Comparison of Divisions: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill — Third Reading — Closure — 18 May 2007 at 13:46 with Division No. 123 on the same day at 13:46
(Swap the two divisions around).
Vote (a) : Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill — Third Reading — Closure - 18 May 2007 at 13:46 - Division No. 122
The majority of MPs voted in favour of a motion to end the debate on the Third Reading of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill.
Unlike a normal vote, where a majority is sufficient, a motion for closure requires at least 100 MPs in favour, according to Standing Order 37. It was for this reason (to break the filibuster) that this debate on this Bill had suddenly been delayed in order to organize enough MPs (many of whom were ministers) in attendance.[2]
During this Third Reading debate, one MP reminded the house that some of the justifications for the Bill were spurious because they would have been addressed by earlier amendments[3] (such as those given in Division 94).
PublicWhip received complaints from some of the MPs who voted for this closure motion, but didn't vote in the final Third Reading vote, in Division 123, because we marked them as being in favour of this Bill when they claimed only to be in favour of coming to a final democratic decision by hastening the vote. To see those who voted for closure (in order to beef up the numbers to over 100) and didn't vote on the final motion, go here.
- [1] Majority for closure, House of Commons Standing Order 37
- [2] MP delays FoI exemption bill, The Guardian, 27 April 2007
- [3] Fiona Mactaggart MP, House of Commons, 18 May 2007
Vote (b) : Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill — Third Reading - 18 May 2007 at 13:46 - Division No. 123
The majority of MPs voted in favour of a Bill[1] which would have excluded Parliament from the scope of Freedom of Information law and explicitly exempted correspondence between a Member of Parliament and a public authority from disclosure.
Owing to no member of the House of Lords picking it up, the proposal was deliberately lost in the Parliamentary process.[2]
Later, Tom Brake MP proposed an alternative Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill to:[3][4]
- remove the provisions permitting Ministers to overrule decisions of the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal;
- limit the time allowed for public authorities to respond to requests involving consideration of the public interest; and
- amend the definition of public authorities.
But the session ended before it could reach a debate.
- [1] Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill to the Freedom of Information Act 2000
- [2] MP secrecy bill without sponsor, BBC News, 14 June 2007
- [3] Freedom of Information (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, House of Lords, June 2007
- [4] Tom Brake MP, House of Commons, 12 June 2007
Difference in Votes - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) differed from their vote on Motion (b). You can also see just opposite votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)
Division Similarity Ratio
The measure of similarity between these two divisions is a calculation based on a comparison of their votes.
There were 646 MPs who could have voted in both of these divisions, and 122 voted the same way, with 3 voting in opposite ways. There were 503 MPs who didn't vote in either division, and 18 who voted in only one of them.
We invert the vote on the second division if it makes the distance closer (since the meaning of 'Aye' and 'No' are often interchangeable depending on how the question was put). In this case, they line up the same way. An 's vote in in only one of the divisions contributes a factor of 0.2 to the distance. The calculation runs as follows:
([same-votes] + [differing-votes] + 0.2x[abstain-in-one])
(122 + 3 + 0.2x18)
128.6