Indeed. All the information concerning those elected bodies would be in the public domain. What about the House of Commons, the sovereign Parliament? It would appear that, while those other public bodies had to disclose, in law, rightly, how money was spent, we were exempt. How can we justify that? If the Bill were to become law, how could we go to our constituents and local newspapers and try to justify concealing this information?
I said that my remarks would be brief, and I have no wish to prolong my speech on this group of amendments, but let me repeat the following point. Although few Members are present in the Chamber, the standing and reputation of the House of Commons are at stake. It would be disastrous if the Bill became law, and if it is to become law that is all the more reason why the amendments should be passed, as that would give some protection—minimum protection, but nevertheless some protection as far as the public are concerned. However, I hope that when we come to vote on the Bill at half-past 2, sufficient Members will be present to ensure that it is rejected.
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Winnick
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 20 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c567 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:38:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391479
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391479
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391479