Essentially, this is a recommendation that came from the ethics committee last time as well as from the Information Commissioner, so it would be weird for us to say no to both ourselves and the Information Commissioner all in one shot.
This is about the publishing of findings as well. It is similar to what Mr. Erskine-Smith and Mr. Baylis just moved with respect to building up a certain amount of jurisprudence. This is, I think, not only building it up for its own sake and making it public, but is also allowing departments to see what kinds of rulings came out that would then guide their own actions as to where the boundaries may or may not be, as opposed to having to essentially litigate these things over and over again.
I wouldn't say this is an enhancement, and it's not that LIB-7 that we just dealt with is not enough, but this certainly is an extension of that by amending clause 17.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 18 agreed to)
(On clause 19)