Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill

I am not sure that that question should be directed at me. I am simply saying that a Labour Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act, after many years of work by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and others. When my party was in opposition I was a member of what was then the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, chaired by Jim Pawsey, a Conservative Member at the time. I believe that you too were a member of the Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We visited Australia and New Zealand, and looked at arrangements relating to freedom of information there. I think that ours was the first Committee of the House to suggest that the Government consider a Freedom of Information Act, so I feel I have some history when it comes to this subject. When the House debated the Bill that became the Freedom of Information Act, Members on both sides argued for a strong Act that would give real force to freedom of information requests. That was entirely in keeping with the purpose of the Act. However, the Act was designed to enable open government to be balanced against the need for effective government. It was designed to help the public, not to disrupt the valuable work that Members of Parliament undertake on the public’s behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), now Leader of the House, who was Home Secretary at the time. In a parliamentary answer last year, he said"““I should just say that I was the Minister who had the unenviable task of taking the Freedom of Information Bill through its stages in the House, and we were asked by hon. Members on all sides to go further, rather than to provide what I thought were sensible protections, on requests for information, including requests from Parliament. However, the only people who supported those sensible restrictions were my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), and myself, on the Treasury Bench.””—[Official Report, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1682.]" My right hon. Friend now feels that perhaps this is an appropriate time to reflect on the Act. If the Act is interfering with hon. Members’ ability to serve their constituents, they should invite the House to look again at the protections that it offers. It is clear there is increasing concern among Members about disclosure of their correspondence. Several Members have raised their concerns, both in the House and in correspondence with the Government.