Protection of Freedoms Bill

My Lords, I rise to express my complete support for the spirit and intention behind this amendment, which has been so cogently and lucidly explained by the three noble Baronesses in whose names it stands. I rise simply to make a drafting point on the amendment, which some of your Lordships may think is a rather tedious reason. It proposes two conditions to be applied to, "““Information obtained in the course of, or derived from, a programme of research””," to enable that information to qualify as exempt information. The two conditions are under paragraphs (a) and (b) of new subsection (1A) that the amendment would insert into Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. My point relates to the condition under paragraph (a), which states that, "““the programme or project is continuing with a view to a report of the research … being published by””," bodies specified in paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii) in the amendment. I puzzled over the identity of the possible publishers who would fall under those categories. Paragraph (a)(i) refers to, "““a public authority as defined by section 3 of this Act””," which would exclude other public authorities that are not so defined. Paragraph (a)(ii) refers to ““any other person””. When the word ““person”” is found in statute, it may include, according to the Interpretation Act, "““a body of persons corporate or unincorporate””," but that depends on the context. An authority which is not a public authority as defined in Section 3 could be a corporate or unincorporated body and could qualify as a person. It is the contrast between the two that might, if someone wanted to argue the contrary, raise some doubt. I began to wonder why it was necessary to identify the proposed publishers at all. The important condition is that, "““the programme or project is continuing with a view to a report of the research … being published””." It really does not matter by whom the matter will be published because anyone will do. I think that that is the intention behind paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii), although the language used might suggest the contrary. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the words in the those paragraphs (a)(i) and (a)(ii), and the preceding preposition ““by””, should go and that the condition in paragraph (a) should simply refer to, "““the programme or project is continuing with a view to a report of the research … being published””." Doubt and confusion is simply raised by the attempt to specify the individuals or organisations which fall under paragraphs (a)(i) or (a)(ii).