Bringing parliament into disrepute
"Redaction" - censoring elements of invoices for MPs expenses before publishing them - was supposed to be about removing elements which might pose a security or crime risk if published.
For example, nobody in their right mind could object to blanking out bank account numbers or similar personal identification details which might enable fraudsters to steal from the accounts involved, or help conmen to defraud innocent members of the public by adopting the identities of people with whom MPs have had business dealings.
There may also be a case for removing addresses where the publication of those addresses may help terrorists - though it has to be said that this justification has been over-used where those addresses are in the public domain. And if the Daily Telgraph had not been handed a full set of expenses claim data prior to "redaction" the practice of "flipping" might never have come to light.
But publishing documents which are almost entirely covered in black ink just makes parliament look ridiculous. Even where there is a justification for what has been claimed, it makes it look as if at best MPs have something to hide and at worst that they are the ones who are defrauding members of the public.
This is not good enough, whichever party does it. It's not fair to the taxpayer, it's not fair to honest MPs of all parties, and it's not fair to political candidates other than sitting MPs - such as the county council candidates who have just had to endure a barrage of jokes on the subject and a certain amount of actual abuse during the recent elections.
The independed review now under way need to include in their recommendations a set of clear guidelines on what can be hidden under "redaction" and what should be left in published documents so that we draw a sensible middle way between giving valuable information on a plate to terrorists and fraudsters on the one hand, or making the House of Commons look like fraudsters on the other.
For example, nobody in their right mind could object to blanking out bank account numbers or similar personal identification details which might enable fraudsters to steal from the accounts involved, or help conmen to defraud innocent members of the public by adopting the identities of people with whom MPs have had business dealings.
There may also be a case for removing addresses where the publication of those addresses may help terrorists - though it has to be said that this justification has been over-used where those addresses are in the public domain. And if the Daily Telgraph had not been handed a full set of expenses claim data prior to "redaction" the practice of "flipping" might never have come to light.
But publishing documents which are almost entirely covered in black ink just makes parliament look ridiculous. Even where there is a justification for what has been claimed, it makes it look as if at best MPs have something to hide and at worst that they are the ones who are defrauding members of the public.
This is not good enough, whichever party does it. It's not fair to the taxpayer, it's not fair to honest MPs of all parties, and it's not fair to political candidates other than sitting MPs - such as the county council candidates who have just had to endure a barrage of jokes on the subject and a certain amount of actual abuse during the recent elections.
The independed review now under way need to include in their recommendations a set of clear guidelines on what can be hidden under "redaction" and what should be left in published documents so that we draw a sensible middle way between giving valuable information on a plate to terrorists and fraudsters on the one hand, or making the House of Commons look like fraudsters on the other.
Comments