| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wigley: I have never heard it called that.
Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman implies that there is no such thing. If that is true and if he can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may want to make his own contribution. The amendment, which we are being asked to agree to, clearly refers to the proceedings of the executive committee of the National Assembly for Wales, and that may be not only confusing but downright inaccurate and dangerous. How does it relate to the references to different Ministers, Presiding Officers and the Assembly for Wales as a whole? The amendment introduces a new entity into the Bill, and I should like to know more about how the Minister thinks that it will operate, if indeed such an executive committee exists.
Amendment No. 68 gives rise to possible confusion. If I read it out, that will be sufficient to demonstrate the extent to which it is unclear to me, and perhaps then the Minister will elaborate and explain. It says:
- leave out subsection (1) and insert--
("(1) For the purposes of this Act each government department is to be treated as a person separate from any other government department.
Unhelpfully, the amendment continues:
- Subsection (1) does not enable--
(a) a government department which is not a Northern Ireland department to claim for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) that the disclosure of any information by it--
- would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any other government department (not being a Northern Ireland department).
Mr. Gummer: Surely my right hon. Friend can see what a disaster it would be if the new paragraph were not included in the Bill. If it were possible for
- a government department which is not a Northern Ireland department to claim for the purposes of section 39(1)(b) that the disclosure of any information by it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any other government department (not being a Northern Ireland department),
Mr. Forth: I think that that was a helpful intervention. The Minister will no doubt be able to assure me whether that is the case when he replies to my simple question and to the rather more sophisticated question characteristically asked by my right hon. Friend.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's giving way. He makes a serious point, which relates to the concept of confidences and, for example, the requirement by the Saville inquiry that the minutes of a Cabinet meeting be produced; or that a former Prime Minister should give evidence; or the announcement on the radio this morning in Northern Ireland that a junior Minister had dictated to the Army Board that two guardsmen should be retained. That is surely exempt information. Perhaps the Minister will give us guidance on that when he winds up.
Mr. Forth: That is a useful point, although I shall not explore it at this stage. It touches on the conceptual similarity or difference between a leak and freedom of information--a matter that no doubt interests all hon. Members. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), however, I do not think that we should dwell on it now.
From this short analysis of amendment No. 68, we can already see that we are all at a loss to understand why it is included, and at even more of a loss to understand what it means and how it will strengthen the Bill.
Mr. Forth: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will help me.
Mr. Redwood: Like my right hon. Friend, I think I welcome the amendment, but the Minister should be drawn into the debate, because the amendment is couched in extremely abstruse language. As I understand it, there is a good principle involved, as well as a damaging principle.
The good principle is that we all know that Government Departments disagree with one another, and sometimes the disagreements are of great interest to the press, the public and the Opposition. We would like the opportunity to find out more about those disagreements. The problem for the Government is that they are meant to believe in collective responsibility. The advantage of the amendment is that it will enable us and the public to learn a little more about the disagreements. The disadvantage for the Government is that it makes collective responsibility more difficult.
Mr. Forth: I should like to believe that, but I do not have quite the same faith as my right hon. Friend that the provision will reveal anything of the kind. We have seen right from the beginning of the sorry saga of the so-called Freedom of Information Bill that it is nothing of the kind. It will reveal very little, or only what the Government want to reveal, which undermines its entire purpose. For that reason, I have severe doubts as to whether the process that my right hon. Friend described will take place.
I conclude my brief remarks, as I said I would, with a quick look at amendment No. 74. Although it helpfully describes itself as
- Meaning of "Welsh public authority",
- any public authority which is listed in Part II, III, IV or VI of Schedule 1 and whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales, other than an excluded authority.
- mainly in or as regards Wales?
One would almost have thought that the provision was designed to help the lawyers. As there are two lawyers sitting on the Treasury Bench right now, I am not totally surprised at that, but I should have thought that the Government might not be so blatant in recommending to us, presumably, that we accept such amendments. I can see Members of another place, stuffed as it is with eminent lawyers, being rather keen on this form of words. I cannot imagine the citizenry and taxpayer being so keen. Much more explanation is needed.
The same issue arises in subsection (2), which reads:
- "excluded authority" means a public authority which is designated by the Secretary of State by order as an excluded authority for the purposes of that paragraph.
Mr. Bercow: Somewhat uncharacteristically, my right hon. Friend has understated his case. He referred to the presence of two lawyers on the Treasury Bench, one of whom services the Lord Chancellor's Department. Is my right hon. Friend aware that within the Home Office team of six Ministers, no fewer than four--that is two thirds--are lawyers? Is that not a reason to cry?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not understand what that intervention has to do with the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful. Mr. Eric Forth.
Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. My concern was the nature of the role of the Secretary of State in terms of amendment No. 74(2), the explanation of "mainly", and how the
Minister believes that that word will bear upon the interpretation of this important provision when it comes to reality, if it ever does.I wanted to illustrate only one brief point, which by now must be self-evident. Ministers should have learned by now that if they did the House the courtesy of giving us a brief and elegant explanation of why they think that each amendment should or should not be supported by the House, we could probably obviate much debate. I have not had time thoroughly to analyse these matters, because the time for our consideration has been brutally truncated, which in turn means that none of us has had an opportunity properly to examine them. However, having skimmed over them, it is clear to me that many questions arise.
I hope that the Minister will do us the courtesy, when this short debate comes to an end, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have had the chance to engage in their much more penetrating analysis of the matter, of providing us with many more explanations. I hope that we can then move on.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |