Jon Cruddas pulls off a political double with Ken Livingstone and Roy Hattersley endorsing him for deputy leader. I wonder what Luke Akehurst will have to say about that!
After the hysterical comments by Iain Dale’s trolls and the legitimate questions put forward by regular posters, I’m going to answer in more detail about the FoI vote yesterday. It’s been and remains a frantically busy few days for me though, so I’d like to post something on that when there’s a little more time. But before I become the Internet whipping boy,a few quick comments:
1. If the speaker had not guaranteed that MP’s expenses will continue to be published, I would not have supported the Bill. I repeat – you will still be able to see the expense tables like you have been able to for the last three years.
2. Despite people saying that there is protection under the Data Protection Act, public sector bodies are still revealing the private correspondence between them and MPs regarding constituents.
3. This Bill was put forward by the former Tory Chief Whip. Don’t be fooled by the disingenous comments and synthetic outrage of Iain Dale and his chums. Incidentally, he seemed to know how many MPs from each party had voted on the Bill yesterday afternoon – before they are made available in Hansard. He can only have got this information from a source in one of the Whips offices (I’m certain the parliamentary clerks would not help him). This suggests to me that he is part of a Tory spin operation – understandable but funadamentally dishonest in regard to this piece of legislation.
4. Finally – If Menzies Campbell thought so strongly about this Bill, why wasn’t he there to speak and vote against it?
5. You have a nice weekend now.
29 comments ↓
What utter rubbish. Your allegation is completely false, as I shall prove on my blog later. The voting list was obtained from the house of commons website and copied and pasted from it. Perhaps you’d like to withdraw that allegation now.
it was a suggestion not an allegation. Grow Up Iain.
“2. Despite people saying that there is protection under the Data Protection Act, public sector bodies are still revealing the private correspondence between them and MPs regarding constituents.”
So there breaking on piece of legislation. If you’re not going to enforce one piece of legislaiton then very little point in passing another!
1. How can Michael Martin guarantee anything into the future? His guarantee is not enshrined in legislation so it is not worth anything. FOI was enshrined in law and was supposed to cover Parliament. That did not hold up for long did it?
2. If the Data Protection Act is not working as it should why not fix that and enforce it? Is it because fixing the actual problem you say exists is not as convenient as exempting yourself from public scrutiny in other areas?
3. See Iain’s site for an explanation of how Hansard – Iain’s source for the information – publishes information on the web. I am sure it is not beyond even your wit to check that out yourself on Monday.
4. If your aims were so noble and the problem so serious why did you and your friends not ensure proper scrutiny of the Bill by holding the debate during the week, rather than on a Friday when many MPs are working in their constituencies? Time was made for this on a Friday so I am sure the time could have been found on another day.
5. You enjoy your weekend too. Let us hope all weekends for many years to come still have you and your ilk subject to proper scrutiny, despite your best efforts.
“He can only have got the information from” is not an allegation. its a statement. Irrespective of petty feuds the Bill as passed is wider ranging than just priveleged correspondence. Had a shorter and more concise Bill been presented that dealt with the specific principle then many would have accepted it.
Agree with you on Ming – no MP who missed the vote can pretend outrage.
Tom Watson, regarding your comments.
1. you should have added until the present speaker is forced out and the new one changes the rules. As you know, there is nothing in the Bill to stop that.
2. no one appears to be able to find any evidence of this. if you have some, publish it. if you do have evidence, then the DPA needs strengthening. Excluding MP’s from FOI is not the right route and is divisive.
3. Never assume that everyone who reads Iain Dales Diary is his chum. I find your comments petty, derogatory and insulting. IMHO that it looks like an allegation to me.
4. because everyone knew it was a stitch up. lies about neutrality, 3 line whip, motions of closure, that’s a stitch up.
5. I always have a good weekend.
Gordon Brown has promised open and honest government. This is a simple black and white issue, no grey areas, no neutrality.
As such, the majority of people would respond by saying “No” when presented with such a bill as this one, anything else may lead to suggestions that it is just another way of saying that you have something to hide.
Yourself, like many MP’s and Ministers have seriously underestimated public anger and disgust at this vote, and all MP’s need to be reminded once in a while that you work for us.
We will have our say soon, and we will remember at the ballot box those who took this vote on Friday.
One rule for you, another for everyone else. Ridiculous decision and your reasons for voting for it are rubbish. You’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, as if you wanted to you could just block the correspondence from FOI requests, and leave in everything else.
What about the private members bills on cluster bombs and runaway children, Tom? Were you as enthusiastic about those?
pitiful. this pathetic attempt to justify your grubby little ploy wouldn’t convince a five year old.
[...] Via Iain Dale, I come across Tom Watson’s spirited defence of his decision to back the Freedom from Information (none of your fucking business) Bill. Apparently, the Tories Made Him Do It. But, for a bit more detail, here is his argument point-by-point (I’d comment on his blog, but he banned me years ago): 1. If the speaker had not guaranteed that MP’s expenses will continue to be published, I would not have supported the Bill. I repeat – you will still be able to see the expense tables like you have been able to for the last three years. [...]
You seem to have no idea how badly this has gone down in the country have you ?
Your justification for supporting this bill is lamentable. The current speaker may make an arrangement – no future speaker is committed to this. Private correspondence is already covered in the Act and if public authorities are not adhering to this it could be dealt with in a more appropriate way. No argument you or your fellow supporters of this bill put forward will persuade me that this is other than a feeble excuse to protect MPs.
I hope all of you who supported the bill hang your head in shame. I hope too the Lords deals with the matter in the interests of the public. You have all deserved your villification the the press today and voting in this way diminishes further individual’s low opinion of politicians.
By the way, I am not a chum of Mr Dale – I do not always agree with him but do admire his blog and his general attempt to make a reasoned judgement on many issues! I have supported the labour party for forty years and also signed a petition on the Downing Street website regarding this bill some months ago when it first came to my attention. I have also contacted Norman Baker to offer my support. You insult me if you think that I have not researched the matter to form my opinion. How much research did you do?
Tom wrote:
“2. Despite people saying that there is protection under the Data Protection Act, public sector bodies are still revealing the private correspondence between them and MPs regarding constituents.”
Can you provide any examples of this happening?
df wrote:
“it was a suggestion not an allegation. Grow Up Iain.”
But Tom claimed that Iain could *only* have got the information when he did, from the Whips office – that is an allegation not a “suggestion”, and the claim is false. Iain got it from Hansard, 3 hours after the debate. I myself looked it up on Hansard after seeing Iain’s post.
Tom, stop using smoke and mirrors and try and distract debate from your vote. Though, your reasons are so flimsy that its not surprising your trying to deflect attention by alleging a conspiracy.
1) The Speaker guarantee that MPs will continue to publish expenses information is beside the point. As you know, FOI was being used to find out more than a summary of MP’s expenses, such as what MP’s travel expenses were being used for. If the Speaker was happy with publishing this information, why did the House fight tooth and nail against the FOI request from Norman Baker.
2) Even if the House agreed to publish more detailed expenses information, what if the public wants something else which is not released at the moment. There would be no way to lever this out of the authorities and no public interest test.
3) For all this bleating that there constituents privacy may be invaded, and that the DPA is insufficient protection, no examples have been given (well one very poor example, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2007/05/billericay_tricky.html).
4) And why are MPs content that all other public bodies (Government, local authorities, Government Agencies, the BBC, etc.) are subject to the FOI, but not themselves. Don’t these bodies ever release private correspondence.
Tom,
Why not put a link to Iain’s page on your’s? It’s only courtesy isn’t it? He does it for you.
This is a shameful piece of legislation. You should be ashamed of yourself for voting for it.
The FOIA (Amendment) Bill which Tom Watson voted for exempts much more than MPs’ detailed expenses or correspondence from constituents from public scrutiny.
How about this current Freedom of Information Act Request regarding restrictions on access by the public or even by MPs amd Lords to the public areas of the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House which come into force on 1st June ?
“Designation of the Public Areas of the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House under SOCPA section 128″
What about the project planning and management disasters involving the waste of millions of pounds of public money on such things as the illegal contract tendering process for the windows in Portcullis House offices back in 1992 ?
What about the millions wasted on the “security screen” which cuts off direct sight and sound of MPs in the Commons Chamber from the Public Gallery, but which failed to prevent the “purple flour” protests ?
Tom Watson and others have voted to hide these sorts of topics from future public scrutiny via the Freedom of Information Act – shame in them !
Hmmm? Whereabouts on the website? I start my working day waiting for Hansard to appear on the website shortly after 0800. It’d make my job easier if you could say.
Tom, I hate to point this out, but he could have watched it on Parliament TV.
Tom,
You are showing some similarity with David Maclean. You’ve voted for the Bill without explaining why.
1. The current speaker has said expenses will be continued to be published. But that is now the gift of the Speaker rather than his lawful duty. Future speakers may decide it isn’t worth the cost.
2. What makes you think this law (amendment) will be better adhered to than the Data Protection Act? It is not the law that is the problem it is the enforcement.
3. You are diverting the issue. What are you hiding?
4. You are diverting the issue. What are you hiding?
5. Thank you. I did.
David Maclean in introducing this bill has been acting to the detriment of parliament. Senior Labour and senior Tories have been derelict in their duty to public engagement by not speaking out against it, but your vote for the Bill was a genuine surprise. A real shocker and a real disappointment.
Through this blog you’ve done a lot to open the workings of Parliament, but voting for the Maclean Bill is not in the same vein.
Day 1 of Gordon Browns promise of “openness and transparency”.
MPs will be voting for their own pay increases next. Oh, hang on…
I’m not rising to the bait! I don’t think Hazel was ever really looking for Ken and Roy’s endorsements …
It’s a Tories’ Bill. Fridays is pretty usual (and this sort of pitiful turnout) for Private Members’ Bills. It’s crap. But the 500 who pissed off early are more to blame than the conspiracy of parties who passed it. Not law yet by a long chalk.
Hi Tom – I have a question about this Bill. If its sole purpose was to protect constituent correspondence (rather than shield MPs from the kind of accountability that a democratic system depends on) then why not pass a Bill that does just that? Why exempt Parliament entirely from the Act? Would you and Mr McLean be content with a Bill that did nothing other than re-affirm the exemption of constituency correspondence from the FoIA?
The 3rd parties who have released M.P./constituent correspondence have done so in breach of existing data protection laws. How will this new law prevent that in the future?
Just to clear up the confusion about when Parliament publishes Hansard. It used to only publish it at 8am the next day. However, Parliament now publishes it in a separate section of the site, incrementally during the day.
This is called “Today in the Commons”, and you can find it here.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/home.htm
[...] Far be from me to dig Tom Watson out of the hole he’s created for himself by falling into the trap of defending the indefensible, i.e. David MacLean’s Freedom from Accountability Bill, but if anyone should be leading the charge in criticising those MPs whose votes saw the abominable thing through its third reading (at the second time of asking) it sure as hell ain’t Iain Dale. [...]
People keep banging on about the exemption of correspondence but the prior paragraph in the Bill is the important one:
s1(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 1 (public authorities) omit paragraphs 2 and 3 (which relate to the House of Commons and the House of Lords).
No-one to my knowledge has explained what the total exemption of the Houses of Parliament from the FOIA is doing in a Bill intended to protect MPs’ correspondence.
Will Mr Watson explain it?
2. That’s nonsense, isn’t it? There’s been no evidence of this, and if public authorities really are ignoring the exemptions under ss. 40 (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FoI Act, why are they going to be any more likely to follow this new exemption? In addition, the new exemption is qualified, so that public authorities could still publish your correspondence if they consider that the public interest doesn’t prevent them.
So, in reality, the main impact of the Bill will be clause 1(2): the omission of Parliament itself from the list of public authorities covered by FoI. In other words, your expenses will be better protected than your correspondence, so when a future Speaker comes up with a “more convenient” way of publishing the information, there will be no redress for your constituents.
This from an MP whose party justifies their increasing erosion of our civil liberties on the grounds that, “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear.”
Hypocrites.
Leave a Comment