Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill

I believe that I was discussing the contents of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was talking about public authorities and the manner in which we define public authorities. What my argument stands on, too, is the fact that the process has been wrong. I emphasised that at the beginning and I re-emphasise it now. We know—our history tells us, other Members tell us, authorities say it—that a parliamentary majority is not just X divided by two plus one; it is the process by which we arrive at it. I do not believe that anyone outside this place looking at the way in which Members who tabled amendments were unable to speak to them because there was not time would understand. I have to accept that—it is the ruling of the Chair—but do we not want the public whom we represent and whose servants we are to be confident in the way in which we arrive at our decisions? The first clause of the Bill—the removal of Parliament as a public authority—is enough to damn it. The second clause is so particular that it gives the lie to the greater aspirations. That is why I oppose it, too. I simply cannot imagine how the world will look upon us who say, ““My expenses are a private matter. My opinions as put in letters that have been redacted are a private matter. I alone shall be the judge of whether these are released or not. I alone.”” What is so special about I alone? Is there not a member of a public authority who would not very much like their letters also to have such privilege, and publication of their expenses also to be at their discretion? The particularisation is explicit in the Bill. No Conservative could support this Bill. No Conservative party could support it. We stand for prudence and for something wider: liberty and the representation of the people who send us to represent them here. I know that that is true for many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. I regret that they may not be here today to demonstrate that this Bill is wrong.