The role of FOI in MPs' expenses
Many MPs have fought hard for a long time, but eventually without success, to prevent the publication of detailed information about their expenses, both through the courts and through trying to change the law.
During this process, it was often said that the persistent resistance of the House of Commons to releasing this material was doing more damage to the reputation of Parliament than the information itself would be likely to. We are now about to find out, initially in the pages of the Daily Telegraph, if this is really the case.
The enormous fuss over MPs' expenses was not widely predicted as a consequence of FOI. When the Freedom of Information Act was passed nine years ago, it was generally envisaged that its most high-profile cases would be about scrutinising the decisions of the executive, not of the spending habits of the legislature.
There is plenty of debate as to whether freedom of information has achieved the various aims that some people hoped for when it was introduced here, such as improving public participation in decision-making.
But no-one can surely deny that, on the example of MPs' expenses, it has increased accountability in the spending of public money.
Today's revelations would not have happened without the FOI Act, that is clear. Yet they are actually based on a leak, not legally-enforced disclosure. And the material goes beyond what the Act - as amended to exclude MPs' addresses - would require (The Freedom of Information (Parliament and National Assembly for Wales) Order 2008 [45KB PDF]).
From the FOI viewpoint, one of the most interesting pieces in the Telegraph today argues that without these addresses, the newspaper would not have been able to shed light on some of the questionable practices it reveals. So some of today's revelations may be as much as about leaking, or "chequebook journalism", as about freedom of information.
But there is one other point to bear in mind here. It's not always the case that legislatures are covered by Freedom of Information Acts. The United States Congress, for example, is not covered by the US FOI Act.
Ministers took the decision to include Parliament in the Act in the UK. They doubtless did not foresee all the consequences and may be regretting that decision.
Certainly, there are MPs who might not have voted for freedom of information if they'd realised what information was going to be made free as a result.
A 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Am I right to feel queasy about the way this information has been published today? Although described as a 'leak', what appears to have happened is that a company (the Telegraph) paid an employee of a public body a sum of money to induce the employee to breach his/her duties of confidentiality, solely so as to allow the company to profit at the expense of its rivals.
Why do we not treat this as bribery, or as corrupting a public official? If (say) a pharmaceutical company had paid a public employee to 'leak' to it the outcome of a decision whether to licence a drug, or a financial company had paid a public employee to 'leak' to it the decision of the Monetary Policy Committee, would we be so sanguine?
Complain about this comment
However the information was revealed (and be sure that the 'Official version' would have made it impossible to detect the 'scam' of claiming the same allowance for 3 different properties in one year) the fact that those in power fought so hard against having it published, goes to show that THEY know it, at the very least, looks bad, and that the public will not like, or stand for this anymore.......
Complain about this comment
Cassius, NO confidentiality clause can be claimed to hold when either the law of the land or the public interest is aided by a breech.
If your boss commits murder, you are an accessory to that murder if you keep quiet. Even if you have a condfidentiality clause.
Similarly here, this is the spending of public money. Money the MP's have no *right* to, but must justify to us, their employers. And telling your employers how much of the pay bill is going to perks ranks far higher than any clause demanding conspiracy of silence about it.
Complain about this comment
Justice Secretary Jack Straw had to refund £1,500 expenses that were overpaid, after he claimed for council tax paid at the full rate - when he was getting a 50% discount.
He told the BBC: "I have acted in complete good faith and within the rules. It is an error, which obviously I wish hadn't happened, but in circumstances in which I was incredibly busy during that period - that is not an excuse, it is just an explanation."
So when I underpay the Inland Revenue, can I keep it until they find out and they'll just say "well, it's a mistake, anyone could make it. Pay it back if you've the money"? No. Maybe for "first offense" but this isn't the case here.
If I use P2P I cannot tell if the other person has a license to watch Harry Potter or listen to A Hard Day's Night and for all I know they could be from a country that doesn't respect those copyrights (like the US did to foreign copyrights of Charles Dickens) or where noncomercial copying is allowed. Maybe they even are the copyright owner and so are not breaking copyright by making a copy of it.
So P2P is fine, then, Jack?
And if this isn't an excuse, Jack, then you've just admitted fraud. You can't use an explanation of how you broke the law as justification to be allowed off.
Complain about this comment
Sir, it is wonderful to see mp's expenses in the public domain. As they are funded by the taxpayer this is only right.
Could somebody please advise me where I can gain accees to all expenses received by the bbc personal and directors etc.
thank you
Complain about this comment
Well done to the Torygrpah for 'putting paid' to this issue instaead of the gorvenement orchestrating a massive spin in July.
A government elected on an anti-slzease ticket embroiled in yet another sleaze ridden issue....Loans-for-peerages, Mandelson's resingation (twice), and now this. And they blame the 'system' er, ehm, who has been in charge of the system?
ABOUT 56 WEEKS TO GO!!!!
Complain about this comment
georgehants is right, but not just the BBC all organisations that are the recipients of public monies should be made to lay open employees and expenses as part of the contract they have. Whilst it is a joy to watch the politicians squirm,they are the tip of the iceburg.
Complain about this comment
MPs expenses are hardly a matter of national security and being paid by the taxpayer should be available for scrutiny - bearing in mind that people working on the minimum wage are contribution.
The fight not to reveal was telling - If anything is sought to be hidden it a probably uncomfortable. In fact one of the definiations of fraud is it is sought to be hidden. MPs therefore need to ask why they, some at least, are behaving as though they have been involved with fraud.
I do not buy the Telegraph arguement that they have to have the addresses to make comment. The addresses add but it makes little diffence which address a ride-on lawnmower is procured at or dry rot is paid for. These are not expenses in the ordinary sense of the word. This is the equivalent of saying I need a car to get about, I am asking for the car and all costs and a picnic hamper and not expecting any HMRC liability. It is all very Toad of Toad Hall. Toad-y-ing MPs no less, Ah life on the open road with the wind in your hair in somebody else car, parp parp, get off the road you peasant, This is Mr Toad here.
Thank goodness for FOI.
Complain about this comment
The Telegraph bought the info - hard luck on the rest and the BBC that did not. Green cheese springs to mind - good luck to ALL sources of similar info / whistleblowers etc - which our elected Dishonourable Members would not like us to know.
As for SLEAZE - ZanuLabour have it cornered and r experts at it.
Complain about this comment
we might be all entitled to an opinion ,but I find anyone who talks about how this information came to light as an issue , very suspicious indeed, these are people who seem void of reality of most peoples lives , the ordinary folk , who if you asked them to payback 13 grand today , they couldn't put £200.00 pounds together, they knew what they were doing , they wanted to keep it secret , its out, we now know , that apart from lieing to our faces everyday through our tvs after we pay them , is not the only thing immoral about our mps , no more status quo, no more protocols, mps make laws cause they don't want us to thieve the system , but make laws so they can ., you couldn't make this up, and you dare talk about laws being broken to get this information to the telegraph, who do you serve , you and your friends, who can whip 13 grand to reimburse your consciences, or your country, the country is more than your friends ,go to hell
Complain about this comment
i am a news junkie i constantly flip the news channels to see what agenda the media is serving . it was very obvious during the iraq war thing or isreal palestine thing ,i do know that media even the bbc which is run by tax payers. Us. , do serve a higher master , i guess it depends which people are employed in which positions and their agenda, but i do see the same consensus where ever i flick ,thieving politicians, trying to say it was an honest mistake for me to pay for their sexual pleasures, by way of what porn they chose to watch, i mean really is this a joke , seems like an episode of the system. jackie smith , rememb
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS