...Members may well wish to ask the Government why the Order is necessary, what is its policy objective and what is the explanation for the exceptional hurry which has limited the normal scrutiny process. (The Order was laid on 14 January and is scheduled to be debated on 22 January.) ...Source: House of Lords - Merits of Statutory Instruments CommitteeThe supporting material is deficient: no justification is given...
...5. The Committee also records its dissatisfaction with the accelerated timetable imposed[2], which has prevented us from seeking any evidence on the Order, and limits our ability to make a considered report to the House. We would have wished to seek views from interested parties such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose Chairman was reported in the press as saying "MPs above all should be subject to the Freedom of Information law since they are the ones who made it. I do not think that anyone has really made the case for this change." Similarly Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, is reported as commenting on the disparity this instrument would introduce, saying "Chief Constables, local authority chief executives and others have to release individual expenses claims" and arguing that MPs should be treated the same as other public figures. Members may well therefore also wish to seek an explanation for the haste which has limited the normal scrutiny process. ...
