Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 2 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
I have cited large-scale infrastructure projects and procurement. I cannot immediately think of any local authority projects of such a scale or duration, but that is only because no such projects are within my experience. I am sure that some exist, and it may well be the case—although I am afraid I am not informed on the matter—that some of the contracts entered into by local authorities of all political persuasions for the longer-term provision of, for example, back-office services last for more than 20 years. I do not feel that whether commercially sensitive information should be protected while the contract lasts should be simply a matter of chance, but that does not prevent proper scrutiny of the arrangements by, for instance, auditors—perhaps by the Audit Service. I have just been provided with further and better particulars. I am happy to say that I knew this bit already and was going to mention it, but I am deeply grateful none the less. My constituency contains a large new hospital which is under a PFI contract which will run for more than 20 years, and I believe that the same applies to some of the new prison contracts. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks, from a sedentary position, "Why should we not know about them?" This is a qualified exemption. That is what it says here, and what I was going to say in any event. A balancing test will still be required. We are not talking about an absolute exemption from day one until the end of the period. What we are discussing is whether there should come a moment when the information is automatically released. I think it reasonable for parties to such contracts, if they are still in force, to be able to argue that their commercial interests—the interests of the public authority on one side and those of the commercial organisation on the other—may be adversely affected if the information is released into the public domain. It would be a matter for the Information Commissioner, and then the Information Tribunal, to make the final judgment. I think that that is a reasonable balance.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 506 c831-2
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Disclosure of information Contracts Demonstrations Costs Allowances Audio equipment Constitutional and administrative law Freedom of information Exemptions Northern Ireland Pay Pensions Parliament Square Protest Members Palace of Westminster Noise Public records Royal family Cabinet Office Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 30 Year Rule Review
- Legislation
- Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:44:27 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625633
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625633
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_625633