Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to move on, so that we can move the debate on.
Amendments Nos. 12, 24, 39 and 44 would qualify the new exemption so that public authorities would need to consider the public interest in withholding or releasing Members’ correspondence. The public interest test can encompass all the factors mentioned in the amendments, including any relationship that the Member may have with the public authority in question and the nature of the information—whether it is about general policy or an individual case.
I am not sure that the House would wish, through amendments Nos. 25 and 45, to create an exemption limited to letters and electronic correspondence. I suggest that we should guard against inhibiting such communications, which might cause Members to decide to discuss some of the important matters that their constituents raise only in meetings or on the telephone, rather than commit themselves to paper.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16, 41 and 42 relate to personal data. The personal information contained in MPs’ correspondence is already covered by the exemption as drafted. It is for the House to determine the scope and the extent of that exemption, but I remind hon. Members that there is already an exemption for personal data.
Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Bridget Prentice
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 18 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c897 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:13:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398033
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398033
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398033