Lord Falconer, the caretaker Minister of Justice, has attempted to defend the government's proposal to limit the Freedom of Information Act so that it becomes, in effect, a non-Freedom of Information Act.
How is it in the interests of the public for the government to limit the press from obtaining information on behalf of the public? How can Lord Falconer claim that it is not an attempt to return to secret government?
Democracy prevails when there is a free press and a strong opposition. Given that the Tories are as strong as a wet tissue at present, attempting to gag the media by preventing access to information would be like Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany.
4 comments:
Must admit that I thought when the FOI act came into law that it was not a good a idea and was subversive.
Have to say that now that I am totally for it and that it has worked a treat.
This probably explains why those in power want it gone and little me wants it to stay.
This wanting to restrict the foia
has come about because it was helping to acheive a modicom of transparicy in gov and we cant have that can we.
Given that only 121 MPs voted either way we cannot say that the HoP gave this any priority whatever the opposition parties are going to say. Did your MP vote Jailhouse? Mine voted for the thing. If that means no one can find out what matters I've raised with him over the last 10 years then I'm all for that. If it means he can start taking bungs from developers without being discovered them I'm again it. What Information does this 121-MP piece of law seek to exclude from the FoIA?
Chris: I couldn't find my MP's name on the list.
As I understand it, the idea is that the public should not be able to find out about MPs expenses claims.
Post a Comment