The architect of the Freedom of Information Act has supported Government moves to keep MPs’ and Lords’ home addresses outside the legislation’s remit.

Lord Clark of Windermere, who drafted the open government regime as Cabinet minister David Clark in the late 1990s, said it was not originally intended to include Parliament in the act.

He told peers this week that its purpose was to empower citizens to challenge the “apparatus of the State and the apparatus of the Executive”, Media Lawyer reports.

Lords were debating, and later approved without a vote, the Freedom of Information (Parliament and National Assembly for Wales) Order, which the House of Commons had approved last week.

It was the Government’s response to a series of FoI requests for details of MPs’ expenses which had been upheld by the courts.

MPs’ expenses claims will now be published in more detail in future but will exclude anything that could identify home addresses or regular travel patterns.

Lord Clark told the Lords: “The original Bill actually did exclude Parliament because we felt at that time that, if Parliament were in the FoI, it would be so easy for the press in particular to have a go at MPs and members of this House and neglect where the real power is in Great Britain, namely the Executive.

“And that is exactly what has happened. I am not saying it was wrong to include it but that was our judgment at the time.”

Lord Clark described MPs’ and peers’ personal security as “paramount”, recalling the IRA threat to MPs during the 1980s which had affected their families.

Lord Clark added: “Imagine the fear of a woman living on her own with a young family.

“We are right and proper to insist that there is a certain amount of privacy which is given to members of Parliament of both Houses.

“It is the correct procedure and a step in the right direction.”

Comments

Charlotte Peters Rock (24/07/2008 11:44:09)
MPs should be accountable. They should not be able to slosh about the gravy trough without any form of accountability. They are supposed to serve their constituents. That means they need to be known to live in their constituency.. not in some tax exile.. or in London.
They are in theory, public servants. In that case, they should be readily available to serve those people in their own consituency who ask them for help. The current set up is that some plummy woman(why is it always a woman?)is used to fend off requests to meet the MP or to ask for that MP’s help.
And as for the large extra perk of expenses.. words fail me..
However, it might be a good idea if each constituency were given the right to vote on whether any pay rise was due, for their MP.