Also, remember that FOI isn't some magic tool for stopping corruption. Blair brought it in, and has said several times that it needs to be changed. FOI isn't public oversight.
The Conservatives are not proven to be corrupt. This self-evidently not true because no-one has proved it.
If Tories believe an agency without oversight is in the public interest they're supposed to come to the public, get a mandate for that, win support. I strongly suspect this is vehicle for backhanders, but even if it weren't then in a democracy they're care to win approval first.
If it's worth doing, it's worth knowing the cost of. I'm happy to explore having a low-financial return science/engineering group funded by pubic money ... but only if it's completely transparent (financially and politically).
No, there are a ton of things the US et. al. do in secret, it's normal.
There needs to be oversight, public is better, but an independent council can work.
But yes, there's going to be a problem with graft.
I mean, if you FOI the MoD, they say no, but they don't have a blank cheque to avoid any scrutiny either.
So the objection is to that specific clause and based on very real facts about recent and ongoing corruption. Priti Patel is another example and there is a very long list if you want one of abuse of public office from the current cabinet, this is not an abstract concern or one without foundation.
Nobody on this thread has said that everything the Conservatives do is bad, just that they are proven to be corrupt and therefore a FOI exception is a bad idea in this case.