Freedom of Information
Gordon Brown and David Cameron are moving to counter suggestions that they allowed or even encouraged MPs to exempt themselves from Freedom of Information legislation. Neither of them voted on Friday.
This morning David Cameron used his news conference to say that he was not in favour of the move and had only not voted against it since he had a prior commitment in his constituency. It is far from clear, however, that he tried to stop his colleagues.
Meantime Gordon Brown's close ally Ed Balls who voted for the exemption has put up some intriguing comments on his website. "This Bill gives my constituents greater protection and privacy by guaranteeing that the work I do on their behalf remains confidential....As for the proper public scrutiny of MP's expenses and allowances, I am absolutely clear that these should continue to be published as now. The Speaker has said they will continue to be published, that's the right thing to do and, frankly, I would like to see an amendment to that effect included in the Bill to put that beyond doubt"
I hear that work is going on to draft and win support for precisely such an amendement. Watch this space
I'm 
Comments
What prevented Cameron from re-arranging his appointment in his consistuency to the Saturday? Could it have been the fact he had to attend the FA Cup Final as a VIP Guest?
Cameron had plenty of opportunitues before Friday to say that he was opposed to the bill yet he stayed silent i.e giving it his tacit support. Even if he could not attend the vote their was nothing preventing Cameron was ordering a 3-line whip to oppose the bill.
So many questions, so few answers. I'm normally willing to defend politicans and the political process, but I do'nt think anybody can defend this awful business over Freedom of Information legislation.
Frankly, I am far from impressed by any of the parties on this. It looks like what it is, one rule for MPs of whatever persuasion and one rule for everyone else. Ed balls "Intriguing" comments are just the same old laughable labour spin. The fact that he voted to exempt MPs and he is Brown's chief Lackey just goes to show that Gordon has no interest in openness whatsoever. All his nonsense about better, more open, collegiate government is shown to be total rubbish when it comes to actual decisions.
That amendment would still be avoiding the issue. The Maclean Bill is not needed. Personal correspondence is already protected. An amendment to the Maclean Bill that guaranteed expense information would still allow MPs to hide anything else.
It is the things that we don't know about that we are most likely to want to be able to uncover.
The Balls Amendment seems likely to be a diversionary cover-up.
MPs need to be absolutely clear to the public precisely what information is kept confidential. In my view, constituency business is definitely confidential, but MPs expenses are certainly not. They are paid from the public purse and need to be available for scrutiny.
There have always been, and always will be MPs who use the system for their own needs. Look at the MSPs who benefitted from purchasing homes in Edinburgh which have returned tidy profits.
MPs had the opportunity to restore some confidence in Parliament - they have failed.
Whatever the real motives behind the bill, I'm surprised those who voted for it couldn't stop and realise how seedy it would look to those on the outside. I think MP's are given a harsh press in general, but voting for bills like this hardly helps.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of this, I understand that MP's communications with constitutents are already covered by the Data Protection Act.
To my mind, what this action really demonstrates is how utterly disconnected with their electorate, some MP's appear to be.
They don't seem to understand and/or care that they are now the least trusted profession in this country.
We have seen how difficult it is under the FOI Act, it is for journalists to extract information that the Government would rather be kept hidden e.g. Browns ignoring of warnings about the consequences of the Pensions raid.
Therefore it is extremely hard to see how 'exempting' themselves from certain provisions of the FOI Act is going to do anything to improve MP's standing with the public at large.
All they are really doing is damaging a democracy which, IMHO, is already in a very poor shape in England.
I watched the debate in the House of Commons and the position of those who support the exemption is so shaky that even the government is trying to play a neutral role. We have a government that is under investigation because of the 'cash for honours affair'. If they try and pass a bill that limits freedom of information we have very good reasons to be skeptical.
Thanks for the update Nick.
There's been an understandable firestorm around this issue as people are rightly concerned about holding politicians to account on their voting record and expenses. What really bothers me isn't a single Act of Parliament but a general lack of clear constitution, uncertainty of legislative making, and agreeable outcomes. I'm hoping that a new constitution, a greater role for Members of Parliament and public, and more settled consensus will emerge as better attitudes develop in Parliament, the media, and public.
This Bill has been supported by factually false information about the confidentiality of constituent's letters. The MPs rejected amendments to target the exemption at that particular issue, and have chosen to cover the Lords who do not have constituents with this veil of secrecy.
As someone who has battled to get through FOI requests, I am aware of the mendacity with which many civil servants approach them. One of the issues is going to be where to draw the line between an MP's work and Ministerial work. Does the Home Office hold information about its employees' pensions which John Ried contributed to as a Minister, or did he make his recommendations as an MP writing on behalf of a prison guard in his constituency?
Is this the way Brown intends to lead? Is this how he'll conduct his 'open and honest debate'? Through Ed Balls posting on his website?
This was a prime opportunity for the Prime Minister unelect to set out how exactly he intended to lead. He could've made a stand on this issue- after all it was him who was saying he was going to try to restore public trust in politicans. But he chose not to duck out of a 'tough' decision. MaCavity disappears once again!
Surely a master tactician would've realised that an amendment to the FOI act would be an issue that would flare up and irritate the public?
Surely a courageous leader would've personally made it clear where he stood on this rather than having one of his mates post online?
Why can't Brown see that his actions aren't consistent with his message?
It makes me long for the days when we had a leader who understood how to convey a message properly. Blair's not even gone yet and already he's sorely missed.
The arguments about confidentiality and privacy of constitutent's correspondence are utter nonsense.
These concerns are already dealt with by the exemptions from disclosure for information which is exempt from disclosure under the Data Protection Act or which is held subject to an actionable obligation of confidence.
If those supporting the bill are concerned that these measures do not adequately protect constituents, why is this amendment only being pursued in connection with information held by the Houses of Parliament, and why does it have to cover the whole of the Houses of Parliament and not just information held indiviually by MPs themselves?
What is different about writing to an MP as opposed to writing to your local council? Under the argument put forward by Mclean, Balls et al, the letter to your MP is somehow deserving of additional protections than the identical one you send to your local council about the same issue.
And they wonder why people distrust policitians?
It is rather bizarre that politicians are the only group who seem fully able to prevent their bosses (the British public) from finding out about their expenses. If I were to charge the company expense account with thousands of pounds on Taxis to travel the 8 miles to my office then I imagine I would get the sack. If politicians are worried about constituents letters being published then why not simply exclude this aspect from freedom of information laws rather than also including expenses, but then saying 'oh we promise that we'll still tell you how much we spent on the Eurostar luxury breakfast.'
Can I remind your readers that the Lib Dems have been speaking out, campaigning and voting against this bill?
Let's not tar all politicians with the same brush. Some do have principles and we should acknowledge that.
This man has had enough of NEW Labour...
"In an age of spin and slavish loyalty, Alan Simpson is an MP who stuck to his principles. As he announces his resignation, Colin Brown pays tribute to a man who gives politicians a good name"
"My worry is that [Parliament] has become a comfort zone in which MPs are paid more and more to stand for less and less... Many MPs complain of a government that no longer listens to the party, but they then dutifully walk through the Division lobbies to vote for whatever regressive measures Downing Street asks for. At times I feel that colleagues would vote for the slaughter of the first born if asked."
"Choosing between Blair and Brown is like choosing between Saddam and Uday ... They're as bad as each other."
What strikes me with this row, as with most in recent times, is that Gordon Brown is nowhere to be seen. You paraphrase David Cameron as the Tory leader, and even have a little dig, but where exactly is the quote to either reproduce or paraphrase from our new Prime Minister? Nowhere. Instead we have to look at what Ed Balls has to say on the matter.
This is the time when we should be hearing loud and clear just what he thinks on all major policy decisions and the direction in which he is leading the country. I've increasingly had the feeling over the last ten years that Brown just thinks he can do his own thing and not worry about explaining himself to the proletariat. Hopefully he'll find out very shortly that he can't get away with this approach any more...
If Members of Parliament are even neutral to exempting themselves from the laws that they have passed for their electors to conform to I will lose all faith in British democracy. No one should be above the law.
Yvette Cooper, why not Yvette Balls.
Does she not want the nation to know that her "hubby" is in the same government as her.
Has this happened before in Parliamentary history where so many ministers/advisors in a Government are related?
All above aboard, of course