Whitsun Adjournment

Indeed. Have any words appeared in that particular tabloid putting our side of the case? Not at all. I should like to spend a moment considering what the Information Commissioner, supported by the wisdom of the High Court, proposes that we should rely on. I say it again: there is an exemption through which if a particular MP has a special reason for keeping his or her address confidential—because of a stalker, terrorist or other criminal threat—the address may be redacted. Right, let us think about that. Let us take half a dozen female MPs as an example, and let us imagine that the provisions are about to come in. One of those MPs is being stalked. ““Ah! That's all right,”” says the Information Commissioner, ““We have catered for that—her address will be redacted.”” Fine, so we go to press and the address of one of those half a dozen female MPs is withheld and the other five addresses are published. But hang on a moment—six months down the line, two of the other five suddenly acquire stalkers. What will we do about them? Will we say, ““Sorry: general public, please disregard those addresses that we published””? Are we going to say, ““Too late now—tough luck.”” If we say that, why should the first one to be stalked have had the advantage of not having had her address published, while the others did not? Alternatively, will we say that the lady MPs should be moved and that we will pay for the costs of that? That would involve the public purse, and the issue is supposed to be about the public purse—although it is not, in my humble opinion.