division_name: Freedom of Information Bill - Public authorities to which Act has limited application.
motion: <p>
   I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert--
   
  
  <p> 
    
  '(3) Where a public authority--
   
  
   
  (a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and
   
  
   
  (b) has informed the applicant of that requirement,
   
  
   
  the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1) unless it is supplied with that further information.'.
  <p>the provision of advice by public authorities to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to them.
  <p>Before issuing or revising any code under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Commissioner?
  <p>
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to finalise a form of the code before Royal Assent, and, therefore, before the formal appointment of the commissioner, because the required consultation could not have taken place?
   
  
  <p>the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the draft code of practice to be made under Clause 44.
  <p>take all reasonable steps to assist
  <p>all reasonable steps to assist
  <p>Amendment agreed to. 
  <p>
   I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 4, leave out lines 12 and 13.
   
  
  <p> 
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:   
   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 14, leave out "or amending".
  <p>We believe that it is altogether inappropriate to insert such a provision into a Freedom of Information Act. There is no such provision in any other Freedom of Information Act of which we are aware. We recommend that clause 36 is removed from the Bill.
  <p>We do not understand why, in a Bill with wide exemptions based on the class of information or the harm which its disclosure might cause, there needs to be a reserve power for a Minister to create a new exemption to deal with an unwelcome request for information, or why the new exemption should have retrospective effect to justify a refusal. In our opinion clause 36 should be deleted completely. If, despite this recommendation, the Government continues to believe that such a power is necessary, then it should be exercised in a specific situation only if the Information Commissioner agrees. At the very least the power should not be made retrospective.
  <p>there may be some areas of information that have not yet been considered, but would legitimately need protection. The Government should also ensure that they are able to protect, in the future as well as now, all information that it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
  <p>
  One cannot accuse the Government of being dishonest. In rejecting an amendment that was designed to restrict the scope of the powers, he said that
  <p> 
   
  it would limit unacceptably the operation of clause 43. The Government would not have sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B , 1 February 2000; c. 386.]
  <p>The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 . . . by limiting to information of a specified description the entry relating to any public authority.
  <p>Question put , That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 156, Noes 319.
  