I have had a dozen or so letters complaining about the effrontery of MPs when they passed a private member's bill to amend the Freedom of Information act which would have the effect of exempting Parliament from it. The accusation is that MPs are trying to have one law for themselves and another for everyone else. The press reports spoke of collusion between the Government and Opposition front benches in order to secure the passing of the bill. This is simply not true: David Cameron told me in terms the week beforehand that he opposed the bill, and I was also present when he issued instructions to Tory peers to block the bill in the House of Lords. So how is it that the bill's sponsor David Maclean is a Conservative MP (and a former Chief Whip)? well let me make it absolutely clear that a private member's bill is exactly that: private, in that they are not whipped by party managers and they are left entirely to the discretion and judgment of MPs as individuals.
I did not, myself, vote on the Friday in question because I had long standing and important constituency engagements. The fact is that the parliamentary week has changed significantly during my time as an MP. It used to be the case that important government business often took place on Fridays and members were therefore in the habit of making arrangements to be at Westminster. This is no longer the case and Fridays are now entirely given over to private members' business. Members of Parliament, therefore, have developed a quite different habit of being in their constituencies on a Friday and will only come to Westminster if they have a bee in their bonnet about a bill that is to be debated on a particular Friday.
In order to succeed a private member's bill has to be very limited in its scope and almost entirely uncontroversial. This is because there is so little time for such bills and also so many procedural devices available to any opponents in order to derail them. That David MacLean's measure has survived this far against all the odds is quite extraordinary, and is probably as a consequence of covert Government support. The easiest way to wreck a private member's bill is to 'talk it out' by using all the time available with long winded speeches and so prevent the House coming to a decision. The only way that a bill's supporters can stop this is through a 'closure motion' which requires the backing of at least100 members. Now, getting 100 members to support you on a Friday is a major undertaking. The only MPs habitually in London on a Friday are members of the Government: whips and ministers, and it was disproportionately these who voted for the closure motions necessary to secure David Maclean's bill.
So, now to the substance of the Bill. David Maclean, a privy councillor and a former minister; did just not wake up one morning and dream up this bill. He is a member of the House of Commons Commission, which is chaired by the Speaker and is responsible for management of the House of Commons. The Commission has been increasingly concerned about the publication of MPs correspondence by public bodies in response to information requests under the Freedom of Information Act. As David Maclean had secured a slot in the ballot for private members' bills he sponsored a measure to deal with the problem and had the backing of the whole of the House of Commons Commission.
For my own part, I did not feel as strongly as David Cameron did against the bill and my attitude was somewhat ambivalent. I thought the bill was unwise because it was bound to be interpreted and presented by a hostile media as an attempt by parliamentarians to cover something up that they wish to hide. For this reason, I did not support the bill. On the principle of the bill, however, I do not accept the accusation that was made in the press that there was any danger to the practice of publishing members' expenses, and indeed the Speaker has made it clear that whatever the fate of the bill, this practice will continue: expenses claimed by MPs from parliamentary allowances will continue to be published whatever happens.
As to the key issue of the privacy of MPs correspondence, there is already a measure of protection afforded under the Freedom of Information Act: the Information Commissioner can adjudicate any disputed request and has the discretion to rule against publication. One is at the mercy, however, of the Commissioner's discretion rather than having he certainty of an exemption. In any event a case may never reach the Commissioner's desk: a public authority may release a file without dispute and notwithstanding the fact that it contains correspondence from an MP. So why should an MP expect such privacy? as elected and accountable figures have not the public a right to see what they have written?
On balance that is probably right, but there is a price to be paid. Every week constituents bring their cases to me. Many are the victims of unfair procedures, others will have had administrative or quasi judicial decisions go against them. They expect me to go out to bat for them against the public bodies about which they complain. In doing so I have written some very candid letters indeed. Now that I know that there is a significant possibility of those letters coming into the public domain I may be less candid in future, and as a consequence perhaps less effective. |
