I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I sincerely hope that those who wish to curtail the release of information will make the case for that. Thus far, that case has not been made. We have not had any justification for the removal from this legislation of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We have not had any justification in respect of the issue to do with MPs’ correspondence, which allegedly is at the heart of the Bill. We have not had any justification for MPs’ and public authorities’ correspondence being turned into secret documents marked ““confidential?. None of those matters has been justified.
It is germane to reflect on how we have arrived at this point. That is key to amendment No. 1 in particular. We have reached this point because there has been a private Member’s Bill, which has been presented on a Friday, when, as Members know, long lists of Bills regularly fail. They fall over the cliff like lemmings at 2.30 pm—
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c569-70 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:28:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391483
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391483
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391483