The Department for Constitutional Affairs issued guidance on the subject on more than one occasion, and as I understand it, the Information Commissioner issues guidance to public authorities. However—this is the nub of the debate—it is for the House to decide whether the 2000 Act, as it stands, is sufficiently robust on the issue. It is up to the House to make that decision.
I shall move on to the confidentiality amendments, Nos. 14 and 40. Replacing the exemption as currently drafted with a presumption that the holder has an obligation of confidentiality will merely have the effect of making it easier for public authorities to refuse requests for Members’ correspondence. In Committee, hon. Members agreed that there are occasions when it is right that such correspondence should enter the public domain—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised that point—and the exemption, as currently drafted, recognises that. It is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test. The amendments would add a rigidity, so the House needs to consider that carefully.
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 c898-9 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:13:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398041
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398041
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398041