My Lords, we appear to be back to the phenomenon we experienced on our previous Committee day when the Government tried to share out; if they accepted one amendment, I had to not move another one. Here, they have accepted two, so presumably I am somehow in debt to the Government if I withdraw the one remaining in the group.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting Amendments 16 and 24. It is a pity that the Government have not accepted the possibility of setting down what commercially confidential means. I mentioned that those who had seen Freedom of Information Act requests would often be puzzled by the use of the commercially confidential reason for redaction. I remember one in particular, on Companies Act charges, where virtually everything had been redacted in circumstances where there was no commerciality involved because nobody else was in competition with Companies House and there was no confidentiality either. So the Government are not entirely to be trusted with the concept of commercial confidentiality. We shall see how that turns out in practice.
Amendment 16 agreed.
Amendment 17
Moved by
Financial Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Noakes
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 March 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Financial Services Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c510 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:31:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_631062
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_631062
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_631062