Let me develop my argument a little, if I may.
There would be a serious imbalance in interpreting the legislation on the part of other authorities or individuals, because the House of the Commons and the House of Lords would not be a public body, but the body to which we were corresponding—which is, by definition, one of those covered by the 2000 Act—would. We would be in the extraordinary position that no application could be made to the House of Commons or the House of Lords on one side of any dialogue or correspondence, but the application could be made—without exemptions, were the amendment to be made—on the other side. There would be a fundamental imbalance.
Some might argue that amendment No. 2 would be an improvement because it would make it even more obvious what an absurd Bill it is. However, on balance I prefer a Bill to have a degree of internal integrity and equilibrium in its structure. I fear that the amendment would lose that and create an unbalanced Bill.
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 18 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c904 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:13:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398080
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398080
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398080