division_name: Freedom of Information Bill - Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs
motion: <p>It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned. 
  <p>That, at this day's sitting, the Freedom of Information Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Mike Hall.] 
  <p>Question agreed to. 
  <p>As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered. 
  <p>
   I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 19, line 12, leave out from "if" to "disclosure" in line 13.
   
  
  <p> 
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:   
   With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 19, line 15,, after "to,", insert "substantially".
  <p>reasonable opinion of a qualified person.
  <p>
   That is a bizarre provision, which could sabotage the entire Bill if it is allowed to stand. The provision would allow Government Departments to claim, without any significant harm test, that disclosures would be harmful to public affairs, whereas there are provisions that would allow-- [Interruption.] 
  
  <p>prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
  <p>the test should be an objective one, reviewable by the Information Commissioner.
  <p>in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person--
  <p>disclosure would . . . prejudice . . . the effective conduct of public affairs.
  <p>the formulation or development of government policy, Ministerial communications, the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers . . . the operation of any Ministerial private office.
   
  
  
  <p>in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person . . .
  <p>would, or would be likely to, prejudice--
  <p> 
   
  (i) the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers . . . frank and free provision of advice . . . the frank and free exchange of views . . .
  <p>in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person . . .
  <p>Information to which this section applies is exempt information if disclosure of the information . . . would, or would be likely to, prejudice . . .
  <p>The Government consider that only a qualified person can have a full understanding of the issues involved in the decision-making processes of a public authority.
  <p>we do not consider that it would be right for the prejudice caused by that sort of information to be determined by the commissioner.--[ Official Report, Standing Committee B , 27 January 2000; c. 321.]
  <p>the free and frank provision of advice.
  <p>would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 55, Noes 324.
  