Skip to main content

1-20 of 889 results for subject:"Freedom of information"

Session X
2005-06

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

More

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

More

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what (a) criteria and (b) methods were adopted in the selection of Frontier Economics to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; when the report of that work was published; and what assessment...

Asked by
Dai Davies (Independent (affiliation))
Answering body
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
8 November 2006
Reference
100141; 451 c1509W
House
House of Commons

Whether as part of the review of the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 they have made an assessment of the introduction in other countries of provisions in freedom of information fees regulations (a) to include reading time, consideration time and consultation time in the calculation of the...

Asked by
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
7 November 2006
Reference
7977; 686 c122WA
House
House of Lords

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many Freedom of Information Act requests received by her Department in the last 12 months were cleared by special advisers before being (a) accepted and (b) rejected.

Asked by
Oliver Heald (Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
7 November 2006
Reference
451 c1145W; 99635
House
House of Commons

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether special advisers in his Department have a role in whether requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are accepted or rejected.

Asked by
Mark Francois (Conservative)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
7 November 2006
Reference
451 c1039W; 99396
House
House of Commons

To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will designate Network Rail a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Asked by
Oliver Heald (Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
7 November 2006
Reference
451 c1145W; 99627
House
House of Commons

What safeguards are in place to ensure that public authorities do not use the application of a public interest test to delay disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 beyond the time that is required to perform such a test.

Asked by
Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
8020; 686 c85WA
House
House of Lords

What is their assessment of the impact of their proposal to amend the Freedom of Information regulations on the exercise of the freedom of the press to inform the public and the right of the public to be informed about the workings of Government (a) to include reading time, consideration...

Asked by
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
8068; 686 c85-6WA
House
House of Lords

The Bill is a more comprehensive version of the measure that was first presented to the Lords on 11 January this year. It is in three volumes rather than two and has 1,264 clauses instead of 885. It has broken many records along the way. One must be the 1,029...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c669-71
House
House of Commons

I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and have only one point to add. Since the middle of the last century there has been a tradition that as much of company law as possible should be on the face of the statute. That is not simply for...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c674
House
House of Commons

Amendment No. 671A refers to a clause put into the Bill by the Government in this House, which was then—confusingly—opposed by the Government in the other place, with the agreement of the Opposition. The right thing has been done in the end. In brief, its purpose was to provide the...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c673-4
House
House of Commons

As the Minister and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) have said, Lords amendment No. 245A has a fairly long history. The original operating and financial review proposal included provisions referring to the supply chain in virtually the same words as those in the Government’s amendment. As people in...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c671-2
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Minister may wish to clarify the matter. From what I can make out, having read Lords Hansard, Lord Sainsbury seems to have spoken about what a key relationship would not be, rather than what it would be, in relation to those...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c671
House
House of Commons

I, too, welcome the concession. I am glad that, in the first discussion of the freedom of information legislation under the Companies Bill, we have come out in favour of widening that legislation, rather than of narrowing it—I fear that that might not be the case when the Department for...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c676
House
House of Commons

The issue has come back to the House because the other place rejected Government amendments made in the Commons. We are certainly pleased that the Government are giving way on the issue. I congratulate Baroness Noakes and our noble Friends for persevering on the point. The amendments would relate the...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c675-6
House
House of Commons

I hope that the debate can be brief because the issues have been debated at length in both Houses over a long period of time. As I explained when the amendment was tabled in this House, the original wording was not about companies providing lists of suppliers or customers or...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c668-9
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment.

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c668
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment.

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c674
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, I accept that we all wanted to bring as much as possible within the compass of the Bill. However, we were persuaded by the Committee’s arguments. I do not know precisely when we shall consult, but there will be consultation with stakeholders at an...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c674
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment. The House will remember that the Bill as it was originally introduced in the other place contained a proposal for a general company law reform power. That proposal was dropped as a result of concerns about the...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c672-3
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not say much, because we have discussed this issue endlessly. I will merely say that we did not accept the Conservative amendment in the House of Lords because by replacing ““and”” with ““or”” we would effectively be saying that...

Member
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
6 November 2006
Reference
451 c672
House
House of Commons