A debate in Parliament yesterday on Legionnaires’ disease provides another example of the many and varied benefits of freedom of information.

A company used the law to challenge a government policy on the best method for combatting the disease. The National Health Service recently updated its guidance to read: “the temperature control regime is the preferred strategy to maintain systems free from Legionella and other water-borne organisms”

This claim was contested by ProEconomy, a company that specialises in treatment using copper-silver ionisation, which they have effectively used to keep water systems free from the disease since 1993. Because of the word “preferred” in the guidance, customers of ProEconomy who had successfully applied their copper-silver ionisation process are moving back to a regime of temperature control after years of legionella-free water and water systems that ran at temperatures lower than those recommended in the document. ProEconomy’s future has not only been jeopardised but it is concerned that the guidance, which they state was written without taking into account research showing the inefficacy of temperature control, represents a substantial risk to the public.

They requested the scientific studies on which the new guidance was based. They asked three times but were refused each time. Finally under the freedom of information law, 31 scientific papers were produced. They were examined by a team of university graduates and legionella experts whom ProEconomy asked to assess them. They concluded that none of the 31 papers supported the temperature control regime. Three were against it, 21 did not discuss it at all and seven were in favour of copper-silver ionisation.

So what we have is a department that spent taxpayer money over a five-year period to a produce guidance that does not appear to be supported scientifically. This should give the lie to the idea that policy-making in secret is at all beneficial to the public.

A fiddle? Hardly. This was a Stradivarius. Quentin Letts

I’m in America this week and what a relief it is to be in a proper democracy with a proper constitution, transparency and freedom of information laws. Yes, transparency is in a worse state in the US than it has been for decades, but it’s still light years ahead of Britain even on Britain’s best days. And these are far from its best days.

Last Friday, MPs held a last-minute vote to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act. With just five minutes to go before the bill would have been talked out for the second time, supporters called for a vote. The list of shame is here so you know who not to vote for in the next election.

I note that Julian Lewis MP (Con. New Forest East) voted against the bill. Interesting, because Dr Lewis was very keen to use the FOI when it first came into force. He invited me to the Commons tea room to discuss ways of ‘opening up’ government and subsequently filed about 100 FOI requests. I suppose transparency of one’s own expenses is where the opposition draws the line. Which reminds me of a very good description of the Opposition’s effort to challenge this government as it takes us closer to totalitarianism:

“Their occasional attacks on the Government have the halfhearted feel of criminals trying to grass up rivals.” – Bobby Robson

It was left to the Liberal Democrats to oppose this sordid bill, particularly Norman Baker MP. Why haven’t the Conservatives woken up to voters’ anger about secretive politicians and embraced the populist issue of open government and freedom of information? This is something that strikes a cord with many voters.

FYI: David Maclean‘s private member’s bill was supported by the House of Commons Commission, an organisation intent on maintaining dictatorship levels of secrecy. The Commission is itself run by Speaker Michael Martin (who vetoed the Information Commissioner’s ruling on my case to publish the names of MPs’ staff) and Jack Straw (responsible for watering down the original FOI legislation). Neither are friends of open government.

Oh – and good on the Daily Mail for this amusing piece of muck-raking about Mr Maclean’s own use of parliamentary expenses.
One wife, two mistresses… and a quad bike on Commons expenses

One argument being made in the current debate to exempt Parliament from the freedom of information act is that such an exemption is not unusual. Last week, a government minister pointed out that the US Congress is not subject to the American FOI Act.

That is true but the reason behind the exemption is entirely different. The USA operates on a system of separation of powers: judiciary, legislature, executive. If Congress was covered then the executive could use the law to obtain control of congressional information.

There is not a similar separation of powers in the UK, which is why we need the Act to cover Parliament. For example in the US you could never have a member of Congress as the head of a government department in the way MPs can be ministers in the parliamentary system. Such cross-over between the legislature and executive is forbidden in the USA.

But despite being exempt from FOIA, Congress is far more transparent than the UK Parliament. Separate legislation (the U.S. Ethics in Government Act 1978) ensures publication of detailed expense claims, lobbying and assets declarations. My thanks to Ted Bridis from the Washington DC bureau of the Associated Press for this information.

You can view sample reports by visiting this link and typing the last name of a U.S. lawmaker (eg, “Obama,” or “Clinton”). These reports, for example, show what assets politicians have year on year.

Separately, the U.S. Federal Election Commission requires that candidates for federal office, including lawmakers, account for how they spend campaign contributions and also requires that political committees list the amounts and reasons for disbursements.

U.S. lawmakers generally are not required to disclose when or whether they meet with lobbyists, but there are strict limits on anything of value that can be given by a lobbyist directly as a gift. The lobbyists themselves must file reports regularly describing how much money they are paid by clients, the identities of their clients and what organisations and issues they are lobbying on (and these usually identify which congressional committees are contacted, so you can usually surmise which lawmakers are being targeted). You can access these records free at http://sopr.senate.gov/

I’m perfectly happy for Parliament to follow this American example, but my guess is they’ll opt for the exemption without the accompanying transparency.

Tomorrow the private member’s bill exempting Parliament from its own freedom of information legislation revives for a second hearing. This is the bill that will not die. A team effort resulted in the publication today of several joint letters and articles speaking out against this bill.

There is a joint letter in the Daily Telegraph signed by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, myself and a selection of cross-party MPs.

In the Times, a group of civil liberties and constitutional reform groups wrote a letter opposing the bill.

The Independent wrote a leader opposing the bill and MP Mark Fisher contributed a very lucid editorial explaining that the exemption had nothing to do with protecting constitutency communications but was really about keeping secret MPs’ expenses.

As the Independent writes: “In short, this is an amendment designed to protect MPs, not their constituents.”