Pooka
04-20-07, 10:45 AM
MPs are debating a bill to exempt themselves and peers from Freedom of Information Act inquiries
Former Conservative chief whip David Maclean has introduced the measure in a private member's bill.
He says he does not want letters on behalf of constituents to be published - but it would also curb requests about issues such as MPs' expenses claims.
Lib Dem MP Norman Baker said it was "about covering up" and letters were protected by different legislation.
The two-clause bill effectively removes both the Commons and House of Lords as public authorities obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which came into force in 2005.
It also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops authorities being able to confirm or deny whether they have received a letter from an MP.
Mr Maclean told MPs at an earlier stage: "When we write on behalf of constituents... we must be able to look them in the eye and say that in all circumstances what they tell us will not get out.
"It is like the relationship with a priest. We will write to an authority with their problem, but we guarantee that that information will not be leaked by us, or get into the public domain."
Data Protection Act
He said Speaker Michael Martin had assured him Parliament would still publish general details of MPs' expenses and allowances, as now, even though it would not be legally obliged to do so.
Labour MP Andrew Dismore has tabled an amendment to ensure that this agreement is put in the measure which will be debated on Friday.
Mr Baker, who successfully fought a two-year Freedom of Information battle for a detailed breakdown of MPs' travel expenses, said that a constituent's inquiry would not be "leaked" as it was already covered by the Data Protection Act.
"There is no question that this already exists as a proper means of protecting constituents," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Of the Bill he said: "This is not about constituents' correspondence, this is about exempting MPs from scrutiny in the House of Commons on how, for example, we get our expenses."
He added: "It's about covering up and it shows, I'm afraid, that the Freedom of Information Act culture that we hoped was becoming established in this country, is not actually in the bloodstream yet."
The bill gained its second reading in the Commons in January and, rarely for a private member's bill, also got through its committee stage.
It could be "filibustered" by opponents if they manage to keep the debate on the bill and a large number of amendments to it going until the end of business at 1430 BST.
In a separate move, ministers are attempting to limit the amount of resources spent on freedom of information requests to £600 - including officials' time.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is running a consultation exercise on the proposal until 21 June.
:newburn:Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6574145.stm):newburn:
:newburn:Yep, Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others...:newburn:
Former Conservative chief whip David Maclean has introduced the measure in a private member's bill.
He says he does not want letters on behalf of constituents to be published - but it would also curb requests about issues such as MPs' expenses claims.
Lib Dem MP Norman Baker said it was "about covering up" and letters were protected by different legislation.
The two-clause bill effectively removes both the Commons and House of Lords as public authorities obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which came into force in 2005.
It also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops authorities being able to confirm or deny whether they have received a letter from an MP.
Mr Maclean told MPs at an earlier stage: "When we write on behalf of constituents... we must be able to look them in the eye and say that in all circumstances what they tell us will not get out.
"It is like the relationship with a priest. We will write to an authority with their problem, but we guarantee that that information will not be leaked by us, or get into the public domain."
Data Protection Act
He said Speaker Michael Martin had assured him Parliament would still publish general details of MPs' expenses and allowances, as now, even though it would not be legally obliged to do so.
Labour MP Andrew Dismore has tabled an amendment to ensure that this agreement is put in the measure which will be debated on Friday.
Mr Baker, who successfully fought a two-year Freedom of Information battle for a detailed breakdown of MPs' travel expenses, said that a constituent's inquiry would not be "leaked" as it was already covered by the Data Protection Act.
"There is no question that this already exists as a proper means of protecting constituents," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Of the Bill he said: "This is not about constituents' correspondence, this is about exempting MPs from scrutiny in the House of Commons on how, for example, we get our expenses."
He added: "It's about covering up and it shows, I'm afraid, that the Freedom of Information Act culture that we hoped was becoming established in this country, is not actually in the bloodstream yet."
The bill gained its second reading in the Commons in January and, rarely for a private member's bill, also got through its committee stage.
It could be "filibustered" by opponents if they manage to keep the debate on the bill and a large number of amendments to it going until the end of business at 1430 BST.
In a separate move, ministers are attempting to limit the amount of resources spent on freedom of information requests to £600 - including officials' time.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is running a consultation exercise on the proposal until 21 June.
:newburn:Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6574145.stm):newburn:
:newburn:Yep, Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others...:newburn: