|
|
 |
| |
Just what have we got to hide from the public?
MP Jeremy Corbyn was shocked by Parliament’s attempts to sidestep freedom of information
I SUPPORTED the Freedom of Information Act as a giant step forward when it was introduced in 2005.
This amendment bill is part of a wrecking process. Its proposer, David MacLean, is a Conservative MP and one-time whip and, following the huge amount of negative publicity surrounding last Friday’s parliamentary vote for this bill, his leader has called on the Conservative party to vote against it.
It alarms me to think that any Labour MPs voted for it, though enough did to ensure it progresses!
By some peculiar set of circumstances, the bill gained an unusual priority for one that has effectively been defeated in the Commons.
Shame on these members for reinforcing all of the negative opinions that abound about MPs at a time when voter commitment is at an all time low.
The bill is wholly unacceptable and it is unbelievable that members of Parliament, across different parties, should show such arrogance in voting for this Private Members Bill.
Not a lot of Private Members Bills get this far and this should never have.
It will ensure that MPs are offered a privilege that they have denied others; they will be exempted from the Freedom of Information Act which Labour introduced into British law in 2005
There were several emails to-ing and fro-ing on the system last week in response to David Maclean’s emails lobbying Members and it is clear that some correspondence has been requested by individuals from MPs at one time or another.
This is not, however, the point.
If it be the case that the revealing of any particularly sensitive MP correspondence is under threat, then surely it is for the Data Protection Act to be explored further rather than for MPs to see themselves as above the law as it currently stands from a freedom of information point of view.
Friday is often the day MPs spend in their constituency catching up on local issues and constituents’ problems.
When Parliament sits on a Friday, the MPs concerned with the Private Members Bills being debated are often the only ones present, alongside supporters of their bills.
Last Friday was not unusual in this respect. Knowing this fact, you can therefore assume that anyone in the House who voted for the bill was very determined that their constituents should either not see their expense accounts, or not see their correspondence, at any time and/or regardless of the subject matter.
My email to those members of the PLP who had emailed me in support of the bill stated: “I have to say I read your emails with astonishment.
“I believe the intention behind the bill is all about reducing the scrutiny of what we, as public representatives, actually do in Parliament, and with the sums of public money that are allocated to us.”
Sensitive correspondence has been requested from at least one Member that I know about, and there may have been others, but this is no reason to attack the Freedom of Information Bill in itself, one of the progressive moves Labour has made to date.
The reality of senior members of Parliament committee members trying to persuade others to vote in support of the bill on the basis of such wholly inaccurate arguments is outrageous.
The Lords must ensure that the bill does not succeed in giving MPs privileged protection that they most certainly do not deserve.
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
