division_name: Freedom of Information Bill - Defence
motion: <p>
   I beg to move amendment No. 177, in page 58, line 42, leave out paragraph 19.
  <p> 
  
   Schedule 2 makes the commissioner subject to a new prohibition on disclosure of information about to come into force under the Data Protection Act 1998. The commissioner and her staff would face criminal charges for disclosing certain information under the Bill. Disclosures could be made only if they were "necessary" for their functions or "necessary" in the public interest. The "necessary" test is a strict one which may prevent disclosure by the commissioner in many circumstances. The present Data Protection Commissioner, who will become the first Information Commissioner, has expressed concern.
  <p> 
  
   Under section 59 of the Data Protection Act, the Data Protection Commissioner is subject to a statutory prohibition on the disclosure of certain information. Schedule 2(19) of the Bill extends that prohibition to the Information Commissioner. The effect may be to prevent the commissioner and her staff from disclosing information about how or whether they are handling particular complaints, where this involves the release of information about identifiable businesses. That may become relevant where an authority has refused to disclose information about a particular company to an applicant.
  <p> 
  
   In some cases, businesses may be public authorities in relation to certain functions. For example, under clause 4(1)(a), private bodies with public functions can be brought within the scope of the Bill by an order in relation to specified functions. That might apply to companies such as Group 4 in relation to prison contracts. The registrar has disputed this view because article 28.7 of the data protection directive states:
  <p> 
   
    Member states shall provide that the members and staff of the supervisory authority are to be subject to a duty of professional secrecy with regard to confidential information to which they have access.
  <p>The Registrar does not believe that the Directive requires the criminal provisions provided by clause 54 [now section 59]. She believes that the existing law combined with appropriate conditions and staff contracts will satisfy the requirements of Article 28.7.
  <p>the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests
  <p>the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests
  <p>The effect of clause 54--
  <p>is potentially to criminalise disclosures of information relating to an identifiable business in circumstances where it could not sensibly be maintained that this could cause any harm. For example, where a journalist queries the lawfulness of a company's processing activities, a member of the Commissioner's staff could commit a criminal offence simply by confirming that the company had discussed the processing in question with the Registrar because this disclosure is clearly not absolutely necessary for the discharge of the Commissioner's functions under the Act. The Registrar has always sought to be as open as possible with the Press. She is aware of no evidence that this has caused any individual or company significant harm. She is therefore concerned that this clause could require her and her staff to be unnecessarily guarded in future.
  <p>
  Such a restraint on the Data Protection Commissioner's dealings with the press would be undesirable; to restrain the Information Commissioner would be unthinkable. It could undermine her ability to explain the basis of her approach. Any suggestion of secrecy on the part of the commissioner could damage the credibility of the legislation itself.
  <p>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
  
   <p> 
   Amendments made:  No. 55, in page 11, line 15, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".
   
  No. 56, in page 11, line 18, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".
   
  No. 57, in page 11, line 20, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".
   
  No. 58, in page 11, line 22, leave out from "to" to "whether" in line 24 and insert--
   
  'communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request'.
   
  No. 59, in page 11, line 27, leave out "members of the public" and insert "the applicant".-- [Mr.  Lock.] 
  <p>
   I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 12, line 1, leave out clause 21.
   
  
  <p> 
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:   
   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 93, in clause 22, page 12, line 33, leave out from "if" to end of line 34 and insert--
   
  
  <p>also agree with the Minister and the Government that clause 21 should be an absolute exemption.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B , 20 January 2000; c. 211.]
  <p>Currently, the security service is involved in an audit of security procedures in the DSS as part of its publicly acknowledged role as principal adviser to government on protective security and practice. This involves the examination of the department's internal management and systems controls.
  <p>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
  
   <p>
   I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 13, line 13, after "to,", insert "substantially".
   
  
  <p> 
     Mr. Deputy Speaker  (Mr. Michael Lord):   
   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 13, line 21, after "to,", insert "substantially".
  <p>set in specific and demanding terms.
  <p>would clearly be more stringent (and so provide greater openness) than the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (which normally exempts on the basis of simple "harm" or "prejudice") and would be closer to the "real damage" test of PII. Practical experience of applying a "real damage" test in litigation indicates that it results in a substantial reduction in the volume of material which would be withheld.
  <p>real, actual or of "substance".--[ Official Report , 24 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 22.]
  <p>ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning
  <p>a vigorous pursuit of openness and accountability across Police Services.
  <p>we consider it an important matter of principle that the Police Services should be open to the full provisions of a Freedom of Information Act. We see no logical grounds for a class exemption for the police in any area.
  <p>Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 28 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice--
  <p> 
   
  (a) the prevention or detection of crime,
  <p> 
   
  (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
  <p> 
   
  (c) the administration of justice
  <p>actual, real or of substance.
  <p>Question put , That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 37, Noes 336.
  