division_name: Freedom of Information Bill - New Clause
motion: <p>Lords amendments considered. 
  
   <p> 
   Lords amendment:  No. 1, in page 1, line 14, after ("sections") insert
   
  ("( Effect of exemptions in Part II ),")
  <p>
   I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  <p> 
     Madam Deputy Speaker  (Mrs. Sylvia Heal):   
   With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, Lords amendment No. 4, amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 12, 13, 18 to 21, 43 to 45, 56, 58, 64, 66, 67 and 76.
  <p>See the Lib-Dem approach: complaint, abject and half-baked . . .
  <p>turning into a conspiracy to gut true reform. From the Government, this has been signalled for a long time . . .
  <p>I suppose that it was signalled the day that David Clark--
  <p>was sacked and the White Paper was watered down to form the Bill.
  <p>What is new and shocking is the willingness of the Liberal Democrat Peers to assist in the butchery . . .--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 14 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 141.]
  <p>a conspiracy to gut true reform
  <p>This means the weak Freedom of Information Bill--
  <p>will become law with all its serious defects intact.
  <p>We cannot understand why anyone could believe that the limited changes represented by these amendments are the maximum that could be achieved . . . We find it incomprehensible that, in return for these modest concessions, the Liberal Democrats are proposing to abandon their support for essential amendments which would have given the public greater rights to safety information and denied Ministers the right to veto decisions of the independent Information Commissioner . . .
  <p>such time as is reasonable in the circumstances.
  <p>in respect of health and safety matters a prejudice tested exemption would provide sufficient protection for these matters.
  <p>The Freedom of Information Bill has undergone significant amendments in its passage through both Houses.
  <p>A new wording of the public interest test which the Information Commissioner can review and enforce . . . 
  <p> 
   
  A new Executive override . . . to be used when a Cabinet minister cannot accept the decision of the Commissioner.
  <p> 
   
  Some relaxation of the restrictions on the release of factual and statistical information--
  <p>The power to add new exemptions has been removed,
  <p>a new duty to assist as well as advise applicants,
  <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>the prevention or detection of crime.
  <p>(e) the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident . . .
  <p> 
   
  (i) the purpose of securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, and
  <p> 
   
  (j) the purpose of protecting persons other than persons at work against risk to health and safety arising out of or in connection with the actions of persons at work.
  <p>Over &#163;80 million per year towards the Post Office network's fixed costs
  <p>Government General Practitioner Services.
  <p>a clear and transparent formula to calculate a Social Network Payment--
  <p>programme would mean merging outlets to ensure their . . . viability.
  <p>did not contain such an estimate
  <p>The allegation that officials have hidden information on health and incinerator emissions is false.
  <p>I cannot recall seeing these figures . . . I shall be demanding an explanation from the environment agency.
  <p>in areas of criminal activity and individual liberty, one needs to be very wary of being too quick to assume that no prejudice would be caused. Introducing a prejudice test would lead to a search for demonstrable prejudice, with a real risk of injustices being caused or criminal activity being facilitated where such prejudice cannot immediately be pointed to.
  <p> 
   
  Furthermore, it is right that the law enforcement agencies should not be subject to the commissioner's view of what would constitute prejudice in this field. The commissioner cannot be an expert in law and order and so must defer to the views of those agencies in this regard. Thus, to introduce a prejudice test would achieve little . . .
  <p> 
   
  It is essential that, for information held for the purposes of investigations or criminal proceedings, we retain the protection afforded by a class exemption. It is not appropriate to subject this category of information to a prejudice test, and the Government amendments to clause 13 will in any case ensure that, where there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the information, it will be released.--[ Official Report , 5 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 1067-68.]
  <p>Lords amendment agreed to. 
  <p>Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to. 
  <p>Lords amendment:  No. 4, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause-- Effect of exemptions in Part II --
   
  
  <p>Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment:  (a), in line 18, at end insert--
   
  
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 56, Noes 343.
  