Sleaze and cover-up

There can be few people who feel that Derek Conway has been treated unfairly, however much sympathy they may feel for him. The sheer scale and the cynical way in which he benefited his family surely demand no less. "Fraud" is the word which comes to mind.

I hope, however, that the Speaker, Michael Martin, will feel a certain responsibility in this. In 2006 he used a clause in the Freedom of Information Act, - a general clause to cover cases which arise and which are not covered in the Act, to block the availability of information about people employed by MPs.

His argument was that "disclosure of the names of MPs' staff would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs."

The result has been that wrong-doing like Derek Conway's is much more difficult to expose. Conway could have gone on for much longer, but for the fact that someone discovered the case and leaked the information to a newspaper. How many other "Conways" are there?

The fact that MPs are quite happy to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and enjoy an immunity in this and other areas denied to other representatives such as councillors, is a stain on the notion of transparency and on democracy itself.

The LibDems have announced this morning that they will publish details of all staff employed by LibDem MPs. The Conservatives are in favour of greater transparency. So far New Labour, with its overall majority, has not indicated any desire to change.

What do MPs have to hide? Are they concerned that there will be greater scrutiny and thus the need for proper records, and that some cosy arrangements may be examined.? The question is to what extent they are accountable to us, the electors.