Forum Topic

MP's Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act

I saw  this posting on the Ealing Forum posted by Colin Vaughan. It says everything that I wanted to say, I have also posted it on the Chiswick W4 with Colin's approval. Let us know what you think? I note that The Commons has just passed an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, that exempts MPs from revealing their personal details. Many were against this move,including Simon Hughes among others, who says that it will bring Parliament further into contempt with the Public, and indeed it is set to get a rough ride in the Lords. It is said that this ammendment is designed to protect constituents from having personal correspondence revealed, but apparently the DATA protection Act already does this. The real reason this ammendement was brought in was actually it is alleged, to avoid MPs having to reveal finacial information perks etc. Democracy in this Country it appears, has suffered another blow the arrogance of it all shows no bounds.

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6587d15 Comments

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, ruled earlier this week that the public had a right to know more about the "Additional Allowances" claimed by parliamentarians like Ann and Alan Keen.As a result of this decision, a breakdown will be published for each MP, specifying the total amounts spent on mortgages, hotel expenses, food, services charges, utilities, telecoms bills,furnishings, cleaning, insurance and security.

David Giles ● 6554d

Those of you that like me find this attempt to ammend the FOI act disgraceful may want to sign this petition: http://ourcampaign.org.uk/foiAndrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6581d

AlanI'm sorry but this just won't do.  You have never answered the question is respect of the K££ns' expense claim for a  second home, and you continually refuse to do so.  If you can please point me to just one posting which you have made on this forum, or any other forum, at any time ever, giving a substantive or meaningful answer to this question then I will respond to yours.On the question of councillor allowances, there are proposals afoot to substantially increase these across the board throughout London and indeed across the country.  Hounslow has not yet done so but my guess is it will.  Many of those councils which have increased allowances to recommended levels, and many more which plan to, are Labour councils.  Do you condemn these councils, or just those which are not controlled by your party?  If, as I suspect, the answer is the latter then your question does not deserve a reply.It is typical of your party's arrogance that you continually refuse to answer questions put to you by those whom you consider to be your lessers, yet demand that they respond to yours.  Who do you people think you are, that you can be dumped from office so unceremoniously after 35 years and still harbour such delusions of grandeur?  Or, as my old German teacher from Co. Donegal used to put it: "I don't know who you think you are, but you're not!".When/if the question of increased councillor allowances in Hounslow arises I will address all reasonable questions through this forum, as I have begun to do already.  I do not belong to your political school of thought which seems to hold that if a question is ignored long enough it will go away, or somebody like Vanessa will come along to tell us to stop asking it.  I have more respect for my fellow human beings.What I will say is that the allowances being suggested for councillors and for portfolio holders in particular are those which somebody, somewhere considers are at the correct level for the job we do.  Some would say the figures suggested are too high.  Some might say they are not high enough.  Others would argue that being a councillor should be entirely voluntary and that we should not be remunerated in any way whatsoever.  These are all legitimate viewpoints where they are sincerely held.Whatever one's view, there is no similarity at all between this and MPs who live nine miles from their place of work and claim from the taxpayer for the purchase of a second home so that they can be nearer to their place of work.  What is at issue in this case is not quantum, but the basic morality of the claim itself.  That you fail to understand this tells me all I need to know about the kind of ethics which drive your once great party today. If you are looking for a more reasonable comparison, how would you feel if I were to travel to the Civic Centre by bus every day and claim for the cost of a taxi ride?  Or buy a house in Lampton Road and send you the bill?

Phil Andrews ● 6586d

HI PaulI have answered this question on numerous occassion. In the interests of openness can you tell us what plans your Tory/ICG Party have to increase councilors expenses in Hounslow?

Alan Sheerins ● 6586d

If you don't already know, here is a list of the contemptible lot who voted for the amendment to the F.O.I Act. which prevents you and I from asking and knowing about their expenses. But please note it only exempts THEM nobody else!Division No. 119]      AYESAinsworth, rh Mr. BobAllen, Mr. GrahamAnderson, JanetAtkinson, Mr. PeterBailey, Mr. AdrianBalls, EdBarker, GregoryBell, Sir StuartBetts, Mr. CliveBlackman, LizBrown, rh Mr. NicholasBurgon, ColinBurns, Mr. SimonButterfill, Sir JohnCairns, DavidCampbell, Mr. AlanCampbell, Mr. RonnieCawsey, Mr. IanChope, Mr. ChristopherClark, PaulClelland, Mr. DavidCoaker, Mr. VernonDavid, Mr. WayneDhanda, Mr. ParmjitDjanogly, Mr. JonathanDonohoe, Mr. Brian H.Doran, Mr. FrankDowd, JimDuddridge, JamesDunne, Mr. PhilipEagle, AngelaEagle, MariaEllwood, Mr. TobiasFabricant, MichaelFitzpatrick, JimFlint, CarolineFollett, BarbaraFoster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)Francois, Mr. MarkGardiner, BarryGodsiff, Mr. RogerHall, Mr. MikeHammond, StephenHarris, Mr. TomHenderson, Mr. DougHeppell, Mr. JohnHill, rh KeithHollobone, Mr. PhilipHurd, Mr. NickIrranca-Davies, HuwJones, Mr. KevanJones, Mr. MartynKemp, Mr. FraserKirkbride, Miss JulieKnight, rh Mr. GregLammy, Mr. DavidLaxton, Mr. BobLevitt, TomLewis, Mr. IvanLloyd, TonyMaclean, rh DavidMacShane, rh Mr. DenisMahmood, Mr. KhalidMaples, Mr. JohnMarshall, Mr. DavidMcAvoy, rh Mr. ThomasMcCabe, SteveMcCartney, rh Mr. IanMcFall, rh JohnMcGovern, Mr. JimMcIsaac, ShonaMcNulty, Mr. TonyMerron, GillianMichael, rh AlunMorley, rh Mr. ElliotMudie, Mr. GeorgeMunn, MegMurphy, Mr. DenisNeill, RobertNorris, DanO'Brien, Mr. MikePound, StephenPrentice, BridgetPritchard, MarkPurchase, Mr. KenRandall, Mr. JohnRobertson, JohnRoy, Mr. FrankRuffley, Mr. DavidRyan, JoanSalter, MartinShaw, JonathanSheridan, JimSimon, Mr. SiônSmith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)Smith, rh JacquiSnelgrove, AnneSpellar, rh Mr. JohnStewart, IanSutcliffe, Mr. GerryTami, MarkTaylor, Ms DariThomas, Mr. GarethTredinnick, DavidTwigg, DerekVara, Mr. ShaileshWard, ClaireWatson, Mr. TomWatts, Mr. DaveWicks, MalcolmWinterton, AnnWinterton, Sir NicholasWright, DavidTellers for the Ayes:Mr. Tim Boswell andMr. Andrew Dismore

Account suspended ● 6586d

You are right, I should not have said "at every opportunity".  I ought to have said "at selected opportunities".However, back on the main topic I am not at all sure that the majority of the electorate are familiar with all the facts surrounding these expense claims.  Many I spoke to during the last general election campaign asked "why shouldn't an MP claim expenses?".The fact of the claim was universally known, but the reason for it and thus the obvious conclusion that the money was effectively being taken under false pretences - even if technically legal - was not by any means understood by all.  Ann K££n and her followers had counted on this and they knew they had gotten away with it, hence the knowing smirk between them at the count on polling day when the results were being read out.If I was still a member of the National Front, or if there was the slightest jot of evidence to suggest that I still supported it other than wishful thinking, I would expect you and other critics and opponents to point the fact out whenever the opportunity arose, and you would be right to do so.  The K££ns' trangression is of course of a vastly different nature, but the principle is the same.

Phil Andrews ● 6586d

I think you are being just a tad disingenuous with your allegation of me "going on about it at every opportunity" (your previous membership of the N.F.) that is patently not the case. But I can if you'd like, the point is nearly everyone knows now,and you took the chance that if you fronted it out you'd get away with it, and people would believe you are a reformed character, and you have. I still think that it is the system that allows M.Ps to do these outrageous things that needs to be attacked and changed, it seems obvious to me that we are not about to get an explanation from the local M.Ps, so I think we can all draw our own conclusions, namely there is no justification in moral terms.

Vanessa Smith ● 6586d

VanessaI do criticise all MPs who pull the same stroke.  Why should I not?  For instance I believe there is a Conservative in East London who lives a similar distance from Westminster as the K££ns and does exactly the same thing.  He is extracting the urine every bit as much as they are.  But when all is said and done he is not my MP, Ann K££n is.I agree that the system needs changing, but who is going to change it?  Don't you think that if Gordon Brown's government were to propose such a change Mrs. K££n might just change the habit of a lifetime and vote against her leader?  And others like her?And does the fact that the current system leaves a loophole for the unprincipled and mercenary to exploit excuse their doing so?  They are supposed to be setting an example ffs.I also think it's a tad rich for you of all people to be lecturing me about banging drums and boring the pants off people.  I left the National Front eighteen years ago and have denounced everything it stands for more or less ever since that day, but that doesn't stop you going on about it at every opportunity.  Ann and Alan K££n are still fleecing their constituents as I write, and you want myself and others to just stop mentioning it in the hope that everybody will simply forget it's happening and go out and re-elect them so that they can stiff us for yet another £140k during their next term of office.  Talk about double standards.

Phil Andrews ● 6586d

Well if you want to go on banging that particular drum and bore the pants of everyone that's your affair, but you might have a bit more credibility if you asked about all of the M.P's who are doing exactly the same thing. However, much as I think they are extracting the urine, they have not broken any law, they have taken advantage of a system that allows these abuses, shouldn't that be the thing under attack?

Vanessa Smith ● 6586d

Apparently the Bill has still got to pass through The Lords before returning for final ratification, lets hope their Lordships will make life sufficiently difficult for the protagonists of all this, that on its return , the majority will see sense, and realise that to pass it will only bring them into further contempt, and make the 'Pass the Polling Station By' party even larger than it is now.

Colin Vaughan ● 6586d

Posted on the ChiswickW4 site,By Richard Jennings......According to Hansard, neither of the Keens nor Andy Slaughter voted on the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill.  Only 140 MPs out of 646 voted.

Hugh Telford ● 6586d

Indeed, this disgraceful bill had cross-party support and shame on the lot of them.But on the subject of the K££ns I'm sorry, but there is no political statute of limitations attached to their unjustified, unjustifiable and continued policy of fleecing the taxpayer for the cost of a second home which they patently do not need.  For as long as they continue to claim this money and to refuse to answer any questions relating to it, it is reasonable that the electorate should continue to be reminded.  If this causes them or their party embarrassment then I'm sorry but there is a simple solution - they could always stop doing it!

Phil Andrews ● 6587d

Yes, yes we all know about the Keens - but just remember they are not on their own, can we please have a change of record this is mighty tedious now.Back to the original subject - the original proposal was from a Tory, and the whole thing is a bloody disgrace, for once I agree with Simon Hughes, they ALL ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. As they are so fond of telling us - if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

Vanessa Smith ● 6587d

The alleged risk to constituent information and casework is nonsense. As local councillors in Hounslow the Data Protection Act requires us to ensure that any personal information we might hold on record is secure and non-disclosable. This looks very much like the "one rule for us another for the rest" approach that has dominated Westminster for decades. Let's remember that their bars never closed while the rest of us were subject to licensing hours. I'm not sure yet whether the smoking ban will apply to the Houses of Parliament, but there were certainly some MP's who wanted to arrange an exemption for themselves.

John Connelly ● 6587d

I thought it was absolutly disgraceful and in my opinion is just to hide their expenses.Alan Sheerins,what do you think about this bill and the K££ns expenses? cue a blundering Mr and Mrs K££n are the best things since slice bread etc answer

Paul Fisher ● 6587d