'(1) In section 3 of the Public Records Act 1958 (selection and preservation of public records)-

(a) in subsection (4) (transfer to Public Record Office or to other appointed place of deposit of public records selected for permanent preservation), for "thirty years" substitute "20 years", and

(b) after that subsection insert-

"(4A) Until the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the commencement of section [Transfer of records to Public Record Office] of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, subsection (4) has effect subject to any order made under subsection (2) of that section."

(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of subsection (1)(a).

(3) An order under subsection (2) may in particular-

(a) provide for the time within which any records are to be transferred to the Public Record Office or other place of deposit referred to in section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, and

(b) make different provision in relation to records of different descriptions.

(4) An order under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.- (Mr. Straw.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 23- Freedom of information.

Government new schedule 1- Amendments of Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Government amendment 47.

These provisions give effect to the Government's response to the Dacre review of the 30-year rule. The House will recall that, in October 2007, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an independent review of the 30-year rule, which generally requires that all national records be released into the public domain after a 30-year period, save where there are special exemptions. The review was chaired by Paul Dacre, a distinguished journalist and the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail group of newspapers, who worked with Professor Sir David Cannadine, a distinguished historian, and Sir Joseph Pilling, a distinguished public servant. I am grateful for the care and interest that they took in conducting their review. I dare say that it is to be expected of a review written by a senior journalist and an eminent historian, but, in addition to containing good recommendations, it is a very interesting and informative read. I commend it to the House, which I do not do in terms of every review conducted on behalf of the Government. This one is deeply informative.

We have considered the review's recommendations carefully. On 10 June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House the Government's intention to move to a 20-year rule. The Dacre review debated whether we should move to a 20-year rule or a 15-year rule and, on balance, it came down in favour of a 15-year rule. We considered the matter in some detail and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our intention to move to a 20-year rule. There was a subsequent period for further consultation, and last week, we published our response to the review in full. That is now before the House.

The key proposals are to reduce the 30-year rule to 20 years, to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to reduce the time frame within which certain exemptions can apply to the 20-year period. New clause 22 will implement those proposals and it will amend the Public Records Act 1958. Those proposals will thus provide earlier access by 10 years to a wide range of material, and it is the next step towards greater transparency-a process that began under this Government with the passage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Such a move involves careful preparation. It is often assumed that officials simply put the records on the shelves and open them. As I know, not least from my time in the Foreign Office, a huge effort is put in by historians and archivists to go through all the records carefully to ensure that all that can be made publicly available are made publicly available, while also ensuring that some are held back in conformity with public records legislation. The same is true of every other Government Department.

Because the proposal involves a big change, the Dacre review recommended a transitional period and essentially proposed that until we reach the target time of 20 years, in the intervening period two years' records should be released every year to get down from the 30-year limit to the 20-year limit. The new clause makes provision for the transitional period to be brought in by order, because exactly when that new time limit is introduced will need to be considered by Government in the next Parliament.

Dacre also recognised-as does everyone else and as did the House when we discussed the freedom of information legislation-that there must be a balance between increased transparency and protecting sensitive and personal information. That is a fact of life. The introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 preceded the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by a couple of years, and one thing I believe I got right about the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was requiring a single commissioner for both data protection, which is about protecting information, and for freedom of information, which is about its release. Some other Administrations have two commissioners for those two purposes, which can cause immense problems. This represents one area where a balance must be drawn. In circumstances going beyond the protection of personal information, everyone accepts that there may be arguments for protecting the information for longer than the minimum period. Bearing that in mind, schedule 1 maintains the time limit for certain exemptions at 30 years.

The first exemption relates to the protection of commercial interests. Some contracts, particularly those relating to large-scale infrastructure projects and procurement, can run for more than 20 years and may contain commercially sensitive information beyond that point.

I am obliged. I appreciate that this is a sensitive area and I welcome the acceptance of 20 years as a general proposition. It is difficult, however, to see why commercial enterprises should have the retained 30-year holdback, in particular in the case of local authorities. What possible contract could a local authority enter into that would need protection for 30 years? If the right hon. Gentleman could build on what he started to say about commercial interests, particularly as affecting local authorities, it would be helpful. Is this intended to protect defence establishments or the nuclear industry; what is the purpose behind this 30-year retention of information?

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.

What I do not follow is why the argument finished with 30 years. If it is purely about commercial interests, we should bear in mind that it is perfectly possible for contracts to last for longer than that.

Whether or not that is the case-and I accept that there are some areas involving defence, for instance, in which exemptions may continue-there has not been a problem so far, and the Government have not sought in any way to use the Dacre review to restrict access via freedom of information requests rather than to make it easier.

Given the extension of freedom of information opportunities, does the Secretary of State believe that there is any special merit in parliamentary questions any more? Might some information be made available to Parliament that is not made available in response to an FOI request, or is this part of a process whereby Members of Parliament will become just like members of the public, and submit FOI requests instead of parliamentary questions?

That is a very important point. I have to deal with both parliamentary questions and requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, and my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is every purpose in parliamentary questions. They have to be answered by a Minister, and they have to be answered very quickly. Occasionally there are delays, but-the right hon. Gentleman will remember this from his time as a Minister-a large part of my box and those of my ministerial colleagues every night relates to answering parliamentary questions. I have a daily diet of questions from, for instance, Mr. Grieve and his colleagues. I do not complain about that in the least-it is his job. I do my best to ensure that the questions are answered. Normally, the reason for the delay is that I do not think that we are providing full information, not the reverse.

Occasionally, hon. Members put in an FOI request if they feel that they are being blocked by a Minister. In my experience-obviously I cannot speak directly for other colleagues-that happens only when there is a really strong case in the public interest for not making the information available. In that case, there is of course an opportunity to appeal to the Information Commissioner.

I would not recommend making routine FOI requests because they take much longer to process. There is no requirement to answer such a request in a couple of days, as there is to answer a question tabled to the Secretary of State under our Rolls-Royce system. Such a FOI request goes to someone, inevitably at a lower level, and there is a maximum time of 20 working days, a month, to provide the requested information. Sometimes that limit is exceeded; it can take a lot longer. I accept, however, that FOI has opened up the ability to question Government. In the old days, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember, when I was working as an adviser, Ministers could simply block questions-they would put a block on any further answers. Nothing could be done about that in that alleged golden age. That time has gone. I have had to say once or twice to officials, "There's no point trying to block this, otherwise we will get an FOI request." My approach has just been to answer the question, and life has gone on. I hope that that is helpful.

I need to make some progress because other colleagues wish to speak. Information affecting relations between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations may also be sensitive for a longer period, and it is right that that should remain protected beyond the 20-year point, where it is in the public interest to do so.

A related point is that we want to continue to protect information that would be prejudicial to the work of the Executive Committee of Northern Ireland, or which would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs in Northern Ireland. I refer to one of the most extraordinary things that has happened in my 31 years in this House. I came here a month after Airey Neave was murdered on the ramp up from the car park. Like many hon. Members, I remember the terrible terrorist outrages that took place in the 1980s and early 1990s. Indeed I was caught up in one in the 1970s. Then, dramatically, following painstaking work, originally by Sir John Major and his Government, including Mr. Ancram, and under Tony Blair, huge progress has been made. Northern Ireland is completely different now. That could not have taken place-I am glad to see Rev. Ian Paisley in his place-without great statesmanship by both sides of the confessional divide in Northern Ireland and without the possibility of secret, entirely private negotiations. It is important that there should be a record of those. It is also important that they should not be released for a long time.

I note that my right hon. Friend has referred to the provisions in new schedule 1 that refer directly to Northern Ireland. From whom did the Government seek clearance or agreement for those extended exemptions? If it was just the Northern Ireland Executive, whose affairs are already safeguarded from freedom of information and other things anyway, why do the provisions of the new schedule extend to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Northern Ireland Departments and any Northern Ireland public authority?

I did not seek clearance directly from any of the bodies in Northern Ireland. I took the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. His advice is and has been very careful on this. I will seek to get more information on the matter that my hon. Friend raises when I come to my winding-up speech, if that is helpful.

Just to clarify, I fully accept what my right hon. Friend has said about the contribution of Rev. Ian Paisley in latter years, but some of us were deeply involved in putting agreements in place that were about ensuring that we had accountable, transparent Government. Transparency is as important as equality and inclusion in terms of ensuring that public confidence is maintained and sustained in future. People will be deeply suspicious about a change such as this. No one in Northern Ireland appears to have been consulted about it. It appears to have been made completely on the whim and the wheeze of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I will come back to that in more detail in my closing remarks.

I now come to the proposals we have made in respect of the monarchy.

First, may I ask my friend about the records of the honours scrutiny committee? I understand that no records have been destroyed but that civil servants are looking at the criteria for selecting those that will be preserved in the national archives. In a briefing that I have received from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, I am told that the honours exemption would continue for 60 years. Are the Government telling the House that that is indeed the case; that our successors will have to wait a couple of generations before they can find out what the honours scrutiny committee has said about certain individuals?

When we were discussing freedom of information between 1998 and 2000, it was agreed that records relating to honours should be subject to a clear exemption, for reasons I think everybody understands. I do not recall Paul Dacre making any suggestions to the contrary, so there is nothing in these proposals that changes that either way.

The provisions relating to the monarchy were presaged in the Government's response, which was published at the end of last week. We are blessed in this country by a constitutional monarchy of the highest standards. Whatever turmoil there might have been in our body politic, above it all, and held in continuing high respect, is the position of the sovereign. There were lacunae-I confess that I am the Minister responsible-not in the intention of the Freedom of Information Act, but in its drafting that have raised some uncertainties about the protection of the monarchy in relation to national records. Everybody acknowledges that there is a profound difference between those who hold public office because they are volunteers and those who are members of the royal family, particularly the senior members-the sovereign and the heirs to the throne-who, by definition, serve for a lifetime. It seems to me entirely reasonable-I say this notwithstanding the fact that I am a Minister who has served for a longer period than many-for us to bring the 30-year rule down to 20. But it is of great importance that we protect the political impartiality of the monarchy, the sovereign's right and duty to counsel, to encourage and to warn the Government and the right of the heir to the throne to be instructed on the business of government in preparation for the time when they assume the monarchy. These rely on well established and respected conventions of confidentiality.

I am not sure whether it is an enigma or not, but the Secretary of State was correct in saying that the institution is held in great esteem because it is non-controversial and does not enter into the public debate. Some members of the royal family, however, are passionate members of society who lobby for objectives. That is where there is a delicacy in this matter. We must maintain clarity in our constitutional arrangements, and it is an essential key to the stability of the whole institution of the monarchy that the sovereign and their successors do not enter into controversy.

I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman makes. If he examines the proposals in new schedule 1, however, he will see that a distinction is drawn. An absolute exemption is proposed for the monarch, the heir to the throne and the second in line, and a qualified exemption is proposed for other members of the royal family.

It became clear that there were lacunae in the drafting of the Freedom of Information Act-although that was never an issue when it was passing through Parliament as a Bill 10 years ago-in that it does not properly acknowledge the fundamental public interest in maintaining the confidentiality surrounding the conventions, and in that that does not apply to historical records, despite the fact that the sovereign remains in office for life. Therefore, the proposal is for an absolute exemption in respect of information relating to communications with the sovereign, the heir and the second in line, and for those acting on their behalf, of a period of 20 years, or their lifetime plus five years, whichever is longer. To pick up on the point of Mr. Shepherd, in recognition of the fact that the constitutional position of other members of the royal family will vary, we are proposing that there should also be a qualified exemption: decisions on whether information relating to them should be released would come after consideration of the public interest test. Their exemption would no longer expire at 30 years; instead it would expire at 20 years, or five years after the lifetime of the relevant member of the royal family, whichever is the later.

I might be mistaken, but it seems to me that paragraph 3 of new schedule 1 affects not only national records, but the application of the Freedom of Information Act to royal communications by removing any possibility of the use of the public interest test from any such communication. Am I right in thinking that that is the effect?

As I have said, that paragraph provides an absolute exemption in respect of records relating to the monarch and the next two in line and also for a qualified exemption of 20 years or for five years after the death of the monarch, whichever is later. The hon. Gentleman is correct in that respect.

In the unlikely event that we had a monarch who was seeking to subvert the constitution, would it not be in the public interest for us to know about that?

Of course it would, but if the monarch were seeking to subvert the constitution, we would know about that, because it would become rather obvious, and then, of course, it would be perfectly possible for this House to bring in all sorts of emergency legislation, including an Act of Attainder. A trial could be held down in Westminster Hall, and the usual arrangements made for punishment. I do not think for a second that the Freedom of Information Act or this exemption would prevent my hon. Friend and others from knowing about such an act of subversion.

But there would be a public interest in disclosure if the heir to the throne, or the second in line, were to intervene and change public policy quite significantly. Surely we should know about that.

There is a balance to be struck. My view is that the right balance is encapsulated by the provisions that we make. I seriously say to my hon. Friend that there is no way that members of the royal family can change public policy. They may have opinions, and they are entitled to those-why would they not be? The royal family do a remarkable job in how they comport themselves in this country. As he will know, the work that Prince Charles has done in better educating the public about, and ensuring that they are better informed about, one of the world's wonderful religions, Islam, is remarkable. Some people might regard that as slightly partisan, but I do not; I think that it is entirely appropriate for him to do that. However, he is not making public policy on that matter; public policy is ultimately decided by this place.

I have spoken at slightly greater length than I had anticipated doing, but I hope that these provisions commend themselves to the House, because they represent a significant further advance on ensuring that there is genuine freedom of information in this country.

These provisions do commend themselves to Conservative Members, and I greatly welcome the fact that the Government have tabled them to implement the proposals in the Dacre report. I join the Secretary of State in thanking those who contributed to putting together the report.

I, too, do not wish to take up too much of the House's time, because the answers given by the Secretary of State on the exemptions in new schedule 1 appear to make eminent sense and there is no point in my repeating the arguments that he put forward. I seek slightly greater clarification on only one matter. I understand that the original proposals in the Dacre report were that we should move from 30 to 20 years and, secondly, that there should be a formula to cover the period that will fall over 10 years to address the differences between the 20 and 30-year periods. In new clause 22, the Government have, perfectly reasonably, not sought to spell that out in primary legislation, but have chosen to give the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State discretion on how that is best implemented by statutory instrument.

If my understanding of the new clause is correct, it would therefore be open to the Government, when dealing with the matter at a later date, to go less far than the Dacre report proposes, or to identify some categories for disclosure and some for which disclosure might not happen. Alternatively, they could decide to go further and faster. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could clarify that point so that the House may understand exactly what it is implementing. However, I appreciate that any order made by the Lord Chancellor would require a statutory instrument and would be

"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

It is important that that point is appreciated because it might offer us an opportunity to speed up the process.

It has always been recognised in the Dacre report, however-and indeed by the Government-that past assurances about the length of time for which material will be retained rather than put in the public domain represent a factor that must to be taken into account when deciding whether that process should be accelerated. When something concerns an individual who is very much alive, and who can therefore be consulted, their view may carry considerable weight when considering whether particular categories of material ought to be disclosed.

That is the only point on which I hope that the Secretary of State might be able to respond. Subject to that, and because I am mindful of the time available for debate, I simply wish to reiterate my welcome and say how grateful I am that we have taken the opportunity-at one stage I thought that we were not going to get it-to have the provisions implemented in this Bill and before the forthcoming general election.

One of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's many enduring legacies is the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act, and it is appropriate that he is introducing an improvement to that measure in the last days of this Parliament.

First, let me quickly welcome the dog that did not bark: the proposal to exempt Cabinet materials, which was the original intention. I understand that the Prime Minister made a most welcome intervention to ensure that that did not happen. I can understand the temptation for wanting to do it, however. I remember, many years ago, visiting Australia to look at freedom of information when we were contemplating it here. I remember, as might my hon. Friend Mr. Prentice-we have been together for a long time-that we stood outside the Cabinet room, where we were shown us a trolley loaded with papers. People explained that they pushed that trolley into the Cabinet room so that the papers became, ipso facto, Cabinet papers, therefore giving them a blanket exemption. They thought that that was a cunning wheeze, and I can quite see that there would be huge attractions in trying a similar wheeze here. I am glad that even though that idea was flirted with, it was resisted, and we should welcome that.

I never thought I would say that I wanted to praise the editor of the Daily Mail, but putting him in charge of the review of the arrangements in this area now looks to have been an inspired decision. I am glad that we are now seeing, more or less, the implementation of what that Committee recommended and that the period is being brought down to 20 years.

I want to say something about the royal family exemption, however. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that all such things were inconceivable when I raised the question of what would happen if a royal did something or other but, of course, there is a history to all this. Monarchs in the past have not behaved themselves terribly well in terms of the constitutional relationship. People did not know about it at the time, but they jolly well ought to have done. Just before the 1880 election, Queen Victoria wrote in a memorandum:

"If the Liberals...intend to lean to the extreme Radicals, they can never expect any support from the Queen...These are dangerous times and any attempt to make our Institutions Democratic will be most disastrous".

I think that people would have been entitled to know that that was coming out of the palace. In 1906, when the Labour party did rather well in the election, people were entitled to have known that the Prince of Wales, who later became King George V, wrote:

"I see that a great number of Labour members have been returned which is a rather a dangerous sign, but I hope they are not all socialists."

People are entitled to know such things.

As it happens, I am quite an admirer of Prince Charles. He seems to be doing an interesting job-that is, an impossible job with interest-and I find myself in agreement with him on many things. If I were in his position, I would write similarly vigorous letters to Government Ministers about issues of the day. The question is whether such communications-after all, the amendment that we are being asked to consider is, in a sense, the Prince Charles amendment-should remain non-disclosable in perpetuity, which is to say until five years after his death. Given the splendid longevity of members of the royal family, that would be a long time away. As he is someone of robust opinions who tries to persuade Government Ministers to see the world from his point of view, it is not fanciful to suggest that a Government Minister might decide to see things from the point of view of the person writing from the palace.

Let us consider homeopathy, which most sensible people think is not entirely supported by evidence. Suppose that Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, were to weigh in to the debate, giving heavy support to the idea that resources should be devoted to homeopathy. If a Government then decided to start allocating resources to homeopathy, people would be entitled to know that that act of lobbying had been extremely successful. We would want to know about it if it had come from any other source.

We have an obligation both to respect the privacy of such communications at the time and to make sensible judgments about when they can properly be released so that people can see what has happened. What I do not understand is what has been the urgency of making changes in this area. I ask my right hon. Friend to address that point when he responds to the debate, because my understanding is that there is no difficulty and that the current exemption has been upheld whenever it has been tested by the Information Commissioner. I think that my right hon. Friend has to make the case for giving away a public interest test virtually in perpetuity, and I ask him simply whether representations on this issue have come entirely from him, or whether they have come from the royal family itself. With those comments, I extend a welcome to the measures.

I, too, welcome the progress that the new clauses and schedules represent, although I resent slightly the fact that they were introduced so late in the day and that we are taking up time on Report with yet more new Government proposals. It seems to me that the degree of scrutiny that they will get is inadequate. It is now very unlikely that the Bill will get much further than Second Reading in the other place, so the Bill will go straight into wash-up-and who knows what will come out of the other end of that? Certainly, there is no public debate. I fear that that was perhaps part of the intention behind bringing forward at this stage the part to which Dr. Wright has referred. That said, I welcome the fact that progress is being made.

I would like the Secretary of State to say a little more about the decisions that the Government have taken in response to the Dacre review. In his opening remarks, he rather skated over the question of whether there should be a 20-year period, rather than a 15-year period, and gave the impression that although it is perfectly natural for people to suggest a 15-year period, a 20-year period would be far better. The Government seem to be arguing that one reason why Ministers believe that the period should be 20 years is that it would be much less of a distraction to them in their current jobs than if they thought that their deliberations would be revealed in 15 years' time. I wonder whether there is any evidence for that.

I can answer that point directly. The review team said that

"neither the case for 15 years nor the case for 20 years is beyond argument. It must be a matter of judgement how to strike the balance".

I do not say that there is direct evidence because we are making judgments about the future, but our judgment was that the balance would be best struck at 20 years. Hon. Members should bear in mind that, with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, most records are not closed even within the current envelope of 30 years-soon to be 20 years, I hope. Records can be requested even after a couple of years. However, that decision was a matter of judgment.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but surely there should be some evidence about how long ministerial careers last. Perhaps this point can be applied directly to him. His ministerial career started in 1997, so, under the 15-year rule, he would start to be affected by the greater openness in just a few years' time, which might or might not be just after he has left office. In contrast, he would be affected in seven years' time under the 20-year rule. Would he would feel distracted from the exercise of his present office by the prospect that he might have to be open about 1997 in a couple of years' time, as opposed to seven years? Given the robustness with which he approaches his job, that seems unlikely. I therefore voice some scepticism about the way the figure has drifted upwards.

The second point about which I want to express some scepticism has been raised already in the debate, and has to do with the commercial enterprise exception. I think that a policy decision has been made that has not been acknowledged openly. When commercial organisations or enterprises sign very long-term contracts with public authorities for the provision of public services, they are often very nervous about openness. That is one of the problems: openness is a disincentive for operating the public service in that way.

A further problem-and when I was the leader of a council, I used to think that it was really serious-is that that sort of arrangement has the capacity to freeze public policy in one direction for a very long time. The idea that it is at all legitimate for any political authority, whether it be the Government or a local authority, to enter into contracts that last a generation is, I think, problematical. Simply on policy grounds, therefore, I would prefer there to be a disincentive against awarding very long-term contracts of that sort. I can see why commercial interests might be nervous, but I am glad that they are.

My third point echoes what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said. This group of amendments contains one piece of good news, if only in the sense of the dog that did not bark. The Cabinet papers exemption was mooted at an earlier stage, and it is very good news that it does not appear in the Government's final proposals. However, I want to add one point to what the hon. Gentleman said, and it is that the ministerial veto is still in place.

That veto was used in connection with the Iraq Cabinet minutes, for example, and again in the case of the Cabinet Committee considering devolution, but I believe that a dangerous drift is taking place. When the veto was used for the first time, the Secretary of State came directly to the House and justified what was going on in an oral statement. He was therefore subject to the accountability of the House, even though everyone said at the time that the case was highly unusual and not a matter of routine.

However, in respect of the second case-the one involving the Cabinet Committee and devolution-the Secretary of State made a written statement. He did not come to the House, and I think that we are drifting towards routine objections- [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State makes a gesture to show that I have mentioned only two cases. It is true that this is a curve with two points, but where is the trend going? That is the question.

I object to the whole idea of a ministerial exemption, as it is a violation of the separation of powers. However, I would be much more comfortable with the present situation if the Government were to say that, whenever the exemption is used, Ministers at the very least will have to come to the House and justify it orally. They must not be allowed to leave that to a written statement.

The legislation has been in force for five years, and the section 53 veto power has been exercised only twice. In that five years, the commission or the tribunal has made scores and scores of decisions that could have been subject to veto. The fact that they have not been shows that the exemption has been used only very rarely.

However, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the statement that I made about the Iraq Cabinet minutes. I am always up for making oral statements, but it is a matter of balance. In that case, the House was properly informed about the matter, and I do not think that anyone made a request for an urgent question. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman-he may not accept this-that the section 53 veto power is as fundamental to the architecture of the Act as all the other provisions. The truth is that the Act would not have gone through, and no Government would have put their name to it without the full works of the architecture, and one limb depends on another.

On the substance, the Secretary of State and I simply disagree about whether the exemption is fundamental. I do not think that it is. He might be right that it was causative-it helped to get the Bill through the House-but I do not think that it is very important in a proper system of freedom of information, in which the ultimate arbiters should be the courts, not the Government making decisions in cases in which they are one of the parties.

May I correct the Secretary of State? There are several requests for urgent questions in the normal course of events, but those requests are not always granted. There is a problem, because whenever the question of Cabinet minutes arises, the Government react automatically in thinking that the exemption should be used. I do not want that to be the case, because that aspect of the law is still within the general jurisdiction of the commissioner and the public interest test. I do not think that it should be changed simply as a result of the Government's repetitive decision.

Finally, I do not want to add very much to what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said about the royal papers, but I think that he is right. The problem is not to do with the sovereign at all, but with other members of the royal family. The question is whether a complete exemption from the public interest test-there is no balancing; it is an absolute exemption-should apply beyond the sovereign herself. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to make the point that if lobbying is taking place by anyone-by any citizen-that is something that the public should know about at some point.

The House should also bear carefully in mind the point made by Mr. Shepherd. The constitution is a delicate balance: the monarchy exists in that balance, because it is politically neutral. That neutrality should not just be an apparent neutrality engineered by legal exemptions but a real neutrality. The possibility of the Freedom of Information Act being brought into play in some cases is an important incentive in making sure that that neutrality is real and not just apparent. Those are my queries and concerns, but the overall policy thrust is moving in the right direction-I just wish that it would move further and faster.

Like other hon. Members, I welcome new clause 22, which includes provisions to reduce the 30-year limit and so on. However, I am concerned, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, about new schedule 1, particularly the provisions affecting Northern Ireland. I should like to explain my reservations.

Paragraph 5(4) of new schedule 1, would add several new subsections to section 63 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It states, for example, that

"information contained in a historical record cannot be exempt information by virtue of section 36 except"- and this is one instance-

"in a case falling within subsection (2)(c) of that section where the prejudice or likely prejudice relates to the effective conduct of public affairs in Northern Ireland."

Similarly, proposed new subsection 2B says that compliance applies

"except where the effect...falls within subsection (2)(c) of that section and relates to the effective conduct of public affairs in Northern Ireland."

My right hon. Friend suggested that the purpose was to protect the business of the Northern Ireland Executive. The business of that Executive, or the conduct of their business, is not referred to specifically, but there is a wide descriptor of the likely prejudicing of the conduct of public affairs in Northern Ireland. Many people will be concerned that if the measure is used in relation to historical information in general, and is not specifically linked to the conduct of the Executive or anything else, it could be used to impede requests for information that may well be relevant, particularly in investigations of how Northern Ireland deals with the past on the basis of the Eames-Bradley and any other proposals. Measures could be taken to prevent the release of information that might simply be embarrassing to Ministers or to people involved in the political process as it is now in Northern Ireland, because it might reveal or expose some of their previous involvement in untoward and less constitutional activities. Many people will be deeply concerned that that language can be used to provide a sweeping exemption and protection in relation to historical information that it might be valid to seek.

I hope that the House will not inadvertently be lured into allowing such a sweeping exemption on the grounds that that the provision is designed purely to protect the conduct of the business of the Northern Ireland Executive. The measure appears to go much wider than that, and at no point is the Northern Ireland Executive specifically mentioned in the new schedule. I hope that that is something that my right hon. Friend can address.

Some of us have experience of trying to use Freedom of Information requests to find out what was, or was not, agreed or understood in relation to possible side deals. It was in the public interest to know whether there were side deals and hidden understandings, because many people had objections and suspicions at different stages of the Northern Ireland peace process. In the past-as a party, we have always pushed the process forward, trying to reach agreement and upholding the institutions that were agreed and ratified-our requests were refused on the grounds that they dealt with sensitive political matters. That was simply not credible, and it was fairly insulting, so I would not wish to give further licence to the notion that a British Minister could tell me that I did not have the right to receive clear information about the conduct of political affairs in the devolved realm as it applied to me as an elected representative in that devolved realm, because they had done some other deal with someone else and were too embarrassed to allow that side deal to emerge. I hope that my right hon. Friend recognises that sustaining our institutions in Northern Ireland and taking them forward requires transparency as much as secrecy and the protection of any sort of covert political deals.

I urge my right hon. Friend, too, to address paragraph 6 of the schedule, which would insert into the Freedom of Information Act new section 80A, which relates to information held by Northern Ireland bodies. It states that the new section applies to information held by

"the Northern Ireland Assembly...a Northern Ireland department, or...a Northern Ireland public authority."

It goes on to make it clear that we are talking not about 20 years but 30 years, and it lists other exemptions and outs. If that is for the purposes of protecting the business of the Northern Ireland Executive, why are there references to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Northern Ireland Departments and Northern Ireland public authorities? Was the Assembly consulted on the reference to it? Section 36 of the 2000 Act says that the Speaker of the Assembly is the relevant officer, so were he and the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission consulted? If not, what right does the House have to proceed with this, if there has been no approval, agreement or assent?

Similarly, were the Northern Ireland Executive or the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister consulted on the provision for Northern Ireland Departments and public authorities, or is it based purely on the surmise and advice of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The Government rightly chose to exempt Cabinet papers not for 30 years, but only for 20, and it would be bizarre if all the affairs of Northern Ireland Departments, public authorities and the Assembly-meaning the information that the Speaker holds-were to be exempt for 30 years. There is no credible reason why they should be, and the public and, I am quite sure, the press in Northern Ireland would be deeply suspicious of that. They would certainly be very suspicious if the provision, having been microwaved out of wherever, passed through this Parliament without any of us from Northern Ireland speaking up to question it.

I wholly concur with everything that has been said in support of relaxing or expanding freedom of information. Through questions, I have raised my main concerns with this aspect of the Bill, but I shall return to the commercial interests question, which worries me quite deeply.

I remember that, in the early days of our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Bill under the chairmanship of Rhodri Morgan, we had an interview with commercial interests. One was Tarmac, and we asked its representatives, "Why do we need to exempt you? Why shouldn't your business, where it affects public authorities and so on, be a matter of revelation?" They agreed wholeheartedly with us and wanted to know why rivals secured a contract with a public authority, for instance. That was the commercial engine for their interest in the matter, but if we citizens, taxpayers, Governments and local authorities stand back, do we not find that we have the same objective in wanting to achieve best value for money, for instance? The competitive details-the commercial interest, as it is called-should be a more open book. In some states of the United States, all tendering is open and all contracts are open. They say, "Here's the deal. Who can match it? Who can do better?" Within the process, however, there are obviously other checks and balances on the stability and solidity of the company that provides the services.

The provision before us is an extraordinary exemption. Everywhere else we are bringing the period down to 20 years, but this proposal is for 30 years. Public authority contracts have turned sour in recent years, but that point is not confined to this Government; it predates them and goes back into our history. We are discussing long-term contracts, so I wonder whether the exemption is for national security reasons. Defence installations, nuclear power stations and so on touch on our national security interests if only in respect of our containing them, fighting for them or protecting them from terrorism. But, in truth, on the issue of 30 years' exemption for a contract that a local authority has entered into, ought we not to know whether it is a good contract? How do we evaluate it, and by what do we compare it?

I should have thought that it was in the interests of the Government, House and public authorities to be much more open and frank about these matters, so I wonder why there is always resistance-from Whitehall, in large measure-to such openness, publication or accessibility in respect of what is behind the contracts. I cannot see in what way such a blanket restriction-there is no calibration, remember-assists the public interest, which includes best value, openness and all the criteria that inform, or are meant to inform, the freedom of information legislation.

I know that we want to get through these provisions rapidly, but the Justice Secretary's comments on them were, of necessity, brief: we are under a guillotine, after all. Nevertheless, there is no opportunity to tease out the issue. My proposition to the House is that the evidence suggests a provision that is contrary to the Government's proposal, so I shall not wave it through as a good measure. At the heart of that contention lies some of the answers to the public procurement and long-term contracts that central and local authorities enter into, and that is the point that I wanted to make.

The proposal should be revisited. I know that the Bill is not going anywhere, but I should hope that in the Lords, at least, a beadier eye will be cast over whether the provision is necessary and in the public interest.

Mr. Grieve asked whether the time scale could be compressed or extended, or apply at different speeds to different bodies. In principle, we aim to ensure that the process applies evenly to all bodies over a 10-year period. For example, if we had the order ready and it came into force for 2011, in 2011 the records for two years rather than one-1981 and 1982-would be released; in 2012, the records for 1983 and 1984 would be released; and so on until we got to 2020, when the records for 1999 and 2000 would be released. After that, the transition would be complete.

However, the power to make the order is, as the hon. and learned Gentleman spotted, flexible, so it would be possible to include different time scales for different bodies, and to extend or compress them. I suspect that that is not the intention generally, but there may be some bodies whereby for particular reasons it is not practicable to do all that work at the same time. I hope that that answers his question.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to commend the Government for introducing this legislation. He said that he had doubted whether it would be possible, and I, too, doubted whether it would be possible. I am therefore deeply grateful to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend Mr. Wills for assiduously pressing all Departments in order to ensure not only that we introduced it, but that, with luck, it will go on to the statute book. Given the consensus behind the legislation, I have no reason to believe that that luck should not obtain.

My hon. Friend Dr. Wright entertained us with dastardly things that had been said by heirs to the monarchy, by the monarch herself in the 1880s and by the heir to the Crown in 1906. If he had wanted to make a point, however, he would have needed some slightly more contemporary examples. Furthermore, it is also true that, as Queen Victoria was uttering those concerns about the Liberals being elected, £10,000-equivalent to £1 million today-from the Secret Service Vote was routinely made available to the Chief Whip for him to use as he wished to ensure that Government business went through. [ Interruption. ] I shall leave that sedentary intervention where it is and certainly not repeat it.

To a degree, that money ensured compliance, but the idea that these days the Chief Whip should have £1 million in folding money to dish out as he wishes is preposterous. It may have ensured more votes back then, but times change. I think that we have reached a rather settled position on the monarchy, and I have explained the reasons why we believe the proposals to be necessary.

Although the examples given by my hon. Friend Dr. Wright, which I watched in my office, were amusing, there have been more recent examples of members of the royal family seeking to intervene in public policy. Why do the Government think it is right to remove the public interest exemption? In most cases, the Information Commissioner has ruled on the side of the royal family, and surely it is right to retain the exemption.

The reason is that the current situation was never the intention when the Freedom of Information Act was introduced. I say that without fear of contradiction, because I know what the intention was. I do not recall any suggestion that there should be anything but substantial protection for the monarch and the heirs to the throne. It was a complex Bill, and as Mr. Shepherd will recall, it went through a number of iterations. It was certainly a different and much tougher Bill that went on to the statute book compared with the one that I introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase will remember a most extraordinary period on Report when, without any agreement from any Cabinet Committee, for instance, I accepted a series of amendments to accommodate concerns on both sides of the House.

My hon. Friend Lynne Jones and I may simply disagree about this, but I urge on the House the profound distinction between members of the royal family and anybody else in public life. The royal family have not chosen their position. They perform their functions with the utmost professionalism and dedication, but they have their position for life. It is worth bearing in mind that Her Majesty is now on her 11th Prime Minister, I believe. I am one of the few people in the House who can remember her succession to the throne in February 1952-one or two others are in their places, such as Rev. Ian Paisley and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. We are a fast-diminishing group, but Her Majesty goes on. If we want to ensure that respect for and confidence in the monarchy continue, we have a duty to ensure that she and the heir to the throne are properly protected. As for everybody below the second heir to the throne, they are subject to qualified exemptions, as I have explained.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether the exemption will apply only to matters that are directly and personally communicated by the relevant members of the royal family, or also to anything voiced by third parties, perhaps at semi-private lunches to which Ministers are invited?

I am sorry to resort to the text of new schedule 1, but my hon. Friend will see that it sets out the relevant categories of information-communications with the sovereign, the heir and the second heir. The key word is "communications", which covers a wide range of information. I believe that it is appropriate that it should. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has handed me a note stating that the provision applies also to those acting on behalf of the relevant members of the royal family, which I said in my opening remarks.

It took me a bit of time to catch up with the news that David Howarth is going to leave the House, and I am sorry that he is. I made my point about the veto in an intervention on him. I sometimes think that people want to pick and mix the Freedom of Information Act. It is a very tough Act, and notwithstanding the criticisms as it was going through the House that it was no better than the non-statutory information code, it has transformed the public's right to know about what public authorities do and changed the behaviour of national and local government. It is not an à la carte menu, it is a single whole, and as I have said before, the section 53 power is as essential a part of it as the public interest test exceptions in section 2. It is better and more substantial than most comparable freedom of information Acts in the world, including that in Australia.

We are simply maintaining the status quo with respect to Northern Ireland. We did not ask the Northern Ireland Assembly whether it wanted us to do that, because there was not anything in particular to ask it since we were not changing anything. It will remain open to the Assembly to pass its own freedom of information legislation relating to its own areas of business if it wants to bring it into line with what is happening in this House. That seems an appropriate way to proceed.

I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend Mark Durkan, but neither the Information Commissioner nor the Information Tribunal allow the text of the Freedom of Information Act to be used more widely than the provisions in it state. If anybody attempts to use the exemptions in it too widely, they have to get past first the Information Commissioner and secondly the tribunal. If they are both blind to the fact that the provisions of the Act are being misused, there can be an appeal to the High Court on a point of law, as there has been. I am quite sure that the High Court would spot the error that was being made, even if the other two institutions had not done so.

My right hon. Friend says that no consultation took place because there was no change, but he told us earlier that the reference to Northern Ireland was in the new schedule specifically at the request, and on the advice, of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Obviously it occurred to somebody that there were implications, and they said that Northern Ireland should be exempted. It seems strange that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took the decision, not the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.

Of course I acted on advice from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland-it would have been eccentric if I had not done so. We had made a general policy decision to move to a 20-year period, and my right hon. Friend made what I regarded as cogent arguments for why it should remain 30 years in Northern Ireland, which I accepted for reasons that I have tried to spell out. Because that decision did not affect the status quo, there was nothing on which to consult the Northern Ireland Assembly directly. It is worth bearing in mind that, as I recall, there was no Northern Ireland Assembly when the original Act was passed.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that as well as the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Secretary of State, there are Members and political parties in this House who should have been asked for their considered opinion? Would it not have been appropriate for such consultations to be held?

If that is so, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. All this reminds me that whatever bad things I did in my previous life, they were never bad enough to have me made Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If I have not explained the matter as fully or comprehensively as I should have done, I will perhaps have to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and copy the letter to other hon. Members.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not regard being Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as an honour rather than as a burden?

It would have been as much of an honour as being Home Secretary, but I will not proceed down that road. It would have been a wonderful honour to be Northern Ireland Secretary and of course, had the Queen's shilling come my way in that respect, I would have accepted it.

Finally, to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, I gather that Departments and other bodies release details of contracts on a regular basis in publication schemes. However, 30 years is necessary for a limited number of contracts that are long term. In any event, all we are doing, as with Northern Ireland matters, is maintaining the status quo-the current 30 years-which I do not think is a huge deal. For quite good reasons, the exemption will still be subject to the public interest test: it is a qualified exemption, not an absolute exemption.

With those comprehensive and informed answers, I commend these provisions to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 22 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.