3
Summer 2007 Bulletin
Bill to Exempt British Parliament from FOIA Passes House of Commons, but Unlikely to Become Law
In a move toward government secrecy in the United Kingdom, the British House of Commons approved an exemption for Parliament from the nation’s Freedom of Information law in May 2007.
According to The Guardian of London, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which passed the House of Commons May 18 and now sits in the House of Lords, would make the spending records and communications of Members of Parliament (MPs) confidential and inaccessible to the public.
The bill was introduced by Conservative MP David Maclean, a chief Tory whip from Scotland, in April 2007. According to The Guardian, because Maclean is a “backbencher,” and not a party leader, the success of his bill so far is unusual. The (London) Times reported that Maclean first introduced the measure on the premise that it would protect the privacy of MPs’ constituents in their communications with their representatives.
According to The Times, The Campaign for Freedom of Information called the broad exemption “unnecessary,” since letters between MPs and constituents are already protected by two separate exemptions under the current Freedom of Information Act 2000: one for “disclosures which infringe the Data Protection Act” and another for “those constituting a breach of confidence.” According to its Web site at http://www.cfoi.org.uk/, The Campaign for Freedom of Information is a non-partisan, non-profit group “working to improve public access to official information and ensure that the Freedom of Information Act is implemented effectively.”
When the bill was first introduced in the House of Commons in April, it received intense criticism from the British press. The bill was not expected to pass the House of Commons because it was unpopular with the British public and highly controversial among MPs.
According to the rules of Parliament, a bill must be brought to the House of Commons for three “readings” before it can be voted on. In addition to the MP introducing it, a bill needs a co-sponsor to be eligible for a vote. When the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill was brought to the house for its “first reading,” no one agreed to co-sponsor it. However, according to The Birmingham Post, the bill received adequate sponsorship when it was reintroduced eight days later for its “second reading,” and when the “third reading” of the bill took place in the House of Commons on May 18, the measure passed by a broad majority of 71 votes.
The day after the House of Commons approved the measure, Labour Party MP David Winnick told The Guardian, “[The bill] will be the height of hypocrisy if Parliament, having passed the freedom of information legislation, decided that we should be exempt from it.”
Opponents of the bill tried to block it before the final vote in the House of Commons by “talking it out,” a practice similar to that of the filibuster used in the U.S. Congress. If opponents had been able to keep the vote from being made before 2:30 p.m., May 18, the measure would have been ineligible for a vote, according to The Birmingham Post. The Post reported that MPs working to block the bill brought up everything from petitions from their constituents about building noise to a bucket placed in the Commons building hallways, which was called a “substantial trip hazard” by Liberal Democrat David Heath. During his speech on the topic, Heath called for an investigation into the matter of the bucket.
Despite these efforts, Maclean and other proponents of the exemption bill managed to stop the delaying tactics by demanding a vote according to established rules of order. The Birmingham Post reported that, during the debate on the bill itself, “arguments in the House of Commons were heated and intense.” Maclean accused his opponents of “going all out” to destroy his bill, and when Constitutional Affairs Minister Bridget Prentice announced that the government’s position with regard to the bill was neutral, the response in the House of Commons was a wave of derisive laughter, according to The Post.
Reports in numerous British media including The Guardian, The Times, and The Birmingham Post reflected a widespread suspicion that Maclean has had covert help from the government in passing the exemption. The Birmingham Post reported that many MPs had chosen to support it out of fear that if they did not, they would be “forced to reveal details about mortgages on London homes which in some cases are subsidised by the taxpayer.” According to The Post, the majority vote in the House of Commons suggests that most MPs would rather not be exposed to scrutiny over how they spend public money. Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a grassroots organization which opposes tax increases, told The Guardian that the bill’s passage showed that Parliament members “don’t think taxpayers have a right to know how their hard-earned money is spent, and in some cases wasted.”
MPs opposing the measure have been outspoken. According to The Birmingham Post, MP Winnick stated at the final vote on the bill that there have been no complaints about the release of private information about MPs or their constituents. Tory MP Richard Shepherd concurred, calling the bill “dreadful” and stating that if it was really meant to protect correspondence, the bill was not necessary. Labour MP Mark Fisher said after the vote, “it is inevitable that [the exemption bill] would bring this House into complete contempt and into the ridicule of the public.” According to The Guardian, Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes commented after the vote that “this has been a shameful day for the House of Commons. MPs should set an example of open government, not apply it to everybody but ourselves.” The Guardian reported that Hughes appealed to the House of Lords to “deliver us from this terrible mistake.”
A group of British Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that support freedom of expression worldwide, including English PEN, Index on Censorship, and Article 19, have written a letter to new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking him to oppose the bill.
As of press time, no member of the House of Lords had agreed to sponsor the bill, according to the Campaign for Freedom of Information. The House of Lords is in summer recess until Oct. 8, 2007. “It now seems extremely unlikely that the Bill could make progress in anything like its current form” before the legislative session ends in October or November 2007, the Campaign for Freedom of Information reported on its Web site. However, “if a sponsor is found, it is possible that the Bill could still be introduced in October,” the campaign said.
The full text of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill is available online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/062/07062.i-i.html#jo1.
– Sara Cannon
Silha Center Staff
University of Minnesota | College of Liberal Arts | School of Journalism and Mass Communication
