(IPI/IFEX) – The following is an 8 February 2007 IPI press release: Vienna, 8 February 2007 IPI Says Advance of Private Member’s Bill Further Dilutes UK Freedom of Information Act According to information provided to IPI, on 7 February, a Commons Committee of parliament approved a two-clause bill titled, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill […]
(IPI/IFEX) – The following is an 8 February 2007 IPI press release:
Vienna, 8 February 2007
IPI Says Advance of Private Member’s Bill Further Dilutes UK Freedom of Information Act
According to information provided to IPI, on 7 February, a Commons Committee of parliament approved a two-clause bill titled, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill (“the Bill”) that, if passed into law, will exempt all forms of correspondence between a member of parliament (“MP”) and a public body from the Freedom of Information Act.
The Bill is a Private Member’s Bill sponsored by David Mclean, MP for Penrith and the Border, and it reached the Commons Committee after a second reading in the House of Commons on 19 January. The Bill will now go to the report stage.
Mclean drafted the Bill in response to complaints from MPs that the disclosure of their correspondence would breach confidentiality and inhibit representation of their constituents. Members of the United Kingdom’s upper house, the House of Lords, are also covered by the Bill.
The Bill represents the second attempt at restricting the Freedom of Information Act. Towards the end of 2006, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (“DCA”) initiated a 12-week consultation period on proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act, which focused on proposals to reduce the volume of requests by including a flat fee and aggregating serial requests.
Aside from conducting its own review of the Freedom of Information Act, the DCA is also involved in the parliamentary process for passing the Bill. The Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the DCA, Bridget Prentice, MP for Lewisham East, also sits on the Commons Committee that approved the Bill.
Commenting on the Bill, IPI Director, Johann P. Fritz, said, “The decision to exempt correspondence from MPs and members of the House of Lords is yet another direct assault on a law that was passed by a government committed to making the political process in the United Kingdom more open and transparent.”
“I am concerned that, if passed, the Bill will create yet another blanket exemption to the Freedom of Information Act. Although I note that there has been an attempt to tighten the language, I am still concerned that Ministers of the Crown, who are either MPs or members of the House of Lords, will be able to use this Bill to avoid releasing embarrassing or uncomfortable facts.”
“I also find it difficult to believe that the work of MPs and others will be jeopardised by the Freedom of Information Act. There is already adequate protection under the Data Protection Act for citizen’s and it is more than likely that any media interest in such correspondence will occur after any need for privacy has passed.”
“By creating such a prohibition, the Bill is essentially saying that the correspondence of the United Kingdom’s MPs, which is written on behalf of those who elect them, should remain hidden, possibly in perpetuity. That is a deeply unsatisfactory situation for a country that prides itself on its open democratic processes.”
“I am also uncomfortable with the fact that a Bill substantially benefiting MPs is being decided by MPs. In such situations, there should be greater emphasis on the views of outside experts during a full and proper consultation period,” added Fritz.
