My Lords, a distinction has been made between the ODA and LOCOG. But, to paraphrase my noble friend, they are mutually dependent. Freedom of information eats up time. But that is not an exception or an exemption listed in the many clauses of the Freedom of Information Act. I do not believe that it is to the credit of a Government, who were applauded for introducing freedom of information, to except a body now because of problems with which, admittedly, we are all dealing as it beds down. I anticipated most of the arguments made by the Minister, so I will not trouble the House by repeating them. He said that it is not for this Bill to specify that LOCOG should be subject to freedom of information, although perhaps it will become so in the future, and that freedom of information is not the business of this Bill. I believe that it is the business of this Bill. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 116.
Clause 10 [Olympic Transport Plan]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Regulations: supplemental]:
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hamwee
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c607-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:00:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305390
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305390
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305390