The confidentiality of MPs' constituency correspondence has been
claimed as the main justification for a controversial amendment to
the FOI Act which excludes Parliament from its powers.
The proposed amendment to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
that would exempt the Houses of Commons and Lords from the Act has
been justified by its backer David Maclean with claims that it is
essential to protect confidential constituency correspondence.
But the Campaign for Freedom of Information (CFOI) has listed
the existing protections for that correspondence, and has said that
the amendment is unnecessary for that purpose.
"The Bill removes the House of Commons and the House of Lords
from the FOI Act," said the CFOI's statement. "But Parliament
doesn’t hold MPs’ constituency correspondence. This is held by the
MPs themselves. Removing Parliament from the Act cannot protect
their privacy. But it would block requests for information about
other matters such as breaches of security at Westminster, safety
problems and excessive spending on contracts, buildings or other
matters."
Conservative leader David Cameron has said that his party
opposes the bill, which as a consequence faces defeat in the House
of Lords. He said he supported the protection of correspondence,
but there has been a public outcry about the possibility of MPs'
expenses becoming secret.
Former Conservative Party whip David Maclean, who has proposed
the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act, has changed his
proposal in order to increase its chances of success in the House
of Lords. He has introduced a change which orders the publishing of
MPs' expenses each year.
CFOI, though, says that claims that constituency correspondence
is under threat are untenable.
"MPs’ correspondence on behalf of individual constituents is
already protected under at least two existing exemptions in the FOI
Act, those for information whose disclosure would breach the Data
Protection Act or be a breach of confidence at common law," its
statement said. "These exemptions, and the legal sanctions which
underpin them, are what the whole public sector relies on to
protect the vast amount of personal data which it holds and which
authorities communicate to each other or receive from all
sources.
"This is what protects a psychiatrist’s letter to a GP, a police
officer's note of an interview with the victim of serious crime, a
prison service file about a dangerous prisoner or a neighbour's
letter to social services about a neglected child. If these
exemptions were deficient, the whole public sector would have been
in outcry from the moment the FOI Act came into force," it
said.
Dr Chris Pounder, a data protection and FOI specialist with
Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said "It's quite
clear that there is something worrying MPs about public access to
their correspondence that has been sent to public bodies – but
these concerns have not yet been clearly defined."
Dr Pounder said that, while two sections of the FOI Act dealing
with exempt information have featured in debate, another 21
sections also describe exempt information.
"Since all the other exemptions also apply to MPs'
correspondence, it follows that for the MPs to want a further
exemption, the correspondence must contain a special class of
exempt information that has not been thought of before," said Dr
Pounder. "Perhaps it is dawning on some MPs that this class of
information is so special it has yet to written down".
