In 2013, when the Bilderberg Group came to the UK, Kenneth Clarke MP not only attended as a Minister without Portfolio, but was also a member of the Bilderberg Group's steering committee at the time. One MP, Michael Meacher, questioned him about his connections to Bilderberg. In the House of Representatives.
Two years ago, Rory Stewart MP also attended the Bilderberg conference and was criticised by his constituents for his attendance.
While Clarke at least appeared on the House floor to explain his actions, Stewart refused to discuss his actions in any way, instead asserting his right to a “private life.”
A few weeks ago, the UK Column published an article by Philip Ridley entitled “The 77th Brigade and Parliament's Conflict of Interest”.
“I questioned whether Tobias Ellwood, who is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Brigade Reserves, is entitled to sit as the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East and to chair the House of Commons Defence Select Committee,” he said.
Shortly before the article was published, Ridley made a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Defence. From whatdotheyknow.com question:
I am aware that Lieutenant Colonel Tobias Ellwood is a Member of Parliament and is Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and I would like to ask whether you have any records of the dates on which he was called up to active duty whilst he was a Member of Parliament in relation to the Disqualification of Members of the House of Commons Act 1975.
Although the 1975 Act does not disqualify a reservist from active duty, I consider it to be in the public interest to know whether he has been called up or is being called up to active duty, particularly with the 77th Brigade.
If you are called in, provide publicly available information about the details of your deployment.
The Ministry of Defence responded:
We can confirm that the information you have requested is in our possession but cannot provide it to you as it is not subject to disclosure in this case.
We are not required under section 40(2) of the Privacy Act to provide personal information about others if doing so would infringe the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). In this case, we have determined that disclosing the information would infringe the first data protection principle and section 40(2) applies.
The terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act mean that you do not have to consider whether it is in the public interest for you to obtain the information.
This response raises several questions.
Firstly, the department is in possession of the information requested by Mr Ridley but has refused to release it – seemingly acknowledging that Mr Ellwood was on active duty whilst serving as an MP.
Second, the ministry appears to consider his active service years to be “personal information.”
Third, disclosing the information would violate the first data protection principle.
It may be hard to believe, but we must recognize that members of parliament are human beings too. Therefore, they have a right to a private life. They have a right to protection of their “personal” information.
But I would strongly argue that they have no right to a private education. public life.
It is interesting that the MoD tried to use this exception to evade questioning. The Foreign Office has no qualms about using the national security exception, so one wonders why it was not applied in this case.
Nevertheless, the Ministry of Defence, citing the Data Protection Act, Acting as a servant of the nation It is personal and therefore private.
This is surely impossible, right?
But they're more specific than just “data protection”: they claim that publishing the information “violates the first principles of data protection.”
of First Data Protection Principle To tell:
- Personal information It has been processed in a lawful, fair and transparent manner;
- That's it. Collected For specific, explicit and legitimate purposes;
- that's all Related Data is collected and kept accurate and up to date.
- The identification information is as long as as needed;
- And protected from accidental accidents loss.
None of this applies in this case. Again, Elwood is a public servant. As a public servant, his professional life is subject to public scrutiny and accountability. And where there are potential conflicts of interest, for example where his role as an MP with a duty to represent his constituency clashes with his role as a spokesman for 77 Brigade, there is an overwhelming public interest that takes precedence over data protection principles which may be valid in other circumstances.
If this government's argument is that MPs have the right to lead private public lives, how can the public know what corruption lies behind that argument?
This response from the Ministry of Defence is unacceptable and I hope that this issue will be challenged by every member of parliament in the country.
Meanwhile, the Information Commissioner declined to comment when approached.
