May 18 2007
Only 25 MPs vote against proposal to exempt Parliament from freedom of information law
When it came to the Third Reading of the bill to remove Parliament from the public bodies that have to disclose information, there were only 25 of us who voted No.
There were three successful motions to close down debate on the issue during the course of the proceedings. Proposers of amendments did not get to speak to their amendments. Many of us who wanted to speak had no chance to because time was so rationed.
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.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
JR, you are one of the few who has behaved honourably in this debacle. Those who seek to exempt themselves from scrutiny on the fig-leaf of constituent confidentiality have forgotten who employs them and who pays for the salaries and expenses they claim.
And don’t I recall being told by so many new labour drones when I’m concerned about civil rights being eroded that “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” ?
I can only conclude those in the “aye” lobby do indeed have something to hide.
[Reply]
“Parliament has shot itself in the foot again” - and the Bill was introduced by a Conservative, David Maclean! What is happening to Conservative MPs? How many of them voted for this rotten bill? What leadership did David Cameron show in opposing this or was he in favour also? Can we hope that the Lords will save the Commons from further public opprobrium when they consider this bill?
[Reply]
Things like this and the exemption on the Health Act to the public smoking ban on Parliamentry bars really do show up politicans in a bad light. I hear the EU members staged a revolt at attempts to ban smoking in their offices. I also notice Parliament has exempted itself from the requirements of the Equalities Act 2006. One stupid rule for the rest of us and another for the MP’s is the impression everyone gets. Then they have the nerve to ask why people don’t vote!
[Reply]
John, my compliments to yourself, Richard Shepherd and James Clappison for having the decency to vote against this disgraceful attempt to avoid public scrutiny. Those Conservative members who voted in favour of David Maclean’s Bill have let the party down badly and sent out a clear signal to the public that too many MPs see themselves as deserving of special treatment at a time when the public is being forced to submit to ever more scrutiny from the state.
[Reply]
Well done, John. Isn’t this just one of a whole series of anti-democratic measures? I’m afraid there is no way that Mr Maclean can redeem himself in my eyes. I hope others share my view.
[Reply]
Thank you John for reminding me why I chose to align myself with the Tory Party.
Would the last Tory to leave the party please turn out the lights?
I think this phrase sums up a lot of people’s feelings this week.
[Reply]
[...] John Redwood voted against the exception and succinctly summarises why he felt it was unnecessary. Bravo John. [...]
Dear Sir, I just wanted to congratulate you on a principled vote. To be honest, I’ve not followed your career for some time, but this is certainly a stand-out moment for you - well done. Thank you for trying to keep accountability alive. Sincerely, Mike Kingscott
[Reply]
This way I suppose none of us will find out who has a cigarette at work when the rest of us are denied the pleasure.
[Reply]
Bravo on you for having the integrity to see this proposal for what it is. I can only hope that David Maclean’s constituency party ask him what he’s got to hide?
[Reply]
Utterly disgraceful, Maclean’s bill has not gone down well in the country at all- Well done for opposing it, unfortunately where were the rest of your party to vote this down ?
[Reply]
Dear Sir, I agree completely with Stuart Fairney (above), “If they’ve nothing to hide, they’ve nothing to fear”, the perception in the public eye is that there’s one rule for them and one rule for us, and we wonder why there’s voter apathy ?
I can completely understand wanting to keep correspondence between MPs and their constituents confidential, can this not be covered by something live the Client - Attorney priviledge, or Doctor - Patient priviledge ? The public would be happy with that, but regardless of what Mr Maclean claims is the aim, at the moment, the PERCEPTION is that the bill is there to protect MPs, not their constituents.
Congratulations on having the courage to vote in the interests of the public (which is what I though MPs were supposed to do) !
[Reply]
When a person in Parliament tries to introduce this sort of Legislation, and those who have seconded the bill it would be a very good idea to take a look at what they themselves are trying to hide. Did they vote against the declaration of members interests, are they being honest in what they are declaring? will the proposed legislation give MP’s a reason and justification to stop obeying to fulfil the declaration of members interests
Get it stopped Mr Redwood
[Reply]
Dear Mr Redwood
Reading the article on you in the IIRSM newsletter. I have been involved in H&S since 1987 and would like to offer any help that I can in adding you to reduce the volume of H&S legislation.
I believe in the health and safety at work act [HSW] as it is simple and straight forward. I do not believe in the industry that has been built up and around the HSW. There are quite simply too many words.
Why have people complicated what is after all a simple thing. Keeping people alive and well is not difficult but many of the simple activities are ignored because they are surrounded in a mammoth volume of civil service jargon and legal speak. The legal terminology used puts people off.
Good luck with your venture
Bill Morrison
Reply: Thank you for the offer of help. My deregulation team looked at this when we prepared the Economic Policy Review, published as “Freeing Britain to compete” this summer. (available via this website). I would be happy to look at any proposals you moght have, which would help an incoming government to make the right changes in this important area.
[Reply]
Dear Mr Redwood
I was somewhat ashamed when my Member of Parliament voted for the forementioned bill has it any chnace of becoming law.
Reply: Which Bill?
[Reply]
The freedom of information bill
[Reply]