A Very British Revolution

The present imbroglio over MPs Expenses and Allowances and, indeed, their salaries, is but a symptom, albeit a substantial one, of a serious disease that is the disjunction between governing and governed. If MPs think that they can bind this one over with Elastoplast and then carry on as before it would be unsurprising but nonetheless a grievous misjudgement.

We know, of course, that the political class has become ever more contemptuous of the people over whom they lord it.

Witness the reaction of the Blair Junto to the online petition concerning road-pricing wherein a massive number of people took the trouble to sign themselves up in support of it. Not long afterwards it became plain as a pikestaff that the relevant government departments were still pushing ahead at full speed with plans to introduce a wider range of road-pricing schemes. The Little People had been given their say, platitudinous utterances about the government ‘listening’ to the message were uttered and the petition was then consigned to the shredder.

Even more contemptuous are they of the desire of the British people to give or to withhold their consent to the EU Constitution. Every poll held on the topic over the last couple of years had demonstrated (to a level far beyond even the most cautious of pollster’s margin of error) that we want to have our say on the Treaty of Lisbon yet they feel free to patronise us with our being too stupid to understand the gobbledygook that is the Treaty (au contraire, the fact of it being in gobbledygook makes us understand it only too well) and, laughably, that the Treaty is somehow different from the Constitution rejected in 2005 by France and the Netherlands.

The problem is that it is the very conceit that they somehow actually do lord it over us that is fast unravelling. With the outbreak of the Expenses scandal fast on the heels of the much more serious ‘Donorgate’ and Hain donations scandals (Conway’s sin has been all about the enrichment of himself and his family whereas Labour’s scandals have been acts of political corruption aimed at sustaining the Labour gerrymander whereby Labour is maintained in political power for ever and a day), the political elite has taken to peering out of the windows of the Palace of Westminster at the angry crown of insurgents that has mysteriously emerged without warning.

Martin Bell, as I recounted, recently went to his former constituency of Tatton and described its denizens as being ‘in a state of insurrection’. They, of course, have had recent experience of serious, grubby sleaze of the self-enrichment variety (Neil Hamilton and the ‘cash for questions scandal of the crepuscular Major years), so they might be forgiven for be even more insurrectionist than the rest of us. But it is possible to detect from every comment section of every article that touches upon the subject online visceral anger at the activities of MPs as this concerning the Goldenballs couple, for example.

The immediate result of all this has been that the three main political parties have been falling over one another in their rush to appease us with fresh measures designed to deliver transparency to the expenses business. The problem is, however, that such efforts are thus far hopelessly inadequate.

Today David Cameron has had another stab at the problem and what he has said his front benchers will now have to do vis-à-vis their expenses is welcome but still hopelessly inadequate; in addition, Mr. Cameron indicated that there is still resistance to any sort of transparency being introduced into the system, which suggests that those who are resisiting have not visited their constituencies recently.

But it was his failure to answer Nick Robinson’s question about the suitability of David Maclean being the Tory representative on Mr. Speaker’s committee that has been appointed to pull the wool over our eyes in the matter of MPs expenses. That spoke volumes concerning the unwillingness of the political elite seriously to address the mess into which they have got themselves. Maclean was, notoriously, the MP who introduced and guided to a Third Reading in the House of Commons the Freedom of Information (Suppression Amendment) Bill, the object of which was to ensure there was no freedom of information whatsoever concerning MPs expenses.

The problem for all MPs now is that one of their number has set a benchmark of openness which will make all their efforts to get out of the ordure look deliberately obfuscatory, Ben Wallace (Con. Lancaster and Wyre) having published his 2006/2007 expenses in the sort of detail that is required for the Scottish Parliament of which he was once a member.

But, as I say, the expenses thing is merely a symptom. The main problem for the political elite is that the electorate is becoming all too aware through argument over the EU Referendum of the fact that MPs no longer do terribly much by way of governing us and legislating for the British people. Now that 80% of all forms of legislation is made in Brussels by unelected foreign bureaucrats, legislation which has to be nodded through the Parliament of the United Kingdom without so much as a comma being added by the legislative Eunuchs we are pleased to elect as MPs.

This, along with all the arguments against ratification of the EU Constitution, is something which we need to ram home at this moment when our electorate is so alive to the notion that they are being cozened by Labour and the Liberal ‘Democrats’ about the true effect of this Treaty.

The question thus arises as to whether Mr. Bell’s ‘insurrection’ is a sign that a very British revolution is taking place the object of which is to force our elected representatives to do the job that we would like them to do: to be the members of a Sovereign Parliament with plenipotentiary powers to act in the interests of the British people.

If so, MPs had best have a care: thus far it is a fairly civilised revolution. But as we have been exhorted to become more European in all things, they must have a care lest we decide to adopt the European mode of revolution: after all there is a convenient space in Parliament Square for a guillotine with no need for any tumbrills as the first victims might be found close at hand……..

I jest, of course, but the point is a serious one. The mood of the people over whom they lord it is febrile and so unlike the British that it is difficult to predict whither it will take us all. The sooner they start to take us seriously, the better for all.

MPs forced to divulge further details of expenses

The Information Commissioner has made a ruling today concerning the issue of MPs expenses (HERE). The effect of this is that further general details of sums paid to MPs as Additional Costs Allowance, such as the total amounts piad for such things as mortgages, ulitiy bills, insurance and so on, must be disclosed, although, as we argue below, the ruling does not go far enough.

“The complainant asked for copies of original submissions with copies of receipts, rental agreements, or mortgage interest statements from six named MPs in 2001/2, 2002/3 and 2003/4 under the Additional Costs Allowance. The House of Commons refused the request on the grounds that it was personal data and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner found that the House does not hold rental agreements or mortgage interest statements in respect of all the six named MPs. The Commissioner decided that the requested information is personal data and that its fully itemised disclosure would be unfair. However he has decided that it would not contravene the data protection principles to disclose information showing the totals paid under specified headings within the Additional Costs Allowance. He has therefore ordered disclosure of the total amounts claimed by reference to each of these headings.”

The linked PDF file says this:

“The Information Commissioner’s decision strikes the right balance between transparency and accountability for public expenditure and the private lives of MPs and their families. The Information Commissioner has ruled that the total amounts claimed by some individual MPs under the additional cost allowance - the regime for MPs to reclaim expenses for running one home close to Westminster and one in their constituency - should be released under specific headings. These include: mortgage costs; hotel expenses; other food; service charges; utilities; telecommunications charges; furnishings; maintenance & service agreements; cleaning; insurance; basic security measures; other. The Commissioner ruled that, as expenses are claimed directly by MPs in relation to their public duties, the public has a right to know the total amounts claimed under these specific headings.”

With great respect to the Information Commissioner, the generality of this decision is wrong in principle. There is a legitimate public interest in some of the details that he has concluded should remain private being subject to full disclosure.

We do not include amongst these items an MP’s telephone or gas bills, nor is there any legitimate interest in the furnishings he or she may have or what steps to insure and secure the premises may have been taken or what his arrangements are with Mrs. Mopp the cleaning lady.

There is, however, we submit, a legitimate and overriding interest in the nature of the ownership of any house or flat in respect of which the additional cost allowance is being made. In addition there is also a legitimate interest in who the Mortgagor of any property is.

Suppose, for example, the MP is claiming mortgage expenses when the house or flat is not in his or her name? Or the house or flat is jointly owned with another person, in particular a member of his immediate family? There is a legitimate interest in examining this information so that the MP can demonstrate that the allowance is being made for the purpose for which it is intended, namely reimbursing a payment he would not need to make unless he was an MP, rather than simply enriching his family’s coffers.

Alternatively, suppose that the mortgagor of a house he or she is ostensibly buying is a company of which the MP is a major shareholder. Then it would be legitimate to have this information so that the electorate can see that the whole transaction is open and above board and that the Taxpayer is getting genuine value for money. Similarly if the MP was the shareholder of a company owning a block of flats, one of which was leased by the MP, there is a legitimate public interest in having full details of this so that a check may be kept on whether the rental claimed represents a genuine a transaction rather than one which was deliberately inflated so as to cause an unjust financial benefit to the MP.

We also have a quibble concerning allowances made for food. On what possible basis can a claim for food be made? MPs have to eat, come what may and is not forced to eat extra because he is away from home. We ought to have full details of why he needs to be recompensed for food.

For complete transparency details of mortgage and rental payments ought to be placed Online, together with all other expenses claims, so that an MPs claims for expenses can be seen to be entirely above board. Appropriate redactions can be made to protect sensitive details such as those of bank account details, of course, but there is, we feel, no reason why most of this information should not be in the public domain.

The bad, but utterly predictable news is that The House of Commons is almost certain to appeal against the Information Commissioner's ruling.

When passing laws for ID cards or new powers of ‘stop & search’, MPs are the first to say “if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide”. Well then, MPs surely have nothing to worry about in being open and above board about their expenses, do they? So, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

Instead they seem determined to resist at every turn the reasonable and legitimate desire of the Taxpayer to ensure that their money is being properly spent. Even if all is above board, they seem quite bent on raising the strong suspicion that some of them, at least, do have something to hide.

Progress At Last

The news that David Maclean’s shabby little Bill has been smothered in its cot will be welcomed in many quarters. It comes as no surprise that Maclean was unable to find a sponsor in The House of Lords, given that his Bill had acquired the status of a hot iPod offered for sale down your local pub for a tenner.

It seems to have escaped the attention of the press that the Government Whips Office had a big hand in getting this Bill through Third reading. During the final debates no less than eleven out of thirteen Whips voted for the Bill on procedural matters and on the final vote nine out of thirteen did so. Seventy-six out of the ninety-five supporters of the Bill’s Third Reading were Labour members, thirty six of them members of the Government (including PPSs).

This had become a de facto Government Bill.

No wonder, given how many Labour member’s expenses had come in for searching scrutiny in the press.

What now?

Firstly all must be on their guard against some sly, underhand, cheapjack plot to reduce in any way the present level of information concerning MPs and Peer’s expenses. One would not put it beyond Straw and the Whips to have another go whilst we are not looking since the effort they put into getting this one through Parliament suggests considerable determination to cover up their felonies which in turn suggests that the level of scrutiny and coverage so far has really touched a raw nerve: ie they realize they have been caught red-handed!

Secondly, given the damage that this distasteful episode has done to the reputation of Parliament and MPs, has not the time come to shame them into establishing ONLINE Registers of MPs and Peers expenses as has already been done with considerable success by the Scottish Parliament?

(See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/MSPAllowances/searchGuidance.htm)

An ePetition calling upon the Government to do precisely this has been started on the No. 10 website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mpexpensesonline/ and a Draft Bill that provides a framework for both such a scheme and for criminal sanctions for those who make false or reckless claims whilst applying for their expenses from the authorities is proposed at http://www.freewebs.com/mpsexpensesregisterbill/. Perhaps readers might care to support the petition if they think it a good idea or to comment one way or the other.

Maclean's Bill Dies Unloved

According to ConservativeHome (HERE), The Times (HERE) and The Daily Mail (HERE) and doubtless others, Maclean's Freedom Of Information Amendment Bill 2007 has failed to find a sponsor in the House of Lords and it would appear that it has now met its just desserts at the hands of their Lordships who have, not for the first time, shown a great deal more sound commonsense than their elected counterparts in the Commons.

Whilst there remains a theoretical chance that a Peer may yet be found to do Maclean's dirty work at the crossroads, perhaps we can now give thanks that we still have a House of Lords that is not a mere mirror of the Commons and that is a repository of that sort of commonsense and good judgement that tells them to run a mile from this sort of self-indulgent and self-destructive behaviour on the part of the Commons.

News from the Trough

If ever one needed a clear demonstration of why we need an Online Register of MPs and Peer's Expenses, this report from today's Mail on Sunday should be the complete answer.

Of particular significance is this paragraph:

"The Commons authorities refused to say how much money is paid out to MPs for European trips. A spokesman said: "The House authorities are not prepared to comment on how many Members are in receipt of this allowance nor whether there have been refusals of claims."

It seems that our political elite is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of open and transparent government. What possible reason can they have, however ludicrous, for preventing the taxpayer from knowing the details of and analysing the use or misuse of expenses paid out for MP's junketing?

The reason, in case you had somehow not guessed it, is that they know the truth is shocking and that publishing the details will reveal a serious and disgraceful scandal in the way some MPs are simply having a good time at our expense.

HERE you can sign the ePetition to get our lords and masters to put their expenses online.

Slow Progress

Trying to interest the press in a petition of this sort is a trying experience. There is much of the chicken and egg about it: they are not interested unless you are getting lots of signatures and you are going to find it hard to get a real sackful of signatures unless the press take an interest in your petition. Hrmph!

There has been a kind response from the Blog "Burning Our Money": Blogger Wat Tyler has been very complimentary and has agreed to blog the petition and add a link for which one is very grateful.

Thus far ten signatures: oh well, Rome was not built in a day!!

Maclean's Bill Hits The Skids

LibDem MP John Hemming is reporting HERE that the Lord Trefgarne is no longer sponsoring David Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2007. On the face of it a private member's Bill which is unable to attract a sponsor in the Lords will not proceed and will therefore fail to become law.

This is excellent news as it will leave MP's expenses subject to the status ante quo, to wit that a fair amount of information concerning MP's expenses will continue to be available to the electorate.

That does not, however, obviate the need for a completely open and transparent system of having every detail of MP's and Peer's expenses available online, subject only to the requirements of the personal security of the individual MP or Peer or their employees. Thus nothing which discloses banking or credit card details will be available.

Many MP's and Peers will doubtless complain bitterly that this is an unacceptable intrusion into their privacy. Intrusion it certainly is but this is part of the price they are having to pay in order to restore public confidence in the system of salaries, pensions, allowances and expenses. In this case the public interest in having a full open disclosure online of all these details far outweighs their privacy.

It may be that there is a very very occasional item where a proper case can be made for withholding some or all details of some particular item. Rules can properly be devised to allow for an application to withhold details but it should be clear that such an application can only be granted for the most exceptional matters and that the MP or Peer will have to clear a very high hurdle in order to succeed.

The strong presumption must be in favour of full disclosure of every application for the payment of allowances and expenses, including those applications which are refused. If this is brought into force there is every reason to believe that, when no more Xmas iPods and Fish Tanks are being paid for by the public we will see a real slimming down of Parliamentary Expenses.

Petition goes online

The petition was approved today at about 5 p.m. Now I shall be getting on with the business of getting out some press releases and informing slected journalists who have written on the MPs expenses theme recently as well as relevant blogs.

Further details in due course.

Help Yourselves!

One aspect of the fall-out of the Labour ‘Cash for Peerages” and ‘Cash for Access’ culture which this Dead Duck Prime Minister has done so much to foster is the impact it may have upon the funding of political parties.

The taxpayer should beware what the political elite has in mind for their money. Plan ‘A’ is for political parties to receive a big annual dollop of public money based upon a formula that will give each party £0.50p a year for each vote cast for it at the previous general election, plus £0.25p for every vote it secured in elections to the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.

Other proposals seek to cap the amount of any one donation to £50,000 which will be resisted by Labour who rely on six-figure handouts from their political masters, the Trades Unions. But it is the proposal to dole out £25 million to political parties that will stick in the craw of the British people.

Our political elite already have their snouts firmly stuck in the trough of public money: now they want more. Such a system already exists in Germany, for example, yet German politicians have continued to be involved in scandals concerning political fundraising. This proposed largess will have the immediate and deleterious effect of making our political parties even more detached and remote from their own activists, let alone ordinary voters, In future they will not have to go out so much on the ‘rubber chicken circuit’ and spend interminable evenings being harangued about the virtues of nationalizing the railways or bringing back the birch: the money will arrive every month in the party bank account, all ready for whatever junket the politicians can devise for themselves.

This scheme will simply entrench the existing parliamentary parties still further, making it yet harder for a new party to break into the mould. Party politics will atrophy as the parties no longer have to go out and work for their funds. The activists and the ordinary voter will find themselves at an ever greater remove form their party leaders who will rarely deign to bother with a fundraising event unless it’s a £1000-a-plate champagne supper to meet and greet the great and the good.

Not one single brass farthing should be given to political parties. They should have donations capped at £50,000 a throw and the existing funds now given to them (The so-called “Short Money”) should no longer be paid. One sure way of forcing politicians to get to grips with real people with real problems and aspirations is to force them out of the MetroBubble into the real world to compete for the more modest donations of ordinary citizens. If a party cannot raise the funds to stay in business, then it does not deserve to survive. Paying parties fat sums of Taxpayer’s money will simply have the same effect that propping up Nationalised industries, creating a class of fat lazy inefficient complacent political parties that do not have to work to maintain a relationship with ordinary voters.

Not the least important factor here is the body of polling evidence which so strongly suggests that electors do no want to see their political parties funded out of public money. For politicians to vote themselves a further heavy dollop of their cash would be, of itself, to widen the chasm between governing and governed. You would have thought that politicians would recognise this easily for themselves, but, so filled with amour propre are they that they believe we actually love and value them such that we would not notice an extra £25 million or so. They are hopelessly deluded if they think that we care for them enough to bankroll without question all the spin, smears and lies.

MPs in New Expenses Scandal: ipods, Plasma TVs and Fishtanks

The Times other story about the scandal of MPs expenses clearly demonstrates that when it comes to shoving their snouts into the trough, some members of our political elite are quite out of control.

As The Times reports (HERE), one claim was made for a Plasma TV and a fish tank. What is almost remarkable than that fact alone is that the Commons authorities allowed the claim. The fact of the making of the claim is a real jawdropper in the first place but that it was allowed is mind-boggling.

Holly Watt and Robert Winnett go on in their excellent piece to reveal that in the run up to Christmas 2006 there was a sudden run of applications for iPods.

As MPs gobble up £87 million in expenses a year at the moment, there is a clear and urgent need for them to be reined in. Nobody thinks they should be deprived of expenses and allowances that genuinely reflect the work that is necessary for them to hold Government to account but one is quite confident that a fish tank or a nice iPod at Christmas is not necessary for that task.

One way in which all these excesses could be curbed is by placing online a register of MPs and Peer’s expenses with full details of all claims made (even if disallowed) together with their supporting materials. This is particularly important given MPs current desire to hide their expenses from the Taxpayer by their disgraceful support (mostly from the Government, in particular the Whips Office) for MP David Maclean’s Freedom of Amendment Bill 2007 which will have the legal effect of permitting MPs to refused to reveal their expenses.

Quite why MPs are unable to follow the excellent example of Phillip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering who only claims £50,000 (the average being £131,000), is a matter for anxious debate.

MP Derek Conway in Expenses Imbroglio

Yet more scandalous news on the MPs expenses front as more snouts are discovered at the bottom of the trough.

The Times has clearly got a mole working somewhere in the system, to judge by two reports it has carried in recent days, each of which will on its own outrage the British Taxpayer, especially now it takes so long to reach ‘Tax Freedom Day’. This post deals with the first such.

Firstly on 27^th. May The Times had THIS on Sir Edward Heath’s successor, Derek Conway (Con. Old Bexley and Sidcup). He is evidently not shy about employing members of his family.

Let us take the case of his son, Frederick Conway. He is a full-time University Undergraduate reading geography with a view to graduating this summer. One may infer from that that he is working at full stretch in order to ensure he gets the best possible degree for his future employment prospects. One wonders therefore how he can fit in the sort of hours research for his MP Father at the rate of £981.00 per month (£11,772 per annum). Let us say his work is worth £20 per hour, a pretty good rate for someone without a degree: that represents some 49 hours per month research, 11 hours per week. It simply beggars belief that Mr. Conway the only person he could find to be his researcher is his as yet unqualified son who just happens to be going through the rather expensive business of going through university.

It does not end there though. The Rotten Borough of Old Bexley and Sidcup also sees the employment of Mrs. Conway as Mr. Conway’s registered parliamentary assistant at a salary of £3271 per month (£39, 252 per annum). Taken together with his MPs salary of £60,277, there is a gross income per annum of £111,301 flowing into the Conway Gravy Bowl. Nice work if you can get it.

Conway, as The Times reports, has previous, it seems, having, in 2005-6, claimed £4,072 for car mileage, which can be claimed for journeys between home, Westminster and the constituency, and for travel up to 20 miles outside of an MP’s seat on local business. Conway’s claim would equate to about 1,000 trips between Westminster and his constituency. He also claims, of course, a full whack of the allowance for a second home nearer Westminster even though his constituency is, according to www.multimap.com, 12.2 miles from Westminster. In 2004/2005 he was, according to www.theyworkforyou.com the highest such claimant; in 2003/2004 he was the 3^rd. highest such claimant; in 2002/2003 he was again the highest such claimant; In 2001/2002 he was the 2^nd. highest such claimant. See HERE.

Whilst all this is no doubt absolutely legal according to the rules governing allowances, the question is whether this sort of thing ought to be legal.

This story once again demonstrates clearly the need for complete transparency concerning MP’s and Peer’s expenses and allowances. Putting them online with complete detail in the way the Scottish Parliament does is the only way we are going to begin to get to grips with our high-spending political elite. In particular we should be able to have a declaration from each claimant MP or Peer concerning the existence of any relationship, by blood, marriage or other degree of intimacy or even business with anyone who is a recipient of Taxpayer’s money.

ePetition Rejected and resubmitted

No 10 has rejected the petition on the basis that the application contained references to Websites (which were the website containing the draft bill and the Blog for news of the petition. The application has now been amended and the ePetition resubmitted. As that was their only objection, there is no reason why it should not appear almost immediately, but do not hold your breath.

No response from No 10

As yet the ePetition has yet to appear on No 10's site. I do hope they put it up shortly otherwise I shall finger them for trying to suppress it.

MP in new expenses scandal

This Sunday Times story (here) amply demonstrates why we need a Bill of this kind. Unless and until our Parliamentarians are made to understand that they must near all and must not resort to any form of actual or perceived self-enrichment or enrichment of those with whom he or she has the bonds of blood, marriage or personal intimacy.

We Pay For Them!

MP'S EXPENSES

YOUR right to know how MPs and Peers spend YOUR money is being subverted by MPs and the Government!

VOTE NOW FOR AN ONLINE REGISTER OF MP'S EXPENSES

SUPPORT THE BILL BY SIGNING THE ePETITION

On Friday 18th. May 2007 Parliament voted to give a Third Reading to Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill 2007. This Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill promoted by former Tory Chief Whip David Maclean (Penrith & The Border), has been put forward as being necessary to protect the correspondence of constituents with MPs and of MPs with ministers concerning the affairs of their constituents.

In reality the Bill is nothing less than a blanket exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 of both the House of Commons and The House of Lords, so placing most aspects of the workings of Parliament beyond scrutiny of the Press and the Public.

As the Headnote puts it the bill seeks 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 will thus be seen that the protection of the correspondence of Members is but a secondary objective of this Bill. It does not take much intelligence to appreciate that the correspondence which this Bill and its supporters seek to protect are already amply protected by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. If such correspondence is not so protected, then it would be a simple matter to amend that Act to achieve the desired result. Instead a Bill which is of far wider application has been presented and now given its third reading. Why is a blanket exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 needed to achieve the stated objective?

The effect of the Bill, if it finally passes into law, will be to prevent any person from finding out anything about the Houses of Parliament, its operation and its costs . One particular thing which has been singled out, and which critics of the Bill say actually lies behind it, is that the Bill would prevent any information concerning MPs and Peer's expenses from being made public. Recently detailed material about how individual MPs spent YOUR money was published and it was quite obvious that MPs did not like the exercise at all, bringing as it did uncomfortable questions seeking the justification of high-spending MPs for their apparent profligacy.

Promises have been given that this is not the intention of the Bill and that, voluntarily, (how kind), The Speaker will ensure that such details continue to be available.

Frankly this promise is one which the average taxpayer and elector ought to treat as not being worth the paper upon which it is written. If the LAW is that the Houses of Parliament are exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 then any MP or Peer unwilling to allow his or her expenses to be exposed to the light of day and thus scrutiny by those who pay for them could invoke the provisions of this Bill and as a matter of law prevent their disclosure, whatever promises might be given by The Speaker. And who is to say that a subsequent Speaker would honour such a promise? Given the reputation of MPs in the early years of this Millenium, why should we believe a single word they say on such a matter?

By this Bill the political elite of this country seeks to put itself above, even outside the law, arrogantly asserting that there indeed is one law for us, the general public and one law for them, our political masters.

Private Members Bills normally stand but little chance of passing into law. This Bill appeared at one stage to have fallen by the wayside but further time was mysteriously found for it to proceed. Again normally do not receive any Government support, but on this occasion, as the voting list which is published here, substantial and unexpected support from Labour members emerged when the vote on the Third Reading of the Bill took place on 18th. May 2007. Surprisingly some 25 Tories also supported this Bill. They in particular should be ashamed of themselves.

Commentators suggest that the Government is tacitly in support of this Bill. This is unsurprising since the Government has recently been showing signs of wanting, by underhand means such as charging exorbitant fees, to emasculate the workings of the Freedom of Information Act, having discovered that far too much embarrassing and discreditable information is getting into the public domain because of the effective use journalists are making of it. There are also signs that the Tory front bench is not unopposed to this Bill: certainly they have made no effort to urge Conservative MPs to stop this Bill in its tracks. Whatever David Cameron may now be saying about this Bill and the need to stop it from getting on the Statute Book, he and his Front Bench team were conspicuous by their absence last Friday. It is only the weekend's highly critical comment that has stirred him into life. Better late than never!

Gordon Brown seems not to be against it for one of his principal Lieutenants and political friends, Ed Balls, voted in favour of the Bill. Balls is Treasury Economic Secretary under Brown.

Far more significantly, however, out of 13 Government Whips, 11 voted during various divisions on the Bill, of whom all were in favour of the Bill. These were Jacqui Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip) Alan Campbell, Claire Ward, David Watts, Frank Roy (Lords Commissioner), Liz Blackman, Ian Cawsey, Michael Foster, Huw Iranca-Davies, Stephen McCabe and Jonathon Shaw (Assistant Whips).

At Third Reading, of the 76 Labour supporters of the Bill, no fewer than 36 were members of the government (including Parliamentary Private Secretaries). Labour made up 76 of the Bill’s 95 supporters, the Tories providing the rest. Nine of those voting in favour of the Bill were at this stage Government Whips (out of a total of thirteen in the Government Whips Office).

What conclusion might one draw from these facts? Firstly it is the presence in the ‘Aye’ lobby of nearly all the Government Whips which catches the eye. Why should so many of them have a sudden concern for the sanctity of member’s correspondence? Is it a coincidence that the promoter of the Bill just happens once to have been the Conservative Chief Whip? These facts give a very strong whiff that this Bill is in fact a creature of the government, if not by original inspiration, then by de facto adoption. The enthusiasm of the Government’s Whips for this exercise is, surely, the clue to this Bill’s true godparents. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from these facts is that this is a de facto Government Bill in all but name.

Given that the Government, faced with more and more skilful investigation by journalists and others, has become distinctly chilly towards the Freedom of Information Act 2001, here was a perfect vehicle for the Government to start the process of rolling back the freedom of information tide, promoted by a backbench member of the Opposition (who just by chance happens to have been the Tories’ Chief Whip). Here too was a perfect way to curry favour with their own backbenchers whose allowances and expenses would otherwise be exposed to the cruel exposure of journalistic daylight, an apparently risk-free vehicle to subvert the nation’s right to know without leaving too much tell-tale DNA behind.

This is a shabby little Bill being promoted for disgraceful and dishonourable motives. If the new Prime Minister and David Cameron wish to be seen as being serious about the concept of ‘open government’, then it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate their commitment by making an immediate and strong call for all their supporters to oppose this Bill. If they fail to make such a call, then we shall all know that they support this tawdry little Bill and that, in truth, they are, whenever they talk of ‘open’ government, being utterly hypocritical.

Politicians in this country have managed in recent years to bring their reputation down to something on a par with second-hand car salesmen and spivs. This Bill must surely have damaged their reputation further. The time has come to bring them up sharp.

In order to shame these shameless people into killing this disgraceful proposal to put MPs and Peers above the law, a Draft Bill has been prepared and an ePetition advocating its adoption has been placed on on the 10 Downing Street ePetition site at: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

Since last week there has been substantial press and other condemnation of the Bill and suggestions that Gordon Brown may now try to kill the Bill. Sadly many people do not trust such promises, therefore the public must act to send Parliament a message that it wants complete openness concerning their expenses.

In Scotland an Online Register of MSP's expenses already exists and operates without fuss. To view the MSP's online Register see The Scottish Parliaments Webstie @

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/MSPAllowances/searchGuidance.htm

Please visit the ePetition and signify your support for it.

VOTING RECORD FOR THE THIRD READING OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDEMENT BILL 2007

Key Adrian Bailey = Member of Government

FOR

Labour

Graham Allen, Janet Anderson, Adrian Bailey, Sir Stuart Bell, Clive Betts, Liz Blackman, Nicholas Brown, Colin Burgon, David Cairns, Alan Campbell, Ronnie Campbell, David Clelland, Harry Cohen, Wayne David, Parmjit Dhanda, Brian H. Donohoe, Frank Doran, Jim Dowd, Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Clive Efford, Jim Fitzpatrick, Caroline Flint, Michael Foster (Worcester), Mike Hall, Tom Harris, Doug Henderson,John Heppell, Keith Hill, Huw Irranca-Davies, Kevan Jones, Martyn Jones, Fraser Kemp, David Lammy, Bob Laxton, Tom Levitt, Ivan Lewis, Tony Lloyd, Khalid Mahmood, David Marshall, Thomas McAvoy, Steve McCabe, Ian McCartney, John McFall, Shona McIsaac, Tony McNulty, Gillian Merron, Alun Michael, Laura Moffat, Elliot Morley, George Mudie, Meg Munn, Denis Murphy, James Plaskitt, Stephen Pound, Ken Purchase, John Robertson, Frank Roy, Joan Ryan, Martin Salter, Jonathon Shaw, Jim Sheridan, Siôn Simon, Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough), Anne Snelgrove, John Spellar, Ian Stewart, Mark Tami, Dari Taylor, Gareth Thomas, Dr. Desmond Turner, Claire Ward, Tom Watson, Dave Watts, Malcolm Wicks, Phil Woolas, David Wright,

Conservative

Bob Ainsworth, Peter Atkinson, Simon Burns, Sir John Butterfill, James Duddridge, Tobias Ellwood, Julie Kirkbride, Greg Knight, Dr Julian Lewis David Maclean, Robert Neill, Andrew Pelling Mark Pritchard, John Randall, David Ruffley, David Tredinnick, Anne Widdecombe Ann Winterton, Sir Nicholas Winterton,

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Andrew Dismore

AGAINST

Labour

Jeremy Corbyn, Jim Cousins, Frank Field, Mark Fisher, Neil Gerrard, Kate Hoey, Dan Norris, Sir Peter Soulsby, David Winnick

Conservative

James Clappison, John Redwood, Richard Shepherd, Philip Hollobone, John Maples

Liberal Democrat

Norman Baker, Lorely Burt, Tim Farron, Sandra Gidley, Julia Goldsworthy, Evan Harris, David Howarth, Simon Hughes, Susan Kramer,

Plaid Cymru

Hywel Williams

Respect

George Galloway

Tellers for the Noes: Alan Reid and Jo Swinson

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070518/debtext/70518-0012.htm#07051822001730