Why the public is blocked from knowing who MPs employ

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Derek Conway's cash'n'bonuses-for-sons affair is that the public has no right to know who MPs employ. This is because in 2006 Michael Martin, the Speaker, employed his extraordinary power to block this information from being released, arguing that "disclosure of the names of MPs’ staff would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs".*

The Liberal Democrats said this morning that they would publish details of all members of staff employed by their MPs, putting pressure on others to follow suit. The Conservatives were less equivocal and said that they were committed to "greater transparency". No word from Labour.

But lawyers are now questioning whether the Speaker's baronial power to block any FOI related to Parliament could be overturned. The details of MPs' staff was being sought by the celebrated FOI campaigner Heather Brooke, who charted her battle here. A partner at the legal firm Field Fisher Waterhouse wrote to her suggesting that the Speaker's decision could be challenged in court. Lets see whether MPs do the sensible thing and put the information in the public domain before it is dragged out of them.

* That the Speaker has such a power is itself astonishing: when it was inserted into the Freedom of Information Bill during its passage through Parliament, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, commented: “Obviously the draftsmen decided, just in case something escaped and there is one last fish in the sea, let us get it with a grenade; and this is the grenade." Hat tip Heather Brooke.

Comments

[David Boothroyd]

You can find out who MPs are sponsoring passes for, by checking the Register of Interests of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/080109/memi01.htm). (MPs spouses and partners get a pass as such and are not included, though)

[Chuck Unsworth]

Hardly surprising that Mr Speaker Martin took this stance, after all, he too might be further embarrassed by such revelations. And, whatever one's views of Mr Martin's abilities, one must respect his profound ability to recognised the buttered side of the slice.

Frankly this is now bordering on farce. Doors opening and closing with bewildering pace. If we're serious about a move to a more moral (forget legal) position the carpets of the Houses of Parliament will be awash with blood.

It would be more difficult - maybe impossible - to name a single MP who does not 'employ' friends and family, and who does publish proper accounts.

The game here is plain for all to see. Never mind all the protestations of 'wishing to enter politics to do some good'. Politics is a stunningly well-paid and expensed job in which real personal integrity is an annoying encumbrance.

[Christopher Squire]

You wrote: 'the Conservatives were less equivocal' ; I suggest you meant to write UNequivocal': 'Equivocal a. 2. Of words, phrases, etc.: Having different significations equally appropriate or plausible; capable of double interpretation; ambiguous.' [OED]

[pericles]

Politicians! What do you expect. Corrupt, soulless and subtly devious individuals who are directly responsible for the deterioration of the political, social and economic institutions over which they have influence.