Blog
Constitutional reform revision: freedom of information
18th May 2008
MPs and your right to know
A Freedom of Information Act was promised in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, and the intention was to bring the UK into line with many other democracies that allow access to state and personal documents.
The bill was delayed and when it was finally presented it was a significantly watered down version of what was originally promised. The Act passed in 2000 did not come into effect until 2005 and was criticised by campaigners due to the number of exemptions it carried. Information was not to be released, for instance, if it were to cause harm to national security or the catch all exemption of “public interest”.
At best it was seen as a small step in the right direction of opening up government, and this week the Act has been in the news since the High Court has ruled that MPs must reveal details of their expenses.
According to the BBC website:
“The House of Commons has lost its High Court battle against a decision to force disclosure of MPs’ expenses.
The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal’s “unlawfully intrusive” demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given.
The Freedom of Information (FOI) request at the centre of the dispute asks for a detailed receipt-by-receipt breakdown of expenses for 14 MPs and former MPs, including Mr Brown and Tory leader David Cameron.
The original demand for a detailed breakdown of the additional costs allowances of 14 MPs and former MPs was made under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Information Tribunal said the breakdown should be given, but the battle was then taken to the High Court by the Commons Commission.
MPs were criticised when the so-called “John Lewis list” of household items was published earlier this year.
All of them could be bought using the second home allowance, and included £10,000 kitchens and £6,000 bathrooms.
Commons Speaker Michael Martin was himself criticised when it emerged that his wife had claimed £4,139 on taxis - largely for shopping trips.”
This promise of disclosure forms part of a twin set of stories out this week on Freedom of Information.
On Saturday it was revealed that two judges were sacked for misconduct in 2005, according to the Ministry of Justice.
‘The disclosure, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, was made on the ministry’s website. But the Office for Judicial Complaints, which responded to the request, refused to identify the judges, their place in the judicial hierarchy or the behaviour that resulted in their dismissal.
They were members of the “mainstream judiciary” as opposed to figures such as magistrates, tribunal members or coroners. The mainstream judiciary comprises full-time judges from district judge up to the most senior as well as recorders and deputy district judges, who work part-time as judges.
The Guardian understands the two removed were part-timers who had been disciplined by their professional bodies for misconduct in their main career as barristers or solicitors.
Judges at high court level and above cannot be removed without a vote of both houses of parliament and none has been sacked within living memory.
But those at circuit level and below can be removed for misbehaviour by the lord chancellor and lord chief justice, who are not obliged to publicise their action.’
These two stories are useful examples to be employed by students when answering questions on a number of topics, from constitutional reform to democracy. They can, of course, be used to support points which are positive or negative.