Support 100 years of independent journalism.

23 May 2007

An unholy alliance of Tories and Labour

The Lib Dem leader explains that when it comes to Freedom of Information there shouldn't be one rule

By Menzies Campbell

Last week David Maclean’s Bill to curb Freedom of Information laws for MPs was passed in the House of Commons. This was a self-inflicted blow by Parliament which will deeply damage its reputation.

The Bill was voted through by an unholy alliance of Conservative and Labour MPs.

It was also given unofficial support from the Government which, unusually, did not block it at Second Reading and instead appeared content to have its own Freedom of Information Act watered down.

The Liberal Democrats do not believe that there should be one law for MPs and another one for everyone else. Exempting politicians from Freedom of Information requests only adds to the public perception of Parliament being opaque and clouded in secrecy.

The Bill removes any obligation for MPs’ expenses to be made public. But, the expenses of other public figures and senior officials such as judges, councillors and civil servants remain accessible under FOI legislation.

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A weekly dig into the New Statesman’s archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
I consent to New Statesman Media Group collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with the Privacy Policy

It also means that members of the public would not be able to find out the advice or policy opinions that their own MP had expressed to public bodies.

Supporters of the Bill say that they are concerned about preventing constituents’ correspondence from being disclosed. But, correspondence about constituents’ personal affairs which contains personal data is already exempt from the Act and also protected by the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

Of all public figures, MPs have the least right to be exempt from public scrutiny. We are elected to represent our constituents’ interests and to maintain high standards in public life.

Before the debate last Friday I invited Gordon Brown to live up to the welcome sprit of honesty and transparency that he has been pledging during his leadership campaign by speaking out in opposition of the Bill. His failure to do so will have profoundly disappointed many people who wanted to see the Prime Minister in waiting stand up for the openness and accountability of MPs. Since than Ed Balls has begun the process of rowing back, no doubt by arrangement with his Chancellor but the damage has been done.

I welcome David Cameron’s comments making clear that the Conservative will try to stop the Bill in the House of Lords. It is a great pity that he did not make his opposition to the Bill known last week when Conservative MPs worked to push it through the Commons.

The Bill will now go to the House of Lords and I am renewing my call on Gordon Brown to ask Labour peers to stop this it.

My colleagues and I have launched a petition calling on people from all political persuasions to make clear their opposition to the Bill. This can be accessed by clicking here. I urge all readers of the New Statesman to sign up to the petition, write to a member of the House of Lords and campaign to defeat this squalid bill in the House of Lords.

Topics in this article: