Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I wholly concur with everything that has been said in support of relaxing or expanding freedom of information. Through questions, I have raised my main concerns with this aspect of the Bill, but I shall return to the commercial interests question, which worries me quite deeply. I remember that, in the early days of our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Bill under the chairmanship of Rhodri Morgan, we had an interview with commercial interests. One was Tarmac, and we asked its representatives, "Why do we need to exempt you? Why shouldn't your business, where it affects public authorities and so on, be a matter of revelation?" They agreed wholeheartedly with us and wanted to know why rivals secured a contract with a public authority, for instance. That was the commercial engine for their interest in the matter, but if we citizens, taxpayers, Governments and local authorities stand back, do we not find that we have the same objective in wanting to achieve best value for money, for instance? The competitive details—the commercial interest, as it is called—should be a more open book. In some states of the United States, all tendering is open and all contracts are open. They say, "Here's the deal. Who can match it? Who can do better?" Within the process, however, there are obviously other checks and balances on the stability and solidity of the company that provides the services. The provision before us is an extraordinary exemption. Everywhere else we are bringing the period down to 20 years, but this proposal is for 30 years. Public authority contracts have turned sour in recent years, but that point is not confined to this Government; it predates them and goes back into our history. We are discussing long-term contracts, so I wonder whether the exemption is for national security reasons. Defence installations, nuclear power stations and so on touch on our national security interests if only in respect of our containing them, fighting for them or protecting them from terrorism. But, in truth, on the issue of 30 years' exemption for a contract that a local authority has entered into, ought we not to know whether it is a good contract? How do we evaluate it, and by what do we compare it? I should have thought that it was in the interests of the Government, House and public authorities to be much more open and frank about these matters, so I wonder why there is always resistance—from Whitehall, in large measure—to such openness, publication or accessibility in respect of what is behind the contracts. I cannot see in what way such a blanket restriction—there is no calibration, remember—assists the public interest, which includes best value, openness and all the criteria that inform, or are meant to inform, the freedom of information legislation. I know that we want to get through these provisions rapidly, but the Justice Secretary's comments on them were, of necessity, brief: we are under a guillotine, after all. Nevertheless, there is no opportunity to tease out the issue. My proposition to the House is that the evidence suggests a provision that is contrary to the Government's proposal, so I shall not wave it through as a good measure. At the heart of that contention lies some of the answers to the public procurement and long-term contracts that central and local authorities enter into, and that is the point that I wanted to make. The proposal should be revisited. I know that the Bill is not going anywhere, but I should hope that in the Lords, at least, a beadier eye will be cast over whether the provision is necessary and in the public interest.