How MPs could have avoided FOI
Can MPs manage to put their embarrassing receipts for expenses claims beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act in future?
It's been reported that some of them hope to do this by creating a new independent unit to handle expenses claims, which would then be handed over to the private sector. It's claimed that receipts processed by a private company would not be available to the public under FOI.
I'm far from convinced this would work. Under the FOI Act, information is covered if "it is held by another person on behalf of the authority". (That's in section 3(2) of the Act).
There may be room for argument over what "on behalf" means, but the Information Commissioner has already ruled in at least one case that data held by private companies is held on behalf of a public authority and in principle subject to FOI.
These of course are simply the legal considerations - the political considerations also may make any attempt by MPs to evade the FOI searchlight somewhat difficult given the further bad publicity that would result.
Ironically things could have turned out very differently if it had not been for decisions taken by the government when the Freedom of Information Act was being drafted several years ago.
The government's first FOI plans were laid out in its White Paper "Your Right to Know" published in 1998. Many freedom of information campaigners regard this as the high point of the government's commitment to FOI, yet this stated (paragraph 2.3):
"A very few public bodies, because of the nature of their role, will be completely excluded from the Act. Parliament, whose deliberations are already open and on the public record, will be excluded."
Many of the far-reaching openness proposals in this document were then weakened by uneasy ministers, but in a few respects they decided to go further. And Parliament was one.
By the time a draft Bill was issued in 1999, the consultation document with it said (paragraph 28):
"We are discussing with Parliamentary authorities whether it is possible to bring Parliament and organisations directly accountable to Parliament within the scope of the Bill, without breaching Parliamentary Privilege. Discussions are continuing on this point and if it is practical to bring Parliament within the scope of the Bill, we shall do so."
And by the time the Act itself was introduced, Parliament was covered by FOI.
Back in 1999 it might have been much easier for MPs to have kept the workings of the House of Commons outside the reach of freedom of information, if they had insisted on it then. Ten years later it will be an awful lot harder.
So what made ministers change their minds back in 1998 on whether Parliament should come under FOI?
One important factor was the report of the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, which argued (paragraph 37):
"There are many administrative functions carried out within Parliament which, it seems to us, do not need to be protected, any more than do those of the police. The justification for the exclusion of Parliament has not been made out. The exclusion may well convey the wrong impression to the general public, given the purpose of this legislation."
Who were the MPs on this committee who helped bring the Commons within the FOI Act? Ronnie Campbell, Mike Hancock, Helen Jones, Fraser Kemp, David Ruffley, Richard Shepherd and Andrew Tyrie, who are still in the House; and Peter Bradley, Lynda Clark, Melanie Johnson and Rhodri Morgan (the chair of the committee), who are no longer in the House.
A 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I suppose at the next election prospective MPs and local Councillors will have to publish their Credit Reference Agency reports so that we can all judge how fiscally responsible they are.
Complain about this comment
A cynic would say that the reason they were not too worried about Parliamentary information falling within the Act's sway was that they were pretty confident that they could keep the most sensitive and damaging material from being released, whatever the legislation. They were probably right, generally speaking. The fact that they were short-sighted about the danger of expense claims being made public is more an indication of how complacent they had become about the system than their ability to calculate risk.
It is blindingly obvious that a UK government will always be able to keep the worst of its secrets, so the FoI Act was never going to be a great leveller. While I welcome its principles, I still think it is a very bad piece of legislation and when taken in conjunction with the Data Protection Act and similar legislation, it is a nightmare for public sector bodies to work within and a gravy train for lawyers.
As a person who once had to respond to FoI requests - many of them ridiculous pursuits of non-existent information by obsessives or blatent attempts by commercial organisations to harvest sales and marketing information - I have to admit to feeling somewhat pleased that the legislators are having a taste of their own medicine.
Complain about this comment
This expenses outrage has finished me with all parties. 99% of all MP'S are at it for what they can get out of it! The lot of them make me sick.
Used to always vote Tory but will never vote again for any party, why do we need over 600 MP'S anyway!
A general election should be called asap to give the people the right to vent there view's. Brown was the paymaster general for 10 years, and you expect me to beleive he didn't no what was going on. Any honourable MP would fall on his sord.
I predict the next election will have the lowest turn out of voters ever.
William Smith from Leighton Buzzard
Complain about this comment
Labour must be really kicking themselves for introducing the FOI act as it's enabled all sorts of embarrassing stories to come out!
Complain about this comment
'Unacceptable', 'unjustifiable', 'anger' all words used by Gordon Brown to describe the outrageous pension of 'Sir' Fred Goodwin. So Mr. Brown what is the difference between you, all MP's and 'Sir' Fred Goodwin? Answer there is no difference. You have all abused the system and exploited your employment contracts to the maximum. If for one moment Gordon Brown and all MP's were genuinely contrite they would without hesitation pay back some of the money irrespective of it being 'claimed within the system'. At the very least MP's could lead the way by 'donating' say £2,000 back into the public coffers. Just think 646 MP's X £2,000 = £1,292,000 this would keep 'Sir' Fred for nearly 2 years!!
Complain about this comment
Well, in light of the fact that we now know how much and for how long we taxpayers have been fleeced I guess I'll continue to spoil my ballot paper. Why do I do this? Because it gets counted and isn't rated as a 'didn't turn out to vote', which becomes a statistic. Plus I know the Liberal Democrats don't stand a chance in this two party system unless all agree to proportional representation. But then I guess even with PR they'll just all agree to keep on milking the big fat cow that is the taxpayer and at the same time they'll tell us that we can't have this or that benefit whilst claiming for a workman to change the lightbulbs in their house(s)!
I used to be a member of the Labour Party but became disappointed with politics very shortly after the evangelical Blair came to power and made the Labour Party the best 'Conservative' Government we have ever had.
Now I am even more disenchanted as they are all at it!
My household survives on less than £20K, but one Minister can't even afford to buy his own dogfood on £64K+ without putting an expenses claim in.
Please don't get me started on the £14K for the wetroom!
I, along with the rest of the taxpayers of this Sceptered Isle, am incandescent to the point of apoplexy!
Forgive me, but 'sorry' and 'It's within the rules' just doesn't hack it with me. Neither does the pithy promise that 'members of the public' will decide what is an acceptable claim at the Fees Office along with the MP's and Civil Servants. Lets face it they have already had 'members of the electorate' on the board and they were as effective as a chocolate fireguard in the face of MP's representing the same claim over and over again!
I laud the honest MP and give a warning to the rest; do not underestimate the intelligence of the British Public.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Michael Martin has recently quashed an attempt to reveal rules about the British Council paying for MPs' trips abroad.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
I find it amusing that the Torygraph is getting the credit for revealing information which would have mainly come about because of FoI rather than their splendid journalism.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree with shirlblogger.
I might not have her way with words but I think the time is right for all MP,s to explain how they can claim for all there expenses.
If any MP is expelled for misconduct or deselected why should they be allowed to any financal awards!
If I were to be dissmissed for any misconduct What would I get!!!
NOT A LOT!!!!!
In fact I don,t think I would be able to claim ANY benefits!!!!
AND as for FRED of the RSB don,t even ASK!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS