A number of constituents have contacted me detailing their concerns over the Private Members Bill which seeks to amend the Freedom of Information Bill.

Whilst I was not able to attend the debate on Friday because of pressing constituency business, had I been there I would have voted against the Bill, albeit with some reservations.

I think it is a political own goal. I am in complete agreement that MP’s allowances (they are not ‘expenses’ in the widely understood sense) should be open to public scrutiny. I, and the overwhelming majority of my Parliamentary colleagues, have no problem with the publication of our travel allowances, postage and so forth, although many of us do worry about headlines which, for example, compare the travel allowances of an MP for a Scottish constituency unfavourably with someone from London! Of course, most other aspects of our work are already open to such scrutiny, as they should be, via the Register of MP’s interests and more. I note that it was this government which introduced the Freedom of Information Act, the Electoral Commission and much else which has increased transparency and accountability, and this is a context that is very easily forgotten. I would also gently point out that such scrutiny contrasts with that accorded to others in the private and public sectors whose salaries and expenses are far higher.

The one thing in favour of David McLean’s private members bill is this- I do worry about the confidentiality of correspondence relating to constituents. Although it has not happened to me yet, colleagues have had Freedom of Information requests on correspondence relating to the ‘other party’ in neighbour disputes and cases relating to domestic violence, and the advice they have received is ambiguous and may well be open to challenge. I would certainly support measures which would protect constituents in the (increasingly likely) event of a test cases exposing correspondence about individuals in this way. This may be best achieved by amending the Data Protection Act, but it may be that the FOI does have to be brought into line with it.