InsaneApache
05-19-2007, 12:51
The politicos in the UK have been banging on about teh voters apathy at election time, perhaps they should look to themselves as for the reason. After plundering the pensions of millions of people, they voted themselves a cast iron pension scheme of their own.
Now this...
The House of Commons could have found many useful things to do yesterday afternoon, but voting to exempt itself from the law on freedom of information was not one of them. By 96 to 25, with the collusion of the frontbenches of both main parties, MPs backed a private member's bill excusing parliament from a duty that it has imposed on every other public body in England and Wales. The grounds for doing so were spurious, an exaggerated fear about the exposure of private correspondence that failed to disguise parliament's fundamental distaste for making its inner workings public. The smell of a private gentlemen's club, all beeswax and dusty velvet, hung over the debate, the outcome of which was about as far as it is possible to get from openness and accountability.
Article continues
Only one MP spoke in support of the bill: David Maclean, the former Tory chief whip who has pushed it through with great tactical skill. But 95 other MPs came to vote alongside him. That turnout was in itself unusual for a sunny Friday afternoon, with England well set in the Test match at Lords and constituency work awaiting members' attention at home. For many other private member's bills - say the ones on runaway children or cluster bombs which ran out of time yesterday - a handful of MPs would have attended. Only the indulgence of protecting their own interests kept the numbers up. A small band of critics, from all sides but led by the Liberal Democrats, won the debate but was outgunned in the lobbies.
The practical effect of the bill is uncertain. Given a Commons third reading yesterday, it may sink in the Lords. If it does become law, some of the benefits of the Freedom of Information Act will continue. The Speaker has promised that MPs' expenses will still be published. But only in summary, not in detail, as they are by the Scottish parliament, and only for now. A future Speaker, elected by MPs, could stop the practice. Mr Maclean, in his loud speech, argued yesterday that he had the public's interests at heart. His fear, he said, was that private letters to MPs might end up being released to the public if they were passed on to public bodies. But there is already legal protection in this area. At most, it needs clarifying and enforcing. No one could produce examples of real difficulties yesterday. If the current act is flawed then the flaw runs more widely than parliament and so should the correction. A sweeping exemption from all areas of the act for parliament alone is undeserved.
Gordon Brown talked encouragingly this week about openness and parliamentary accountability. If he means it, he should make it known that he does not want to see Mr Maclean's unfortunate bill become law.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2083405,00.html
MPs took a big step towards shielding themselves from freedom of information requests yesterday as a move to exempt Parliament from disclosure laws cleared the Commons at the second attempt.
Legislation to remove MPs and peers from the legal duty to release information on request now passes to the House of Lords, where it will be the subject of a presummer battle.
With signs of tacit support from the Government and Conservative front bench, it will need an alliance of Liberal Democrats, crossbenchers and backbench Labour and Tory peers to stop it.
Right-to-know campaigners reacted with dismay after the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, which was presumed doomed after a handful of MPs talked it out in the Commons last month, was forced through by MPs after a classic parliamentary duel.
Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, afterwards accused MPs of giving themselves protection they denied to those they represented and accused Ministers of secretly colluding with its Tory sponsor to let it pass.
“I cannot believe that a Government that is serious about freedom of information would have allowed that to happen,” Mr Frankel told The Times.
It follows moves by ministers to restrict the use of freedom of information powers by limiting the requests campaign groups and journalists may submit in order to curb administrative costs, although there have since been signs of a rethink.
During an ill-tempered debate of four and a half hours, with opponents and supporters using arcane procedural tricks to delay its progress or hasten its passage, its backers faced accusations of using a pretext to put themselves above the law.
David Maclean, the former Conservative Chief Whip who introduced the measure as a Private Member’s Bill, argued that it would prevent MPs’ letters raising confidential concerns of constituents being released by councils, health trusts or other public bodies. Mr Maclean, a member of the Commission that runs the House of Commons, said there were cases of this happening, even though officials should not release such information without consent.
Critics said that data protection legislation should already prevent such incidents, urging better enforcement, and that there was a hidden agenda to exempt Parliament from releasing other information such as MPs’ expenses. MPs have been forced into disclosing details of how much they claim on taxis, trains, flights and other transport after the previous practice of publishing a single figure for each MP’s travel expenses was challenged using freedom of information powers.
Mr Maclean pointed out that the Speaker, Michael Martin, had pledged to continue publishing details of MPs’ expenses. But opponents, led by the Labour MP Mark Fisher, said that such a voluntary offer did not carry the force of law. “People will be aghast and horrified and totally contemptuous of Parliament that we could place ourselves above the law in this country,” Mr Fisher said. “We are going to bring this House into derision, contempt and discredit with this Bill.”
Unusually for a Friday, when typically a small number of MPs debate backbench Bills, 144 took part in the first of a series of votes, many of them government supporters. A group of Lib Dems tried to delay the debate by presenting armfuls of petitions, followed by speeches, but were soon stopped. The motion was carried by 113 votes to 27. During the debate Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said the Government was neutral and did not vote herself.
Staying hidden
— Incidents of internal security lapses with contractors or protesters in Parliament
— Cases of unauthorised access to MPs or ministers’ offices in Commons
— Discoveries or reports of safety shortcomings in the parliamentary estate
— Wasteful spending on construction projects in the Commons or Lords
— Extragavant use of public funds for hospitality, lavish wallpaper or similar
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1811271.ece
The self-serving, mendacious, duplicitous bunch of them should be thoroughly ashamed. Except they won't be. :shame:
Now this...
The House of Commons could have found many useful things to do yesterday afternoon, but voting to exempt itself from the law on freedom of information was not one of them. By 96 to 25, with the collusion of the frontbenches of both main parties, MPs backed a private member's bill excusing parliament from a duty that it has imposed on every other public body in England and Wales. The grounds for doing so were spurious, an exaggerated fear about the exposure of private correspondence that failed to disguise parliament's fundamental distaste for making its inner workings public. The smell of a private gentlemen's club, all beeswax and dusty velvet, hung over the debate, the outcome of which was about as far as it is possible to get from openness and accountability.
Article continues
Only one MP spoke in support of the bill: David Maclean, the former Tory chief whip who has pushed it through with great tactical skill. But 95 other MPs came to vote alongside him. That turnout was in itself unusual for a sunny Friday afternoon, with England well set in the Test match at Lords and constituency work awaiting members' attention at home. For many other private member's bills - say the ones on runaway children or cluster bombs which ran out of time yesterday - a handful of MPs would have attended. Only the indulgence of protecting their own interests kept the numbers up. A small band of critics, from all sides but led by the Liberal Democrats, won the debate but was outgunned in the lobbies.
The practical effect of the bill is uncertain. Given a Commons third reading yesterday, it may sink in the Lords. If it does become law, some of the benefits of the Freedom of Information Act will continue. The Speaker has promised that MPs' expenses will still be published. But only in summary, not in detail, as they are by the Scottish parliament, and only for now. A future Speaker, elected by MPs, could stop the practice. Mr Maclean, in his loud speech, argued yesterday that he had the public's interests at heart. His fear, he said, was that private letters to MPs might end up being released to the public if they were passed on to public bodies. But there is already legal protection in this area. At most, it needs clarifying and enforcing. No one could produce examples of real difficulties yesterday. If the current act is flawed then the flaw runs more widely than parliament and so should the correction. A sweeping exemption from all areas of the act for parliament alone is undeserved.
Gordon Brown talked encouragingly this week about openness and parliamentary accountability. If he means it, he should make it known that he does not want to see Mr Maclean's unfortunate bill become law.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2083405,00.html
MPs took a big step towards shielding themselves from freedom of information requests yesterday as a move to exempt Parliament from disclosure laws cleared the Commons at the second attempt.
Legislation to remove MPs and peers from the legal duty to release information on request now passes to the House of Lords, where it will be the subject of a presummer battle.
With signs of tacit support from the Government and Conservative front bench, it will need an alliance of Liberal Democrats, crossbenchers and backbench Labour and Tory peers to stop it.
Right-to-know campaigners reacted with dismay after the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, which was presumed doomed after a handful of MPs talked it out in the Commons last month, was forced through by MPs after a classic parliamentary duel.
Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, afterwards accused MPs of giving themselves protection they denied to those they represented and accused Ministers of secretly colluding with its Tory sponsor to let it pass.
“I cannot believe that a Government that is serious about freedom of information would have allowed that to happen,” Mr Frankel told The Times.
It follows moves by ministers to restrict the use of freedom of information powers by limiting the requests campaign groups and journalists may submit in order to curb administrative costs, although there have since been signs of a rethink.
During an ill-tempered debate of four and a half hours, with opponents and supporters using arcane procedural tricks to delay its progress or hasten its passage, its backers faced accusations of using a pretext to put themselves above the law.
David Maclean, the former Conservative Chief Whip who introduced the measure as a Private Member’s Bill, argued that it would prevent MPs’ letters raising confidential concerns of constituents being released by councils, health trusts or other public bodies. Mr Maclean, a member of the Commission that runs the House of Commons, said there were cases of this happening, even though officials should not release such information without consent.
Critics said that data protection legislation should already prevent such incidents, urging better enforcement, and that there was a hidden agenda to exempt Parliament from releasing other information such as MPs’ expenses. MPs have been forced into disclosing details of how much they claim on taxis, trains, flights and other transport after the previous practice of publishing a single figure for each MP’s travel expenses was challenged using freedom of information powers.
Mr Maclean pointed out that the Speaker, Michael Martin, had pledged to continue publishing details of MPs’ expenses. But opponents, led by the Labour MP Mark Fisher, said that such a voluntary offer did not carry the force of law. “People will be aghast and horrified and totally contemptuous of Parliament that we could place ourselves above the law in this country,” Mr Fisher said. “We are going to bring this House into derision, contempt and discredit with this Bill.”
Unusually for a Friday, when typically a small number of MPs debate backbench Bills, 144 took part in the first of a series of votes, many of them government supporters. A group of Lib Dems tried to delay the debate by presenting armfuls of petitions, followed by speeches, but were soon stopped. The motion was carried by 113 votes to 27. During the debate Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said the Government was neutral and did not vote herself.
Staying hidden
— Incidents of internal security lapses with contractors or protesters in Parliament
— Cases of unauthorised access to MPs or ministers’ offices in Commons
— Discoveries or reports of safety shortcomings in the parliamentary estate
— Wasteful spending on construction projects in the Commons or Lords
— Extragavant use of public funds for hospitality, lavish wallpaper or similar
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1811271.ece
The self-serving, mendacious, duplicitous bunch of them should be thoroughly ashamed. Except they won't be. :shame: