| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. O'Brien: The reason we are not prepared to go along with the new clause is that we are concerned that its very vagueness--my hon. Friend expressed his concern about vagueness--will affect the Bill in a manner that we cannot predict. Neither he nor I know how this purposes clause might be interpreted, but we do know how clause 13 could be amended.
Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I have said that I shall not give way.
Mr. Fisher: The Minister has not given way to me.
Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but it is the last time.
Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that it is very clear how the purposes clause will be interpreted? It will be interpreted precisely as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) explained when moving it--in favour of a presumption for openness--and it is precisely for that reason that we wish the Government to consider it. The Minister pays tribute to himself for his amendments to clause 13--[Interruption.] I concur with the tribute to those changes. Although, unfortunately, the changes are undermined by Government new clause 6 and the veto, they are in themselves admirable.
The Minister said that there was no difference between those who support new clause 1 and the Minister's position--but there is. He said that the new clause might apply to the whole Bill, and that is precisely right. Those of us who support new clause 1 want the presumption to run seamlessly through the Bill, so that it operates in the whole Bill. If the Minister cannot understand that, we have not prosecuted our case in the debate. However, he should be able to listen to his own words. Although he said that he wants a cultural change, almost everything that he has said in replying to the debate has been apprehensive about freedom of information and fearful of what will happen. He has been reluctant--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I understand that this is a closely reasoned debate, but the art of an intervention is that it be succinct. We have had some very long interventions, which I really am no longer prepared to countenance.
Mr. O'Brien:
I tell my hon. Friend that the Government's amendments to clause 13 will change the entire basis on which the Bill operates, and that they will do so in a manner that is careful, calculated and predictable. Good law needs to be careful, calculated and predictable. What is not predictable is to have a purposes clause that, with all its worthy ambitions, is somewhat vague. I simply do not know what the impact would be if we were to allow new clause 1 to become part the Bill, and I would rather not take that risk. It may not have the effect that either my hon. Friend or I wish it to have.
There are places for purposes clauses, but I suggest that this particular Bill--which is carefully balanced--for all the reasons that we discussed in Committee, is not the place for one. That is our view. As I said, I do not think that there is a great issue of principle in the matter, because I do not think that the legislation's eventual outcome is much in dispute between most hon. Members and me. We should ensure that we create a Bill that works and starts to change the culture.
I should like to deal with some of the points made by other speakers in the debate. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked whether I have any sympathy for the principles of the new clause.
The answer is yes. I have much sympathy for his objective, but I do not think that there is a great difference between his objective and ours. I also think that we achieve the objective, but in a different way, in clause 13.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that the Bill's aim was to empower the citizen to obtain information. He is right. Although I understand his views on the Bill, I believe that we can achieve his objectives by passing the Bill with the Government amendments.
In a speech that amounted to little more than party political badinage, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)--the sage of Grantham and Stamford, who seems to have left the Chamber--said that he had predicted all the faults of the new Labour Government. Although he seemed to criticise us for not going far enough, undoubtedly he also supported Conservative Front Benchers when they suggested that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The fact is that most Conservative Members do not want a Freedom of Information Bill at all.
In the 1997 Conservative campaign guide for candidates, as a possible reply to those who ask for a Freedom of Information Bill, Conservative Members advised:
The Freedom of Information Bill is an important Bill. Although I have enormous respect for the very strong views represented by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and by many of my hon. Friends, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between us. Clause 13 will achieve most of what hon. Members want from the new clause and will do so with predictability, which is very important.
Mr. Maclennan:
With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
Mr. Maclennan:
I am most grateful.
I found the Minister's answers wholly unsatisfactory. We shall wish to divide separately on new clause 1 at the appropriate stage if there is an opportunity to do so.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about an alchemical process. Alchemy was the search to transmute lead into gold. We have witnessed the reverse process. The gold was in the White Paper produced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was entirely clear about the process. It was not a difficult balancing process in which every possible exercise of discretion was measured against particular tests of public interest. The idea was to change the balance and introduce a new presumption of openness--not just a presumption set out in a code, but a presumption of law.
The Minister's central argument was about the balancing act. He used the word "balance" about 10 times. Because balance, rather than the presumption of openness,
has become the underlying principle of the Bill, we are right to be very suspicious about what the Government are minded to do.
Mr. Lidington:
The unanimity of the views expressed on both sides has been the remarkable feature of the debate--or perhaps I should say the near unanimity. The one discordant note has come from the Minister, who had to make his case without any support from his hon. Friends or from any other quarter of the House. That fact more than any other shows the weakness of the ground on which the Government are standing.
As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has reminded us, the Minister said many times that it was all a question of getting the balance right. That is hardly the most controversial statement. He then repeatedly asserted that accepting the amendment or the new clause would impinge in some way on other rights and liberties of British citizens. However, he was far less forthcoming when it came to any detailed explanation of how that might come about.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I did not suggest that inserting the hon. Gentleman's amendment would impinge on the rights of citizens. If he is suggesting that I said that, he is wrong. I merely said that it would do nothing.
Mr. Lidington:
The thrust of the Minister's remarks was that inserting any purpose clause would put difficulties in the way of those charged with interpreting and implementing the legislation, because they would have to give priority to the duty of openness over their other duties on personal privacy or other forms of confidentiality.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the powerful point that the purpose of the reforms of which he was the author was to change the institutional culture of Whitehall. No one who has supported the amendment or the new clause is criticising the professional civil service in Whitehall by agreeing that the institutional culture needs to be changed. Any Member of Parliament who has sought to craft a series of parliamentary questions to extract information that an unwilling Department did not wish to divulge is aware of the problem. The only people who are even more aware of the culture that needs to be changed are those of us who have ever been on the other side of the fence, sitting in Whitehall and having a share in drafting the answers to parliamentary questions.
The case for a purpose clause remains strong. The Government have not provided an adequate explanation of their reluctance to accept such an amendment. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, the members there will note the near unanimity of support for a change in this House from the Back Benches and from all Opposition parties. In the light of the Government's refusal to take seriously the concerns that have been expressed this evening, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
That tells us the extent to which Conservative Members believe the Bill necessary.
6.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |