I think the paper cuts one was me…
http://jamesomalley.co.uk/blog/2007/01/what-the-foi/
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 1:08 pm
Actually Tom, I put in a FOI request the other day. The results of which you will be able to read in Saturdays Daily Mail as an exclusive.
Anyway, two things to make you laugh
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_V5jYS8eezmU/SvWQcnK1eOI/AAAAAAAABvY/Hq1TUCddoTk/s1600-h/Houses-of-Parliament1.jpg
http://www.tackfilm.se/en/?id=1259841474368RA37
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 1:48 pm
“Sexual orientation”? Who on earth would ask that…?
These days, just about everyone employed by the state, it would seem. I believe it may be a question on the 2011 census.
And how about this?:
“The council had demanded that Pilgrim Homes, run by a 200-year-old Christian charity, asked its elderly residents for details of their sexual orientation every three months, so it could meet the needs of Government equality guidelines.”
The lunatics did take over the asylum, but even they had to get out.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 1:53 pm
>> When did a named MP eat or sleep and what is the make of *her* car?
At least this narrows it down.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 2:22 pm
I am sure sales of lavatory paper rocketed just before the expenses scandal broke.
Anyway,you should be using Izal. That’s all we got at school, and it was handed out one sheet at a time. Super non-absorbancy was its USP.
TMI?
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 2:29 pm
…someone who doesn’t understand how the Commons works; the Speaker always calls for questions from government and opposition benches alternately.
I suspect what the requester actually meant was that Speaker Martin was biased against the Tories, not the opposition parties in general, as confirmed by Kerry McCarthy MP:
I think I’m right in saying that – by sheer coincidence I’m sure! – not a single Tory backbencher who was not on the order paper was called at PMQs today. Only Cameron, Lee Scott (who Cameron allegedly refers to as his ‘bit of rough’) and John Randall – aka the only Tory with a bushy beard – got to speak.
http://kerry-mccarthy.blogspot.com/search?q=martin
A quick trawl through Hansard shows she’s right, this is the pattern on June 17th:
Lab, PM,Lab,PM,Cameron,PM,Cameron,PM,Cameron,PM,Cameron,PM,Cameron,
PM,Cameron,PM,SDLP,PM,Cleggover,PM,Cleggover,PM,Lab,PM,LD,PM,Lab,PM, Con,PM,Lab,PM,DUP,PM,Lab,PM,SNP,PM,Lab,PM, Con,PM,Lab,PM,LD,PM,Lab,PM,LD,PM,Lab,PM
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 2:30 pm
Tom,
Funny thing is – they refuse to respond to my FOI request from April concerning John Manjor’s compliant to Gus O’Donnel
As an honourable parliamentarian – could you find out why they won’t respond to me?
All the details you will need can be found on the link I posted.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 2:30 pm
And someone else wasted seconds of their life commenting on the fact and so on ad infinitum.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 2:58 pm
How many of your public schoolboy commenters are expats I wonder?
Are such able to make F o I requests?
Does HM’s civil service make them sign a paper to thank HM’s wonderful Labour Government for instituting the Freedom of Information Acts?
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 3:01 pm
‘Details of any policy that may exist on the use of fish from sustainable sources in parliamentary catering operation’
That is perfectly reasonable question surely – ask any supermarket chain.
‘Someone obviously wants to know about my Barclay James Harvest collection.’
ohhh way too much information
‘Brand, softness, and quantity of toilet paper bought by the Palace’
Why should politicians have a monopoly on shit questions?
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 3:17 pm
Labour brought in the act and has made sure anything that may cause them a problem is not available. so we are left with what you describe Tom. You should have made sure that the important things are available and the stupid requests are rejected. Perhaps a small charge would stop the stupid.How much has it cost us in extra admin I wonder.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 3:42 pm
Really, Tom, I can’t see why you’re mocking: the government asks just as many intrusive requests of us all the time.
We, for example, do not even have the luxury of considering whether to release our internet habits for some faceless drone to review – under Labour, these records are to be supplied under threat of legal sanction.
So getting on your high horse about people intruding on the lives of MPs is just a little hypocritical.
What is your voting record on all this “anti-terrorist” legislation like?
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 4:24 pm
Paul at 12.55: “While no MP should ever be compelled to reveal his/her gender, ethnic background, sexual preference, religion or toilet paper preference if they choose to do so the information should be available.”
Except that the request was for the sexuality of personnel of the House – ie, staff – not MPs.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 5:34 pm
@Tom “Except that the request was for the sexuality of personnel of the House – ie, staff – not MPs.”
Well that is none of anyone’s business. I can only think they’re looking for some underlying anti-homosexual bigotry in the HoC as displayed by a predjudiced hiring policy – which, I would imagine, is purely in their minds.
I do wonder how many staff in the House use quilted toilet roll at home though…
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 5:50 pm
Several copies of the Lisbon treaty could be held in reserve.
Thursday 3 December 2009 at 7:01 pm
If MPs inform you of their “sexual preference” – which may cover quite a wide purview – could you please keep it to yourself please, Tom?
Or at least issue some sort of warning.
One usually finds speculation about loo rolls & the like in another place.
As a Scot you may not share the English obsession with the weather, which is subject to 4 weather systems I gather, more than anywhere else.
Friday 4 December 2009 at 11:36 am
A lot of private companies are now expected to provide details of the “diversity” of our personnel when tendering from work for the public sector. I assume that the purpose is to check whether we actually are inclusive, non-discriminatory places to work, rather than simply saying that we are.
As public sector organisations seem to be asking for this information because of a mandate from above, it seems entirely reasonable to me for somebody to check whether Parliament is as good an employer as it requires others to be.
Friday 4 December 2009 at 2:21 pm
BJH!! Excellent.
Leave a comment