My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses.
Amendment 151 provides both clarity and the appropriate safeguards for the UK’s research centres and its academics. Like other noble Lords, I wonder why the Minister has decided to go down a different route from that being trodden in Scotland, Ireland and the USA. It seems to me that by taking a different route we are putting our universities at a competitive disadvantage. That would obviously be a retrograde step.
It is clear from everything that has been said by noble Lords who are far more well versed in these issues than I am that the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner is completely inadequate in relation to competition and confidentiality. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has commented that the amendment is probably defective. However, unless the Minister is prepared to accept the principle behind it, the contribution which our academic and research institutions make not just to the cultural and intellectual life of this country but to ensuring that we have a competitive advantage in many areas will be adversely affected. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept the amendment in principle.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 12 January 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c24GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:20:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799853
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799853
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_799853