division_name: Freedom of Information Bill
motion: <p>As amended in the Standing Committee, considered. 
  <p>Ordered, 
  <p>That the Freedom of Information Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 16, Schedule 2, Clauses 17 to 54, Schedule 3, Clauses 55 to 60, Schedule 4, Clauses 61 to 66, Schedule 5, Clauses 67 to 72, Schedule 6, Clauses 73 to 84, Schedule 7, Clauses 85 and 86, new Clauses and new Schedules.-- [Mr. McNulty.]  
   
  
    Clause 1  
  <p> 
   General right of access to information held by public authorities <p>in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
  <p>We recommend that the Bill should contain a clear statement indicating what it is intended to achieve and indicating a presumption in favour of disclosure.
  <p>the accountability of public authorities . . . informed public debate on public affairs . . . public participation in the making of decisions, and . . . public understanding of the powers, duties and operation of public authorities.
  <p>I think it would be very helpful in making judgments about discretionary decisions . . .
  <p>I would agree with Lord Burns that officials will look in detail at what is written in the statute unless a very clear lead is given from the top of the public bodies as to what action is appropriate. If there is nothing there that tells them to weigh in the balance a general interest in disclosure then they will not do so.
  <p>We must assume that such a clause would be given legislative effect by the commissioner, the tribunal and courts, and that it would therefore change the balance of rights and put a gloss on the Bill as a whole. That may be unpredictable and uncontrollable.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B , 11 January 2000; c. 29.]
  <p>As I understand it, one of the things that the Government is seeking to do, and on which they should be complimented, is they are seeking to change the culture with regard to freedom of information and I think that in that sort of situation a signpost at the beginning as to the general intent of the legislation can be very important.
  <p>The purposes of this Act are to extend progressively the right of the public to information held by public authorities.
  <p>What can we reason, but from what we know?
  <p>informed public debate on public affairs.
  <p>ensured that the number, tenor and the generality of the exemptions would not overshadow the raison d'etre of the Act.
  <p>Make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected purposes.
  <p>Make provision about the disclosure of information
  <p>it would be very helpful in making judgments about discretionary decisions,
  <p>fits also with my view that discretionary decisions should be reviewable in substance, the two are a package, if you like.
  <p>what I could use to hang a view that a discretionary decision had been improperly taken.
  <p>concentrated less on the wording of the legislation than on the cultural changes and . . . achieved a greater degree of openness. Legislation is only part of the process. It provides the essential legal base, but creating a new culture of openness is in many ways the real test.--[ Official Report , 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 789.]
  <p>The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 167, Noes 339.
  