Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if I went too far.
I shall end by referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and his comments on the tribunal judgment. The tribunal has just adjudicated and the law has now made it clear that certain things ought to be made public, although in theory that clarification could go to the High Court. However, the ruling is merely weeks old so I make this point to the public outside, as well as to the House. If we set up systems such as information tribunals and commissioners and are willing to abide by them and give their judgments credibility by respecting what they say, it is entirely inconsistent for us not to support the amendments, because they follow the logic of what the tribunal decided in the recent freedom of information case. I hope the House will make it clear that we support retaining the freedom of information provisions on public authorities that govern the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and that we can make sure that everything that we do financially is as accountable as in any other public body.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 46.
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Simon Hughes
(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 c601 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:27:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391570
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391570
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_391570