Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill

I find it difficult to believe that the occupants of the Front Benches are neutral. I can only come to the obvious conclusion that they support the measure. Nor should there be any doubt about those hon. Members who have come in to support the Bill. There has been a campaign—in line with parliamentary tradition, I suppose—to get Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Ministers into the Chamber. Some have come in, and others have refused or have other duties. Otherwise there would not have been 100 voting for the closure motion. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) has said that the amendments are wrecking amendments. All that I would say about the amendments is that, if the Bill is to become law, it would be better were the amendments carried. They would make the Bill less obnoxious. I am totally opposed to what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do. It is wrong and it is against the interests of Parliament. We are in danger of bringing ourselves into disrepute. Nor do I for one moment accept the justification made repeatedly that the measure is about confidentiality. Let me make it clear: when constituents write to me, as they have done over all the years that I have been a Member, they do so on the basis that their letters are confidential, and when I write on their behalf to officialdom—which, like other Members, I do day in, day out—I work on the assumption that the information, some of which is extremely personal, is confidential. If there is a problem, the Data Protection Act could be used. The parliamentary Labour party received a letter telling us about the advantages of the Bill in preserving confidentiality. The Library was asked to comment and noted that in Committee"““Members who spoke did not cite cases where correspondence had actually been released. There was more concern about the threat of release.””" My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) pointed out that he was neutral, although in cases of breaches of confidentiality there could be an argument for the measure, but I do not believe that there is any such necessity or justification. It has been said that information about expenses could be requested that was completely unjustified, because it related not to us but to our staff. In fact, an application was made in respect of Members’ staff, but no one would justify that—not that I would call it expenses; I pay my secretary a salary, not expenses. A certificate was issued by the Speaker under section 36(6) of the Freedom of Information Act to stop the information being given. The Speaker has the necessary authority and has used it to issue five certificates. In my view, his authority is justified and in the case of essential protections there is sufficient leeway in the existing law. It has been said that if the Bill becomes law, information about our expenses will be published. I have no doubt that the Speaker’s letter reflects what will happen, but there are some interesting points. Publication would be optional; it will not be part of the law. What a future House of Commons will do is a different matter—the process is entirely optional. Any local authority could make the same argument. Local councils could say that they did not need the law because they had given assurances that the necessary information about councillors’ expenses would be published. Would we really be satisfied with that? If not, why should people be satisfied with what is being proposed in the Bill—that publication would be optional? Why should we be different? The House of Commons should give a lead. We should set an example to the country of honesty and integrity, not find squalid ways to get round the law.