Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill

I am detailing the membership because some of the hon. Members in their places today signed up to a point of view expressed in the report. I want to say what that view was. It is important because this Select Committee was most influential in changing the view of Parliament about what should happen. The Public Administration Committee looked into issues concerning the exclusion of Parliament from freedom of information legislation. I want to read paragraph 37 and its conclusion into the record. That is what changed the direction of travel, as it were, of this aspect of the legislation. The report was published on 19 May 1998. Paragraph 37 of the first volume states:"““We have not taken evidence on the exclusion of Parliament, which we expect to be the province of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. We have, though, been somewhat surprised that it should be excluded. To the extent that Parliament’s proceedings already take place in public, of course, the exclusion does not matter. The Government’s background ""paper explains that inclusion might be taken to be ‘an implied repeal of the Bill of Rights which declares ““that the freedom of speech from debates or proceedings of Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament?’. Proceedings of many Committees take place in private, and the privacy of these would need to be respected. However, the proposed exemption for the integrity of decision-making is likely to protect these discussions. The papers held by individual Members, parties and their Committees do not relate to Parliament’s public functions and would therefore not, presumably, be covered by the Act, just as the political and constituency papers of government Ministers held in government departments will not be disclosable. Papers sent by Members to Ministers and departments may well, however, be covered by the Act in any case. But there are many administrative functions carried out within Parliament which, it seems to us, do not need to be protected, any more than do those of the police?—" that is the telling line. It then continues in bold:"““The justification for the exclusion of Parliament has not been made out. The exclusion may well convey the wrong impression to the general public, given the purpose of this legislation. We hope that the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege will review this question, and we recommend that the Government re-examine the exclusion of Parliament in the light of its Report.?" It went to a senior Committee of this House, which said that Parliament should be included. I am pleased to say that the Government responded to it. The present Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), then Home Secretary, introduced proposals in the Bill that included Parliament within its terms—and they were not controversial. There was no significant debate about it, either in this House or in the House of Lords. So I have to draw the conclusion that, having thought about the issue as we prepared for the legislation, it would have surfaced as a concern if anyone had thought that it was the wrong approach to adopt. There is a further reason why it is bizarre to suggest that we should return to this question in 2007. Although the legislation was passed in 2000, it did not come into force until 2005. It had a five-year gestation period, which is an unusually long time. The Liberal Democrats kept asking the Government when it would come into force, and the Government told us that they needed a lot of time to put it into operation. I understand that, but no protests were made at that time. Nobody said that Parliament should be exempt. I take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Walsall, North. If, at any point before the implementation date in 2005 any Member of Parliament had said, ““This is a bad thing. We should have discretion to decide if and when we will release information?, it would have given a very bad impression. The point is, however, that no one did that. Amendment No. 5 proposes to"““leave out ‘paragraphs 2 and 3’ and insert ‘paragraph 3’.?" That would mean leaving out the references to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and replacing them with a reference to the House of Lords. That would ensure that communications by a Member of Parliament with a public authority would not be exempt. This takes us into a whole new set of territories. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has argued that his communications with his constituents would be liable to be put in the public domain unless we amended the legislation. I want to deal with the points raised on this issue in the Public Bill Committee on 7 February. Although this concern has been raised, I have read, re-read and read a third time every part of that relatively short Committee stage, and nowhere have I found evidence to suggest that that concern has been justified in fact. There is no evidence that publication of such information has occurred as a result of misuse of the system. This relates specifically to amendment No. 5. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:"““Mr. Speaker has confirmed that even if the Bill becomes an Act, and even if technically or legally we will not have to publish information, the view of the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee and Mr. Speaker is that we should continue every October to publish the same information on travel, allowances, accommodation and secretarial costs that we have published in the past few years.?" That deals with the first point, relating to discretion. The right hon. Gentleman then deals with the second issue:"““The other main point of principle is the new vexed problem relating to our correspondence. I am sure that colleagues of all parties have become aware of it. In theory, our correspondence is protected.?" So there is common ground to start with; our correspondence with public authorities is protected. The right hon. Gentleman goes on:"““If somebody asks to see copies of letters that we have written to a public authority we can, if we wish, say no.?" That is the first, important protection. He continues:"““However, some people are now going to the public authority by the back door—albeit legitimately—and asking for copies of files relating to individuals.?––[Official Report, Freedom of Information (Amendment) Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2007; c. 6.]" That is true. I do not dissent; the right hon. Gentleman is correct. Requests have been made for such information. He goes on:"““Theoretically, if that public authority carries out all the procedure—?"