Secret Troughs!

jambutty · 28-05-2007, 12:06

As I understand it the correct way to address the envelope for a letter to your Member of Parliament is:
Right Honourable <name><initials of any middle names><surname> MP

Well there is nothing honourable about the current bunch of MP’s if the latest opt out of the Freedom of Information Act is anything to go by.

I am a bit surprised that no one on this forum has had their say about when recently out of 650 odd MP’s less than 100 actually voted on the motion to exempt MP’s from the Freedom of Information Act and less than 20 voted against the motion. At least those who did vote had the moral fibre to show publicly where they stand. As for the rest I can only label them as spineless, morally deficient and self-serving, greedy pigs.

Hopefully the House of Lords will throw out the motion.

Members of Parliament are in effect employed by the citizens of the UK to represent them in the House of Commons and as employees, the employer (us) has a right to know what they get paid, what expenses they claim and for what purpose. In short the financial expenses of Parliament should be in the public domain and open to scrutiny and comment.

I don’t know where my MP stands on this issue but I intend to try and find out and also make my views known. It would be nice if everyone did the same.

And now I hear that MP’s are considering debating whether the public purse should fund the political parties.

garinda · 28-05-2007, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I am a bit surprised that no one on this forum has had their say about when recently out of 650 odd MP’s less than 100 actually voted on the motion to exempt MP’s from the Freedom of Information Act and less than 20 voted against the motion. At least those who did vote had the moral fibre to show publicly where they stand. As for the rest I can only label them as spineless, morally deficient and self-serving, greedy pigs.

It was discussed in this thread.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...r-30627-4.html

Wynonie Harris · 28-05-2007, 19:22

[quote=jambutty;429834]I don’t know where my MP stands on this issue but I intend to try and find out and also make my views known. It would be nice if everyone did the same./quote]

Jambutty, your MP, who I believe is Janet Anderson, was one of the hundred or so members who voted to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act. I trust that you will be making your views known to her!

Greg Pope didn't vote at all. I wonder if he could come on here and explain to his constituents why not?

Apart from the 20 or so MPs who voted against the motion, it seems to me that those who represent us (including the prime minister-in-waiting) are quite content to live by the maxim "do as I say, not as I do".

jambutty · 29-05-2007, 09:57

[quote=Wynonie Harris;429957]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I don’t know where my MP stands on this issue but I intend to try and find out and also make my views known. It would be nice if everyone did the same./quote]

Jambutty, your MP, who I believe is Janet Anderson, was one of the hundred or so members who voted to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act. I trust that you will be making your views known to her!

Greg Pope didn't vote at all. I wonder if he could come on here and explain to his constituents why not?

Apart from the 20 or so MPs who voted against the motion, it seems to me that those who represent us (including the prime minister-in-waiting) are quite content to live by the maxim "do as I say, not as I do".

You can rest assured that the Right Dishonourable Janet Anderson MP will get both barrels from me.

I don’t for one moment suppose that it will do any good but it will make me feel better.

I wonder if there is a petition against the motion on you know who's web site?

Wynonie Harris · 29-05-2007, 13:09

This whole sheenanigans is a complete and utter disgrace, reminiscent of East European communist states in the days of the Cold War.

The Tory MP who was behind this move claimed that it was to protect confidential information on constituents contained in MPs' correspondence from being revealed but there are already exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act as it stands to cover this. When it comes down to it, those who rule us simply don't want us to see the extent of their self-serving greed.

The fact that both the Labour and Tory frontbenches colluded to ensure that this exemption was passed shows that this greed extends to the very top in British politics.

And now that MPs have put themselves above the law on this issue, what's the betting that they'll do the same on other issues too?

Greg Pope · 29-05-2007, 15:22

Hi, I'm happy to explain where I stand on MPs and freedom of information. First of all I didn't vote on this Bill because, like most MPs, I had arranged to spend that Friday on meetings in my constituency (some Fridays like that one are set aside for Private Members Bill which MPs don't have to be there for. Most MPs had already made long standing arrangements when this Bill came forward). However, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in favour of publishing MPs' expenses; I published mine on my website before MPs had to do so and I still publish them in advance of most MPs - I believe strongly that the people have a right to know exactly how much I cost the people. I am opposed to exempting Parliament as whole from the Freedom of Information Act - obviously the same rules should apply to Parliament as to ther public bodies.

However, there is a problem that does need addressing even if this Bill is the wrong way of going about it. Some correspondence from MPs on behalf of constituents has ended up in the public domain because of the FOIA and it seems that the current Data Protection rules aren't adequate to prevent this - I do believe that people have a right to confidentiality when they go to see their MP.

garinda · 29-05-2007, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Pope

Hi, I'm happy to explain where I stand on MPs and freedom of information. First of all I didn't vote on this Bill because, like most MPs, I had arranged to spend that Friday on meetings in my constituency (some Fridays like that one are set aside for Private Members Bill which MPs don't have to be there for. Most MPs had already made long standing arrangements when this Bill came forward). However, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in favour of publishing MPs' expenses; I published mine on my website before MPs had to do so and I still publish them in advance of most MPs - I believe strongly that the people have a right to know exactly how much I cost the people. I am opposed to exempting Parliament as whole from the Freedom of Information Act - obviously the same rules should apply to Parliament as to ther public bodies.

However, there is a problem that does need addressing even if this Bill is the wrong way of going about it. Some correspondence from MPs on behalf of constituents has ended up in the public domain because of the FOIA and it seems that the current Data Protection rules aren't adequate to prevent this - I do believe that people have a right to confidentiality when they go to see their MP.

Thank you, it's good to know where you stand on this issue.

Some of the people who support the bill seem to suggest that confidential information isn't covered by the Data Protection Act. According to this article, it seems that it quite clearly already is. So unless they have something to hide, no MP's should be supporting this Bill.

It's bad enough, come July, that the only place exempt from the smoking ban will be the House of Commons. The laws of the land should be applicable to all.

'For correspondence between MPs and constituents is already protected under the data protection legislation. Mr Maclean knows this because he perfectly explained the situation to the House. As he said, when a third party attempts to access a file containing a letter from a Member of Parliament to a public authority, an officer of the public authority should consult the Member and should look at the file, and then should make a decision on whether it should be released. If it contains personal information, the officer of the authority should invoke the Data Protection Act 1998 and should not release it.'

Andreas Whittam Smith: The MP, his quad bike and a phoney scare story - Independent Online Edition > Andreas Whittam Smith

Gayle · 29-05-2007, 16:11

Thank you for telling us where you stand on this Greg.

What does bother me though is the low number of MPs that are allowed to vote on the issue. I realise that when bigger issues are at stake the majority of MPs show up but how is it that things are allowed to go through with only a scant turn out?

cashman · 29-05-2007, 16:18

good to know that mr pope, but someone out in parliment should kick off big-time about this as its nothing more than DECEIT.

jambutty · 29-05-2007, 17:19

Quote:

It's bad enough, come July, that the only place exempt from the smoking ban will be the House of Commons. The laws of the land should be applicable to all.

I didn’t know that garinda. Thanks for sharing. Time to amend my letter to my MP. Fortunately I hadn’t sent it off yet.

No doubt the debate and vote was set for a Friday in the knowledge that many if not most MP’s would be away at their constituencies and they wouldn’t have to take any responsibility if the bill was passed in favour of the Freedom of Information Act not applying to MP’s. It’s just too much of a coincidence. I wonder how many got crushed in the stampede for the door before the debate?

For a bill to be passed is there a minimum number of MP’s voting to make it legal? Surely 90 odd out of 650 odd is way outside what normal committees are bound by. That is usually a quorum of half the members and often two thirds for any decision to be valid.

Can I suggest that the bill was passed when MP’s were not quorate and surely that doesn’t make it legal?

Maybe Greg Pope could confirm that there should be xxx MP’s voting before a bill is passed.

This whole issue stinks of gerrymandering.

andrewb · 29-05-2007, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I didn’t know that garinda. Thanks for sharing. Time to amend my letter to my MP. Fortunately I hadn’t sent it off yet.

No doubt the debate and vote was set for a Friday in the knowledge that many if not most MP’s would be away at their constituencies and they wouldn’t have to take any responsibility if the bill was passed in favour of the Freedom of Information Act not applying to MP’s. It’s just too much of a coincidence. I wonder how many got crushed in the stampede for the door before the debate?

For a bill to be passed is there a minimum number of MP’s voting to make it legal? Surely 90 odd out of 650 odd is way outside what normal committees are bound by. That is usually a quorum of half the members and often two thirds for any decision to be valid.

Can I suggest that the bill was passed when MP’s were not quorate and surely that doesn’t make it legal?

Maybe Greg Pope could confirm that there should be xxx MP’s voting before a bill is passed.

This whole issue stinks of gerrymandering.

As far as im aware it dosn't require a certain number of MP's to be present.

There are 464 MP's not 650, just to add a little correction.

I was going to post what Greg did, the low turnout was because it was a friday and most MP's are in their constituency. I'm not *entirely* sure but if its a private members bill I think it has to be on one of the later days of the week because the early ones (like wednesday) are taken up by other parliamentary business?

Wynonie Harris · 29-05-2007, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Pope

Hi, I'm happy to explain where I stand on MPs and freedom of information. First of all I didn't vote on this Bill because, like most MPs, I had arranged to spend that Friday on meetings in my constituency

OK, Greg, fair enough, but I'm still not clear where you stand on this. Supposing you had been there - how would you have voted? Because on the one hand you're saying that you're in favour of MP's expenses being published, yet you think this bill is the wrong way of going about it. Seems like a classic case of fence-sitting to me!

I'd also like to take issue with you on your view that correspondence between MPs and constituents has ended up in the public domain because of the FOIA. Gary has already highlighted a perfect example of this sort of scaremongering which is being used as smokescreen to get this exemption through. It's my understanding that Section 40(2) of the FOIA exempts information whose disclosure would be a breach of the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act. And as the article that Gary has brought to our attention highlights, there are practically no instances of this happening, anyway.

What is most disgraceful, in my view, is the fact that the front benches of the two major parties could have killed this private member's bill stone dead. They deliberately chose not to - a classic illustration of the contempt which they have for us mere mortals who pay their wages - and expenses!

jambutty · 29-05-2007, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

As far as im aware it dosn't require a certain number of MP's to be present.

There are 464 MP's not 650, just to add a little correction.

I was going to post what Greg did, the low turnout was because it was a friday and most MP's are in their constituency. I'm not *entirely* sure but if its a private members bill I think it has to be on one of the later days of the week because the early ones (like wednesday) are taken up by other parliamentary business?

Sorry Cyfr but according to the list of MP’s at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ there are 645 of them, which isn’t 650 odd either.

It was a Private Members' Bill - Introduced by David Maclean

jambutty · 29-05-2007, 18:10

Maybe Greg could answer this question?

Is there a minimum number of MP’s required before they can vote for a bill to be passed? If so what is that number?

garinda · 29-05-2007, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I'm not *entirely* sure but if its a private members bill I think it has to be on one of the later days of the week because the early ones (like wednesday) are taken up by other parliamentary business?

There are thirteen Fridays throughout the year, set aside for Private Member's Bills.