---

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Since I will find it so difficult to explain my concerns, I suggest that after those interesting exchanges noble Lords might like to give their minds a bit of a rest for a moment. I apologise to the Minister for raising this matter at this stage, but I started to question the wording of the provision only a very few minutes before time ran out for tabling amendments at this stage. As I said to him, it is better to be shown to be an idiot than to fail to ask a question that needs to be asked. This amendment would alter the definition of a relevant public authority for the purposes of the meaning of a publicly owned company. It appears to exclude an authority listed only in a limited fashion entirely from the definition of the component part of a publicly owned company. One rapidly gets into the dangers of double negatives, but I would have thought that the exclusion should extend only to the information, which is not referred to in the schedule to the Freedom of Information Act. In other words, if an authority is listed in a limited fashion, it should nevertheless be included to the extent of that limit. I hope that that is a clear way of putting it. I am well aware that the same wording is used in Section 6 of the Act, and of course it may be that the intention is indeed to exclude such an authority entirely. I anticipate that I may need to read, as well as listen to, the Minister’s answer, but I hope that he can help me and I hope that it has not taken up too much of his officials’ time in addressing this. As I say, it is better always to ask the question. I beg to move.