The FOI Bill That Returned From The Dead now appears to be stone-cold deceased, with rigor mortis setting in fast. This is because, as I had hoped, the Lords stopped it - through the virtue of no Lord being willing to sponsor the Bill.

The Private Member's Bill was originally proposed by David Maclean, which died once, but was resurrected by a "quirk of procedure" and then passed with only 25 MPs principled enough to vote against it. But now it is dead, deceased, and has gone to a better place - the waste-paper bin*. Even with the government seemingly on it's side - saying that FOI is "placing good government at risk". But it doesn't - only poor ministers and policies and do that.

What the saga of the Bill shows is that the Lords is more the voice of the people than Commons, despite the Commons being formed - and elected - to do that. That no Lord could be found to sponsor the Bill is a good thing, and hopefully it will mean that information really can remain free, and that the Commons realises that they can't pass laws and then make themselves immune to it.

It is nice that just as the Bill that would mean that MPs are exempt from Freedom Of Information dies, that MPs are "ordered to disclose how much taxpayers’ money they spend on their mortgages, hotel bills, groceries and cleaners." Commons authorities argue that this would breach the privacy of MPs - but where they are spending our money, they should have no privacy.

* or more likely the paper recycling facility in these 'green' days.

Sources: BBC, The Times

Alastair Darling, the Trade Secretary [the one who closely resembles a badger] wrote this letter to Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor on the subject of the Freedom of Information Act:

"Dear Charlie,
As you know we are increasingly concerned that in a number of respects the demands of the Freedom of Information Act are placing good government at risk..."

His arguments include that the "[d]isclosure of letters between MPs and Ministers, even if ostensibly innocuous, will inhibit the dialogue between MPs and their constituents and MPs and Ministers", that the Act prevents the government "from protecting robustly and across the board advice from officials to Ministers", and that "where an FOI applicant sends multiple requests to various Departments on the same subject we need to be confident that there is effective co-ordination between Departments' responses."

He is thus basically adding his response to the Private Members Bill put forward by David Maclean to make MPs exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Whilst Darling may have some points, they certainly do not by any means warrant Parliament's exemption from FOI. There may well be a lot of pointless requests made, but that is part and parcel of that sort of law, and they must have known that it would happen from the start.

Instead of making such arguments as a means by which to exempt Parliament from the FOI Act and thus made our elected (and unelected) representatives completely unaccountable, then better rules could be made instead to prevent the stupid requests and to protect letters from MPs to ministers with specific relevance to a constituent and, to an extent, advice from officials to ministers.

What should certainly not happen is that an easy to bury bad news and embarrassing material is created. What FOI does not do is prevent good governance or place it at risk - only poor ministers and policies and do that. Freedom of Information is here, and it should stay.

Sources: BBC - article, letter transcript; The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian

After MPs voted to pass an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act exempting parliamentarians from the regulations, it is passed to the Lords for scrutiny and amendment. The Telegraph suggests that "Peers are already plotting how best to derail a bill passed by the Commons on Friday that would exclude Parliament from the rules." They intend to either form a cross-party coalition to stop the bill or table an amendment to ensure the House of the Lords was not covered by the bill in order to shame the Commons into ending the bill entirely.

I very much hope that they are going to, and succeed in this venture of stopping this bill - in any way possible. No legislative organisation should be able to pass laws from which exempts itself and its members. Once again, we are seeing that it is the Lords - the appointed and hereditary chamber - who are the ones who are following the wishes of the people far closer than the representatives which the people get to elect.

The article suggests that the Conservative front bench will be urging Conservative Lords to vote against, supported by a quote from David Willetts:

"I think that it's wrong for MPs to exclude ourselves from legislation that we apply to everyone else...
It would have been a free vote for individual MPs, but I personally think it is a mistake to pass legislation and then say we MPs should be exempt."

Hopefully the Lords can see more clearly than the Commons in this matter. It really is quite disgusting that it takes the undemocratic chamber to remind the democratic chamber of what the people want and deserve.

Source: The Telegraph

The Bill that had been killed off returns from the dead due to a "quirk of procedure". Quite what this quirk is, I don't know, and can't seem to be able to find out anywhere. But it's back anyway, the Bill that seeks to exempt parliamentarians from the Freedom of Information law. And it is still as wrong as before.

There is no justification for MPs not being subject to the FOI law. It is hypocritical in the extreme for MPs to make themselves unaccountable in this way. The supporters claim that it is to protect the "priest-like" confidentiality of correspondence between MPs and constituents. Labour MP Claire Ward* who is "broadly supportive of the bill" said that:

"As an MP I'm already protected but other public bodies aren't, this is about closing a loophole in the law.
For example if a write a letter on a constituent behalf to one of these bodies that data must later be released even if it is sent in confidence."

But those letters are protected under the Data Protection Act, are they not? So there is no requirement to release them, unless it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to do so. Instead, it seems far more likely that this Bill aims, or at least will be used, instead to enable MPs not to release details about their expenditure, something which we the public have a right to know as it is our money they are spending.

David Maclean should be ashamed of himself for proposing this bill, as should every MP who votes for it. MPs and Peers must be accountable to the laws they make. Parliamentarians are not, and must not be, above the law. If those who make the law are not subject to it, then dictatorship awaits.

UPDATE: The Bill has been moved closer to being passed after only 25 MPs voted No to making themselves exempt from FOI. The Bill has now been passed to the House of Lords for further consideration, and where hopefully peers will be able to block it. I can but agree with what John Redwood says on his blog:

"Parliament has shot itself in the foot again. Of course MP’s letters revealing personal details about constituents should be protected. The present law is meant to do so. If it is not doing so successfully then the government could have brought a limited amendment to deal with the issue. Instead the government welcomed a measure which could be much more restrictive. Some of us come to Parliament to get our views across, not to have them kept secret."

If only more MPs felt the same way, Parliament would be a better place and would more truly represent the British people.

UPDATE 2: Iain Dale has his take on it here and has a list of how MPs voted.

* MP for Watford. She's pretty useless. She once lost a debate with my mother, who really isn't very good at debating.

Sources: BBC, ePolitix, Stephen Glover Daily Mail column, The Guardian, Watford Observer, The Independent, Press Gazette