Brittany

Not a great deal of significance to report, except in the realm of sport. Since the laat entry JW has drawn ahead, with 1-1, 2-0 and 2-1, making it 35-30. I won the crazy golf with score of 71, against Lindsay 73, Alastair 77 and Victoria 78. JW played tennis against Alan and Archy winning 6-4.

Yesterday the local scouts cleared out the house next door, which has been sold, and invited Alan to remove the wood from their shed. Today the new owners appear to have moved in, without doing anything about the decoration, which is said to be horrible.

With Alan and Victoria in Brittany

We arrived at La Bouille yesterday after a difficult journey - no trains to Stansted, so we took a train to Stratford and the rest of the way by bus, then the plane was 30 minutes late, and we took a circuitous route to get here from the airport. Archy and Alastair fared even worse, missing the plane in spite ot taking a taxi all the way from Liverpool Street to Stansted, and having to wait four hours for the next flight.

Ping pong: 1-1 Friday and Saturday, 2-0 to me today, cumulative 30-28 in favour of JW.

Speaking in the House last Thursday

Yesterday I intervened in Caroline Cox's question on the destruction of the Armenian cultural heritage in Azerbaijan, see URL below. It is very hard to imagine the mindset of people who are so determined to erase the record of their victims, who were ethnically cleansed from the territory. But of course the Turks, who belong to the same family, have also worked hard to eradicate all the monuments of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished in the genocide of 1915-16

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60720-1033.htm#06072042000008

This morning I had a meeting with the Attorney-General to discuss the case of Mr George Tomkins, who was remanded in custody in 1983-84 for a crime he manifestly didn't commit. I had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General at the time protesting against his treatment, and had been calling for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the prosecution, and of the Attorney-General later stepping in to halt Mr Tomkins' private prosecution of the corrupt police officers who framed him. The Atorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, said that he and his officials had made searching inquiries into those events, but the original prosecution had been approved by two QCs. He did acknowledge that under the present rules, he would not have stopped the private prosecution against the police officers, even if the advice was that it was unlikely to succeed.

Ping-pong: yesterday I won 2-1, but today JW won 3-0. He now leads by 28-22, so I have a lot of ground to make up.

Dinner at Flodden Road July 17

Adam, Alice, Francis and Jackson

Lunch on the terrace July 17. It was like an oven

Disaster

Yesterday JW beat me 3-0, but today I clawed one back with a 2-1 victory, making the series 24-20

The Pakistan High Commissioner Dr Maleeha Lodhi came to lunch, and we had a useful discussion.

Doggett's Coat and Badge

Yesterday JW and I attended the race for Doggett's Coat and Badge (see www.history.ac.uk/gh/doggett.htm). It was a perfect day on the river, without a cloud in the sky, and a light breeze to keep us from roasting. The winner was apparently an Olympic sculler and the others didn't give him much of a challenge; but as our launch went straight to the finish to await the arrival of the contestants, we didn't see anything of the course of the race. Afterwards we returned to Fishmongers' Hall, which I think impressed JW, who is generally rather blasé.

Some of the participants

International Bangladesh Foundation Seminar

This afternoon's seminar, on The elections in Bangladesh: security, human rights and a level playing field, at King's College, a very well attended meeting, with participation from the BNP and the Awami League, the Bangladesh High Commission and distinguished guests from the House of Commons, the European Parliament, Liberation, the Electoral Reform Society etc.

Yesterday and today

Supplementary question on safety of nuclear power stations www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60711-0917.htm#06071147000013

JW won 2-1 yesterday, he's ahead 20-18 on the series..

This morning to King's for a capsule endoscopy. The patient (who has had intestines cleared by a powerful laxative) swallows an 11 x 26 mm capsule weighing about 4 gm, containing a colour video camera and wireless radiofrequency transmitter, 4 LED lights, and enough battery power to take 50,000 color images during an 8-hour journey through the digestive tract. The capsule is made of specially sealed biocompatible material that is resistant to stomach acid and powerful digestive enzymes. It moves through the digestive tract with the peristaltic activity of the intestinal muscles, transmitting images to special antenna pads placed on the body and captured on a recording device about the size of a portable Walkman strapped to the patient's waist. The device has flashing lights and could be mistaken for something more sinister, so the hospital issues a letter to be shown to a police officer if necessary.

Elizabeth Wydville 16G grandmother via both her husbands

By kind permission of Queens' College.

For her life, see Elizabeth Wydeville, the slandered queen, Arlene Okerlund, Tempus Publishing, 2005

More ping pong

Yesterday JW beat me 2-1, but today I won 4-2, so he's ahead by one game 18-17 on the series

Ping-pong

Yesterday 1-1, today JW won 2-1, putting him ahead on the series 14-12. We have some long rallies, and I began to wilt in the third game which went to deuce.

Ms Merve Kavakçi

Ms Merve Kavakçi came to lunch today, with her daughter Miriam. I took up her case against the Turkish government, that she was denied the right to wear a headscarf in the Grand National Assembly when she was elected, and was then deprived of her Turkish citizenship, with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, whose latest resolution is given below.

Now, she is awaiting a decision of the European Court of Human Rights on her complaint, filed more than five years ago. If she wins, she will have gained the right for all Muslim women elected to Parliaments throughout Europe to wear the headscarf in their Parliament.

TURKEY

CASE N° TK/66 - MERVE SAFA KAVAKÇI

Resolution adopted by consensus by the Governing Council
at its 177^th session (Geneva, 19^th October 2005) *
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Ms. Merve Safa Kavakçi of Turkey, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/177/11(a)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 176^th session (April 2005),

Taking account of a communication from the President of the Turkish National Group, dated 12 October 2005 and of a communication from Ms. Kavakçi dated 3 October 2005,

Recalling that Ms. Kavakçi was duly elected in the April 1999 elections on a Virtue Party ticket, but was prevented from taking her oath owing to the fact that she wore a headscarf at the swearing-in ceremony, that she was subsequently stripped of her Turkish nationality, that the parliamentary authorities therefore no longer considered her to be a member of the Turkish parliament, that her name was consequently struck off the parliamentary records, and that on 22 June 2001 the Constitutional Court dissolved the party to which she belonged and banned her from political activity for five years,

Recalling that on 28 May 2001 Ms. Kavakçi filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights invoking a violation of her rights under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 6 paragraph 1 (right to fair and public hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (guarantee of free and fair elections), and noting that in July 2005, the Court declared the case admissible,

Noting further that on 13 September 2005, the Court granted leave to the IPU to submit a third party intervention under Rule 44 (2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure and that the said intervention was submitted to the Court on 4 October 2005,

1. Deeply regrets that the Turkish parliamentary authorities have not taken into account its repeated recommendations that the Turkish parliament provide redress to Ms. Kavakçi to remedy the injustice she suffered as a result of having worn a headscarf at the swearing-in ceremony of the parliamentarians elected in April 1999;

2. Notes that the case is now pending before the European Court of Human Rights, whose rulings are binding upon Turkey; and decides to adjourn further examination of this case pending the Court's decision;

3. Considers nevertheless that there is no legal obstacle for the Turkish parliament to provide redress to Ms. Kavakçi;

4. Requests the Secretary General to inform the authorities and the sources accordingly;

5. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held during the 114^th IPU Assembly (May 2006).

Boring speeches on three Orders

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60705-0849.htm#06070599000001

Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2006
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60705-0850.htm#06070599000002

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2006
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60705-0850.htm#060705106000002

At Lahore 2

Yesterday evening - an enjoyable and useful dinner with JKLF friends at Lahore 2 restaurant.

Blair and Murdoch

GOVERNMENT MUST COME CLEAN ON SECRET BLAIR-MURDOCH MEETINGS – AVEBURY

As a result of a campaign by the Liberal Democrats, the Government was today urged to disclose timings of discussions beteween Rupert Murdoch and Tony Blair under the Freedom of Information Act or provide a more robust explanation for its refusal

Following questions by Liberal Democrat peer Lord (Eric) Avebury, the Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that the dates of some discussions between the Prime Minister and Mr Murdoch should be revealed, as the Prime Minister’s ability to engage in free and frank discussions is outweighed by a stronger interest in understanding more about the way government operates.

Commenting, Lord Avebury said:

“People have every right to know about the meetings the Prime Minister has with Mr Murdoch, who has strong views on the Iraq war and ownership of TV stations.

“The Prime Minister was determined to keep his contacts with Rupert Murdoch secret, but the public should be able to form their own opinions about the extent of the media magnate’s undemocratic influence.

“I was not asking for the content of the discussions to be revealed. It would still be for the public to judge what subjects Mr Murdoch may have raised with the Prime Minister.


“The Cabinet Office twisted the arm of the Information Commissioner to alter this decision behind closed doors. I will take further action to protect the integrity of the freedom of information process.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors

* The letter to Lord Avebury containing the ICO’s decision received on 4th July 2006 is attached.
* Amendments of substance were made to the Information Commissioner’s Draft Decision Notice following complaints from the Cabinet Office. Lord Avebury has not been able to review the changes made.
* Lord Avebury submitted a request for details of telephone conversations and meetings between the Prime Minister and Mr Rupert Murdoch on 21st October 2003 [Official Report, House of Lords, 21st October 2003, col WA157]. He made a further request for the information, following the Freedom of Information Act 2000 coming into force of at the beginning of 2005, in a letter to the Lord Privy Seal [Baroness Amos] dated 15th April 2005. On receiving a further refusal he requested an internal review under the FOI on 22nd May 2005.
* The Prime Minister’s office confirmed, in a letter dated 19th May 2005, that they held the information requested, but they claimed exemption under S 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, but added that this exemption was subject to the balance of public interest.
* Lord Avebury then complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office [ICO] in a letter dated 27th July 2005, who referred the complaint to the Freedom of Information Officer at the Cabinet Office for comment, on 8th August 2005.
* The Cabinet Office responded on 30th September 2005 reiterating and paraphrasing the letter from the Prime Minister’s office, but omitting the reference to the public interest. Lord Avebury wrote again to the Information Commissioner’s Office on 3rd October 2005, formally requesting them to overrule the Prime Minister’s office and the Cabinet Office, and to compel the disclosure of the information on public interest grounds.
* On 13th June 2006 the ICO wrote to Lord Avebury saying that the Cabinet Office had asked them to agree to unspecified amendments to the draft letter deciding Lord Avebury’s complaint. This meant that Lord Avebury would be unaware of the changes made, and this could itself form grounds of a request for disclosure under the Act.
* Lord Avebury has today written to the Information Commissioner’s office and the Cabinet Ofice asking them for copies of correspondence, emails and minutes of meetings between them about this Decision. He has also tabled a Parliamentary Question asking for the information originally refused.
* The Cabinet Office responded on 30th September 2005 reiterating and paraphrasing the letter from the Prime Minister’s office, but omitting the reference to the public interest. Lord Avebury wrote again to the Information Commissioner’s Office on 3rd October 2005, formally requesting them to overrule the Prime Minister’s office and the Cabinet Office, and to compel the disclosure of the information on public interest grounds.
* On 13th June 2006 the ICO wrote to Lord Avebury saying that the Cabinet Office had asked them to agree to unspecified amendments to the draft letter deciding Lord Avebury’s complaint. This meant that Lord Avebury would be unaware of the changes made, and this could itself form grounds of a request for disclosure under the Act.
* Lord Avebury has today written to the Information Commissioner’s office and the Cabinet Ofice asking them for copies of correspondence, emails and minutes of meetings between them about this Decision. He has also tabled a Parliamentary Question asking for the information originally refused.

South China Morning Post, July 4, 2006

RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP

The British Home Office admitted earlier this year that the citizenship applications of about 600 ethnic Indians in Hong Kong had been "wrongly refused" as a result of a misinterpretation of Indian law.

In addition to those who were wrongly refused, we believe staff of the British consulate in Hong Kong discouraged hundreds of people from applying for full citizenship between July 1997 and February this year, when the error was corrected.

Unfortunately, the British National (Overseas) children of Indian descent were not the only ones denied their right to acquire full citizenship. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of BN(O)s of Nepalese descent who were under the age of 21 in 1997 are in the same position. Nepalese law provides that any citizen who acquires another citizenship otherwise than by birth automatically ceases to be Nepalese. BN(O) status could be acquired only by making a written application for registration. It is therefore impossible to be a BN(O) and citizen of BN(O) children of Nepalese origin became, de facto, stateless at the handover on July 1, 1997. The British citizenship scheme for ethnic minorities was designed to address this problem. Then shadow home secretary Jack Straw wrote to the\nBritish home secretary on January 30, 1997, taking the position that

"common sense and common humanity demand that we give these people full British citizenship".

The Home Office recently agreed that BN(O) passport holders of Nepalese descent who were under the age of 21 in 1997 qualified for British citizenship if they met the Hong Kong residence requirement of the Ethnic Minorities Citizenship Scheme. We call on the British consulate in Hong Kong to take immediate steps to ensure that the many BN(O) children of Nepalese descent be allowed to exercise this entitlement.

LORD AVEBURY, House of Lords, and TAMEEM A. EBRAHIM, London

Ping pong and Freedom of Information

This evening's ping pong was 1-1, making the series 11-10 to JW. The last game went to deuce 5 times. We couldn't play a decider because the light was getting too bad.

Conversation with Phil Boyd in the Information Commissioner's office. He said that another draft of the Decision Notice on my complaint against the Prime Minister for refusing to give details of his meetings and telephone calls with Mr Rupert Murdoch had been prepared and with the Commissioner's approval it would be issued today. But since the Cabinet Office insist on hard copy, the Notice would be sent out by post, and confirmed by email tomorrow morning. So much for e-government.

On May 24 the Information Commissioner's office (IC) told me that in the next couple of days they were sending the original Draft Decision Letter to the Cabinet Office, for them to comment on the narrow point of whether there was anything in it which was exempt from disclosure - other than the subject of the complain, presumably. They were to be allowed a week.

On June 2 I asked the Information Commissioner's office what was happening, and they said that because of the Bank Holiday, and the extra 'privilege day' civil servants get immediately after a Bank Holiday, the 'week' had stretched, and the Cabinet Office had been given until the middle of the following week.

On June 9, a Friday of course, the Cabinet Office telephoned the IC to say that they wanted to make representations against the Draft Notice on matters of substance. It was clear that if the IC hadn't agreed to this unusual (if not unprecedented) procedure, the Cabinet Office would have appealed to the Information Tribunal, and the Decision would have been delayed by several months. The IC agreed to hear what the Cabinet Office had to say, though I had no right to be told what they said.

Following discussions between the Cabinet Office and the IC, the Decision was amended, and again I am not told what alterations were made.

On June 29 the IC approved an amended version of the decision, and the Notice was prepared and sent to the post room. But late in the afternoon the Cabinet Office emailed the IC raising further unspecified objections, and the IC agreed to defer issuing the Notice yet again.

The point they raised the following Monday was not one that had been mentioned at the meeting, though a minute had been issued of the matters discussed, and it would have been possible therefore for the Cabinet Office to raise it earlier, instead of late on a Friday afternoon.

After all this, I don't expect a favourable outcome tomorrow, but I shall seek to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out how the Cabinet Office have twisted the IC's arm behind the scene.

With Nadeem Kazmi on the terrace today

Anniversary at Avebury

Bromley byelection

Results of the Bromley & Chislehurst by election:

Conservative 11,629 40.0% (down 11.1%)
Ben Abbotts, Liberal Democrat 10,988 37.8% (up 17.5%)
UKIP 2,347 8.1% (up 4.9%)
Labour 1,925 6.6% (down 15.6%)
Others 2,171

This was a stunning achievement by an excellent candidate, Ben Abbotts, almost wiping out a huge Tory majority. We could have won, given a bit more time.

For all his talk of reform, the Tory leader isn't going anywhere. The Europhobes are still deserting the Tory Party in droves, and could seriously threaten them at the next general election - to say nothing of other byelections between now and then. The core Tory vote is obviously not inspired by Cameron's quasi-liberal flourishes.

Tactical voting by former Labour supporters continues to be a big factor. Not only are they disillusioned by the directions taken by Mr Blair on civil liberties and public services, but they positively see theLiberal Democrats as the only defenders of key values shared by most people who consider themselves as 'liberals' with a small 'l'.