Greg Mulholland snaps over ReplyAll-gate

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

When Mark Pritchard sent an email to hundreds of MPs and Peers across both Houses of Parliament to inquire as to the feasibility of a new All Party Parliamentary Group, little did he suspect that, minute by minute, member by member would – infuriatingly for some honourable friends – hit “reply all”.

After a couple of subtle requests for the backs and forths to end, Greg Mulholland eventualy snapped, replying in huge red font “NO MORE REPLY ALL”.

The Times’ Sam Coates has pipped me to this story by a few minutes, but it remains a remarkable insight into the workings (or not) of Parliament – especially considering the subject of the email was: NEW APPG on CYBER-SECURITY – and perhaps how out of touch a few of our representatives, particularly in the Lords, are.

Here’s the thread:

Wednesday, 11th November, 2009

Subject: NEW APPG on CYBER-SECURITY.

From: Mark Pritchard

To: All Members across both Houses

Dear Colleagues,

Given the increasing importance of cyber-security for the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure, industry, and the UK’s intelligence and military platforms, I thought it would be helpful to establish a new All Party Parliamentary Group for Cyber-Security.

If this is something you think you would like to support and/or participate in, then please do let me know.

The inaugural meeting will take place on Monday 7th December – in Room N, Portcullis House, at 5pm.

Kind regards,

Mark Pritchard

—

Wednesday, 17:15

I think we have enough APPG in this area – Eurim. Pitcom and the APP Comms group.

Derek Wyatt MP

—

Wednesday, 20:21

Is there really a ned for yet another APPG, surely this could be brought under the wing of one or other of existing groups. Has there been any consultation with other groups who could take on this remit?
John

John Austin MP

—

Thursday, 08:45
I agree with Derek

John Robertson MP

—

Thursday, 10:33
I agree, few parliamentarians turn up at existing APPGs and the whole system needs reform rather than any more being added, in any area of activity!
Baroness Howarth

—

Thursday, 10:44
I agree no need for additional APPG. David Clark

Lord Clark

—

Thursday, 10:45
FROM: ATTLEE, Earl

Dear All,

I agree with David and others. In the next Parliament there will be a lot of new MPs all wanting to chiar something, Anything! I am also concerned that many of us are being listed as being a member of an APPG when we may even not want to have anything to do with the group.

I think that official or listed members of an APPG should have to pay a £5 membership fee by cheque. If one is interested in the issue this will be no impediment but I think that it would cut out a lot of problems.

John

—

Thursday, 10:54
FROM: ERROLL, Earl

I also agree with Derek and am concerned that we don’t dissipate the enthusiasm of the few who have a real interest in this area.

—

Thursday, 10:57
FROM: FALKNER, Baroness

I have to agree with all others who have opposed the creation of yet another APPG. Among ‘security geeks’ there is sufficient knowledge to bring it into the wider debate rather than deal with it as a discrete sub-area.
Kishwer Falkner

—

Thursday, 11:00
FROM: GARDNER, Baroness

yes too many APPGs already. TG

—

Thursday, 11:15
FROM: WHITEHEADPATELY, Tarasyn

I also agree with Derek, I think we have enough APPG in this area.

—

Thursday, 12:31
FROM: ELTON, Lord

I also take the view that we already have too many APPGs and that newcomers to the field should find an existing group that they can persuade to take their concerns on board. RE

—

Thursday, 12:37
FROM: BRIDGEMAN, VISCOUNT

i agree word for word with Elton.

—

Thursday, 12:38
FROM: SMITH, Robert

These emails are also very large. I have moved the carbon copies into the blind carbon copies to see if that makes them less cumbersome.

—

Thursday, 12:42
FROM: RAMSBOTHAM, Lord

So do I.

—

Thursday, 12:46
Would the originator of this message please remove it from my email system pronto. Charles Kennedy.

—
Thursday, 12:52
FROM: TEATHER, Sarah

Please stop inundating every office in both houses with this discussion. Send your comments to Mark Pritchard direct, not to the rest of us please.

—

Thursday, 15:16
FROM: REA, Lord

Dear Sarah

I agree. I think youv’e spoken for most of us!

Nic Rea

—
Thursday, 15:36
Dear Mark

Interest by any colleague in Internet and IT issues, including Internet-related crime and security issues, is extremely welcome because there are about nine or ten of us who beaver away at it – and it can get quite lonely given that there is surprisingly little wider interest amongst Parliamentarians in the detail of this work.

However, the last thing we need is yet another all-party group.

You will find a warm welcome in PITCOM, Eurim and ApComms meetings. There are specialist sub-groups on issues like security which bring interested Parliamentarians and Industry players together. For the past two years the three groups have been working together in order to complement each other’s work rather than duplicating activities and effort …………… Indeed ApComms is a group formed by the merger of three previous groups precisely because the territory was so over-populated !

All the best

Alun Michael

—
Thursday, 16:06
FROM: GRENFELL, Lord

Hear! Hear!

—
Thursday, 16:08
FROM: ELTON, Lord

I also take the view that we already have too many APPGs and that newcomers to the field should find an existing group that they can persuade to take their concerns on board. RE
—

Thursday, 16:11
FROM: KELLY, Gail (researcher)

Hear Hear also

(in reply to Lord Grenfell)

—
Thursday, 16:13
FROM: BAKER, Norman

Can everyone please stop sending emails about this.

—

Thursday, 12th November, 2009

Subject: NEW APPG on CYBER-SECURITY.

From: Greg Mulholland

To: All Members across both Houses
IF I GET ANOTHER UNSOLICTED EMAIL ABOUT THIS CR*P I WILL BE MAKING A COMPLAINT.

PUT YOUR BRAINS IN GEAR AND STOP BOTHERING ALL MPs and PEERS WITH THIS!!!!

NO MORE REPLY ALL