Policy #1008: "Freedom of Information Bill 2000 — Strengthen"

Freedom of Information Bill — Second Reading - 7 Dec 1999 - Division No. 12
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'abstain
Lab0334
Con1330
LDem040
Total140379

The Majority voted against condemning the Freedom of Information Bill[3] by rejecting a motion which would have read:

This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Freedom of Information Bill because it will result in greater secrecy than is the case under the existing Code of Practice, because it fails to promote open government instead of secrecy or transfer from Ministers and officials to Parliament the final decision over the release of information, and because it represents a significant dilution of the proposals in the White Paper, Your Right to Know (Cm 3818),[2] and disregards the recommendations from the Select Committee on Public Administration.
Freedom of Information Bill — Committee of the whole House - 7 Dec 1999 - Division No. 13
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'abstain
Lab0325
Con1280
LDem400
Total178327

The Majority voted to commit the scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Bill to a Standing Committee, rather than have it be discussed in a Committee of the Whole House, which is often reserved for very important or fast-tracked legislation.

Freedom of Information Bill — Ministerial orders for exemption - 4 Apr 2000 - Division No. 142
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab0319
Con1190
LDem320
Total158321

The Majority prevented the deletion of lines 12 and 13 in page 4 of the Freedom of Information Bill.[1] This appears to be a measure which allowed a Minister to exempt information by Order which would otherwise have to be disclosed by the Act.[2]

Freedom of Information Bill — Time for compliance with request - 4 Apr 2000 - Division No. 143
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'No
Lab0347
Con1220
LDem370
Total167349

The Majority prevented an additional allowance of ten days for compliance with a request being added on top of the 20 working days[1] when it receives information relating to a third party's commercial interests, in order to give time for the third party to make its case that the information should not be disclosed.[2]

Freedom of Information Bill — Discretionary disclosures - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 144
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab35311
Con1270
LDem340
Total204313

The Majority voted against a change to parts of the Freedom of Information Bill relating to formulation of government policy and conduct of public affairs[1], in particular the deletion of a subsection which said, in summary:

A certificate signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons certifying that in his reasonable opinion disclosure of information held by Parliament would likely prejudice the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown, or inhibit the free and frank provision of advice shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.[2]
Freedom of Information Bill — The Information Commissioner or Ombudsman - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 145
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'abstain
Lab0338
Con1150
LDem032
Total118375

The Majority voted against a change to the Freedom of Information Bill[1] which would have replaced the Information Commissioner (formerly known as the Data Protection Commissioner who is appointed by the Government) with an "Information Ombudsman", appointed by a committee belonging to the House of Commons.[2]

Freedom of Information Bill — Delete security services exemption — rejected - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 146
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab0332
Con20
LDem330
Total39338

The Majority of MPs voted against deleting[1] the exemption from the Freedom of Information Bill anything relating to information supplied by the security services to a public body which comes under the Act.[2]

This change would kept a weaker exemption on only information which would prejudice national security.

Freedom of Information Bill — Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 147
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab24319
Con10
LDem330
Total63323

The Majority voted against a weakening of an exemption in the Freedom of Information Bill relating to information gathered for the purpose of a criminal investigation.[1] The change would have added the further condition:

...and if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of [such] purposes[2]
Freedom of Information Bill — Formulation of government policy - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 148
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab29317
Con1240
LDem330
Total192319

The Majority voted against a weakening of an exemption in the Freedom of Information Bill relating to information used to formulat Government policy.[1] The change would have added the further condition:

Information is not exempt... insofar as it consists of factual information.[2]
Freedom of Information Bill — Harm from disclosure must be substantial — rejected - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 149
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab18322
Con20
LDem340
Total57327

The majority of MPs voted against tightening the exemption in the Freedom of Information Bill relating to information that could prejudice the formulation of government policy.[1]

The change would have required the disclosure to cause "substantial harm" for it the information to be withheld, rather than for it to cause only "prejudice" in the "reasonable opinion of a qualified person".[2]

Freedom of Information Bill — Power to confer additional exemptions by order - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 150
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab0325
Con1190
LDem340
Total160327

The Majority voted against removing[2] the power for a Minister to create new exemptions in the Freedom of Information Bill by Order, including requests that were already in progress.[1]

Freedom of Information Bill — Exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice - 5 Apr 2000 - Division No. 151
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'No
Lab30224
Con0114
LDem032
Total304175

The Majority voted to accept for discussion a new clause relating to disclosures[1] which said:

A decision notice or enforcement notice which relates to a failure to comply with section 13 in relation to any one or more requests for information shall cease to have effect if... the accountable person in relation to that authority gives the Commissioner a certificate signed by him stating that he has on reasonable grounds formed the opinion that the authority did not fail to comply with section 13 in relation to that request or those requests.[2]

In other words, an enforcement notices by the Information Commissioner could be summarily revoked by the public body against whom it was served.

Freedom of Information Bill and Countryside and Rights of Way Bill (Allocation Of Time) — Interpretation - 27 Nov 2000 - Division No. 354
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'abstain
Lab3470
Con0113
LDem036
Total349158

The Majority voted for a timetable motion which said:

Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill shall be completed on the allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on that day.

This is known as a "guillotine motion" to hurry through the business before the Parliamentary session ends.

Freedom of Information Bill — Information held for the purpose of investigation - 27 Nov 2000 - Division No. 355
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'Aye
Lab12343
Con10
LDem370
Total58345

The Majority voted against weakening the exemption known as "Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities",[1] which excludes all information held "for the purposes of conducting a criminal investigation", so that information held "for the purposes of ascertaining the cause of an accident or for any investigation or proceedings relating to any requirement relating to the health, safety or welfare of members of the public or of persons at work or the protection of the environment" would be disclosed.[2]

Freedom of Information Bill — New Bodies — National Assembly for Wales - 27 Nov 2000 - Division No. 356
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'abstain
Lab3260
Con0113
LDem390
Total370117

The Majority voted to revise the definition of a public body that would be added to the list of bodies subject to the Freedom of Information Act[1] to include not only bodies established by Ministers, by government departments, but also those established by the National Assembly for Wales.[2]

During the debate, the Opposition took the government to task for its oversight in mistaking the Welsh Assembly for just another government department, and not having named it in principle. The Scottish Parliament and the Norther Ireland Assembly are devolved, so have their own independent Freedom of Information Acts.

Freedom of Information Bill — Remaining Lords amendments - 27 Nov 2000 - Division No. 357
Policy 'Freedom of Information Bill 2000 - Strengthen'abstain
Lab3230
Con0113
LDem381
Total366118

The Majority voted to agree to all remaining Lords amendments[2] to the Freedom of Information Bill.[1] These weren't listed or further discussed, so it's difficult for anyone to know what this vote was about. The work had to be rushed through before midnight due to the "guillotine motion" passed earlier in the day.[3]

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive