Comments on: Cruddas does the double

By: Oliver Coombes

Oliver Coombes — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:34:28 +0000

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.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 22 May 2007 11:39:16 +0000

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.

By: ukliberty

ukliberty — Tue, 22 May 2007 09:59:59 +0000

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?

By: Ministry of Truth » Opprtunism Knocks

Ministry of Truth » Opprtunism Knocks — Mon, 21 May 2007 23:21:48 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Francis Irving

Francis Irving — Mon, 21 May 2007 12:59:21 +0000

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

By: Mitch

Mitch — Mon, 21 May 2007 12:37:16 +0000

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?

By: Daniel Owen

Daniel Owen — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:44:35 +0000

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?

By: Chris Paul

Chris Paul — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:05:02 +0000

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.

By: Luke Akehurst

Luke Akehurst — Sun, 20 May 2007 22:07:17 +0000

I’m not rising to the bait! I don’t think Hazel was ever really looking for Ken and Roy’s endorsements …

By: RobT

RobT — Sun, 20 May 2007 20:44:37 +0000

Day 1 of Gordon Browns promise of “openness and transparency”.

MPs will be voting for their own pay increases next. Oh, hang on…