Hi!

I am writing to request the following information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. 

* Contracts between the House of Commons and Autonomy, Inc.
* Contracts between the House of Commons and Vignette Corporation
* Contracts between the House of Commons and any other companies involved in
development of PIMS (Parliamentary Information Management Services)
* Bids to tender for providing services related to the development
of PIMS (Parliamentary Information Management Services)
* Minutes of meetings where procuring these services were discussed.  
* A financial breakdown of the costs and revenue resulting from these contracts.

As I am sure you know, the exemption for commercial interest under the Act
(section 43) is a qualified exemption, which means information can only be
withheld if it is in the public’s interest. The public have a direct interest
in the details of contracts awarded by public authorities at public expense.

I would point you to the Information Commissioner’s guidance on contracts made
with public authorities: Awareness Guidance 5 and Awareness Guidance 4 appendix
(see note at end). Richard Thomas has stated that contracts awarded by public
authorities should be disclosed.  'I expect the public sector to rise to this
challenge', The Guardian, 30 December 2004

If you decide to rely on section 41 (the exemption for legal breach of
confidence) then I would like to know the following: 
* When these confidentiality agreements were agreed 
* All correspondence and email in which these confidentiality agreements were
discussed.  
* The precise wording of the confidentiality agreements

I ask these questions because the Lord Chancellor’s draft guidance on FOI
implementation specifically states that public authorities should NOT enter
into these types of agreements; they go directly against the spirit of the laws
of disclosure. I would also point to the Information Commissioner’s guidance on
accepting blanket commercial confidentiality agreements: ‘Unless
confidentiality clauses are necessary or reasonable, there is a real risk that,
in the event of a complaint, the Commissioner would order disclosure in any
case.’ ibid, p10

Finally, within the law of confidence there is also a public interest test.
Therefore, the contracts should be disclosed in full. If any parts are redacted
they must be for information that can be proven to be a legal breach of
confidence in court, and only then where secrecy can be shown to be in the
public interest. These are difficult positions to argue when public money is at
stake or where a public authority is offering a private company a monopoly to
charge its stakeholders.  

I understand that under the act, I am entitled to a response within 20 working
days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have
received this request.

With best wishes,

Francis Irving
<address removed>