John Bercow has used a highly controversial veto to block the release of his correspondence with officials about bullying and harassment in parliament.
HuffPost UK has been attempting to obtain correspondence between the Commons speaker and officials about the Dame Laura Cox inquiry into bullying in parliament, which suggested Bercow and other senior staff were part of the problem and should consider quitting.
But a freedom of information (FOI) request for their correspondence on the Cox report was turned down under a highly controversial section of legislation reserved for the Speaker, which means HuffPost UK cannot appeal on the grounds that publication is in the public interest.
Since the Cox report was published in October, Sir David Natzler has retired from his senior role as Commons clerk but Bercow, who has himself faced allegations of bullying which he denies, has resisted calls to quit.
Critics said Bercow’s use of the veto had dented confidence that the Commons is taking seriously its commitment to tackling bullying, given that correspondence between parliamentary officials has previously been published under FOI laws, while experts on the legislation said there is “no reason” why the Speaker has special protection.
Sir Kevin Barron, former chairman of the Commons Standards Committee, said: “This FOI provision should not be used to hide from an honest discussion about allegations of bullying.
“The new clerk [John Benger] has pledged immediate action on bullying, however this can only happen if people acknowledge the issues of this past.
“This move does not give me confidence that this is happening.”
A senior parliamentary source said: “It’s unacceptable for important details of how decisions are taken in parliament to be blocked and hidden from the public.
“The Cox report made clear we need to be open and transparent and demonstrate change from the top down - senior management should be acting accordingly.”
Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “This procedure was used to prevent the disclosure of the names of MPs’ staff in 2006, when disclosure would have revealed which MPs employed members of their family - which clearly should have been disclosed.
“The Commons itself later accepted that this information should be published. There is now a published register of interests for MPs’ staff.
“There is no reason why the House of Commons needs special protection. If it can make a valid argument that disclosure of correspondence would be harmful, it should have to do so on the same basis as any other public authority and prove its case in the normal way.
“The (FOI) act protects information whose disclosure would genuinely be harmful where there is no greater public interest in disclosure, and this principle should apply to parliament as it does to other public authorities.
The FDA union, which represents many Commons staff, criticised a “culture of silence and secrecy” among the House leadership, which is it said had so far failed to implement the Cox recommendations.
Assistant general secretary Amy Leversidge said: “The House needs to get their act together and implement Dame Laura’s recommendations in full and without further delay.
“Parliament sets the standard for every other workplace and they cannot expect to have any credibility when talking about bullying, harassment and sexual harassment when they are failing to get their own house in order and protecting themselves with silence and secrecy.”
Launching her report in October, Dame Laura said in the Commons there was a “a culture, cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed”.
In comments which sparked calls for Bercow’s resignation, she called for “broad cultural change” in the Commons to restore the trust and confidence of staff and the public, reaching the “inescapable conclusion” that it would be “extremely difficult to build confidence that there will be fundamental change when the levers of change are regarded as part of the change that is needed”.
Refusing HuffPost UK’s request, the Commons FOI team said: “Any information held by the House of Commons relevant to your request is exempt from the provisions of the freedom of information act 2000 (FOIA), under sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of this act.
“The Speaker of the House of Commons has formed the reasonable opinion, under the above sections of the act, that disclosure of these documents would be likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
“In the case of the House of Commons, s.36 FOIA provides an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.”