David Maclean has already secured his place as a footnote in the history of state secrecy — by becoming the first British Member of Parliament to attempt to water down the UK Freedom of Information Act.
The Tory MP has presented a private members’ bill which will get its second reading in Parliament today.
The long title of Maclean’s Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill is: “A bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to exempt from its provisions the House of Commons and House of Lords and correspondence between Members of Parliament and public authorities.”
It does what it says on the tin — it is an attempt to add another exemption to the many that already exist within the FOIA, which came into force just two years ago.
Last month, Maclean explained the rationale for his billl to his local paper, the News & Star in Cumbria:
If someone approached me and asked for a letter sent to the police or a council about a constituent, I would tell them to go away. But there have been cases where the other body can be approached and things slip through the net.
I want to make sure this cannot happen.
The move would protect constituents and MPs. If an MP writes to their chief constable trying to get off a driving ban – that is totally different. I am flagging up the issue but I expect nothing will happen.
The fact is, Maclean’s fears are unfounded: truly confidential information about private individuals is already exempt from disclosure, under section 40 of FOIA. Anyone who has made a few FOI requests knows that officials just love citing the s40 exemption when blacking out every name before releasing a document. Mr Maclean’s constituents can rest easy.
Parliamentarians should not be attempting to exempt themselves from the same potential future scrutiny that all other people face when they write to a public authority.
Maclean’s bill is unlikely to get anywhere, of course. The far more serious threat to Freedom of Information in Britain remains the Government’s scheme to change the FOIA fees regime in order to make it easier for officials to reject FOI requests on cost grounds.
(Hat tip: Steve Wood’s excellent UK FOIA & Open Government Blog)
Pingback: UK Freedom of Information Blog
trouble is this bill has now received its second reading UNAPPOSED. This bill is likely to pass through committee stage.
I have suggested that everyone write to their MP’s asking why this bill is passing unapposed, ask them why they are taking away your right to know, and remind them that they work for you.
http://tinyurl.com/3x22x9
Tiny Url not working for some reason this morning.
the full URL is;
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/1/22/2672382.html
Presumably this will also cover e.g. the Commons Library? Currently the only known published location of a number of important documents – not public as such, but nonetheless available via FOI as and when necessary – e.g.when departments try to hide their reports despite ministers announcing publication, putting copies in the library and nowhere else.
Pingback: Martin Stabe » FOI (Amendment) Bill progresses in Parliament
Pingback: Martin Stabe » How the FOI (Amendment) Bill slipped through
Pingback: Martin Stabe » MP pledges Early Day Motion backing FOI campaign
Pingback: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
Our MP’s continue to disappoint. The rationale for this Bill is a “smoke screen” for MPs . A more like reason is to deny the public access to their expense records and history. This is why a private members bill is receiving so much support.
Looked at an earlier article on your site that said the real danger (to freedom of information) was rejecting enquires on cost grounds, i had taken this on board, but this comment also said “David Macleans bill is unlikely to get anywhere of course”, underestimation in the depths of infamy that our present crop of Politicians are prepared to go.
“Take away that fools bauble, the mace”-Oliver Cromwell addressing Parliament 1653. No point in being a cynic, these people will top you every time.
Yeah, turns out I got that one pretty wrong, huh. Who would have thought a Private Members Bill would have got so far.
Only if it counts for the people that count.