House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Feb 1990

Column 717

emergency service are met ; believes that the dispute can only be resolved by the resumption of negotiations ; and calls on the trade union leadership to recognise and act upon this.'.

Column 718

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill (By Order) Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

7.26 pm

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : The last time that the Bill was briefly debated in the House was on a revival motion on 1 December 1988. The House divided on that day, and the revival motion was carried by 107 to 23. Thereafter, the Bill went to the other place, where, after Second Reading, it went into Committee. Several of my constituents, including the organisers of the campaign to save Spitalfields from the developers, appeared before their Lordships and argued cogently and tenaciously against the main proposals of the Bill. As Spitalfields is an important part of my constituency, I too gave evidence.

Although we did not defeat the Bill or win any substantial amendments, their Lordships recommended an increase in the provisions for planning gain --notably, a doubling to £5 million of the moneys for the community trust and a trebling of the moneys for training local people to acquire new skills--a sum of £150,000 over five years. Today is the last chapter in the story which began with the Second Reading debate in the House on 12 May 1988. I understand that today we may consider only the Lords amendments to the Bill. The amendments are very narrow indeed. As the promoters of the Bill described them, they are technical. Therefore, I would not be in order to use this occasion, as I have used previous debates, to deploy the main arguments against the bill--that moving the market from Spitalfields to Temple Mills is not proven on planning grounds and that the proposed redevelopment of the vacated Spitalfields market site takes wholly inadequate account of the needs of my constituents for additional housing and small workshops. Those major and potent arguments must be placed on one side. The debate is confined to the amendments made in the Unopposed Bill Committee of the House of Lords.

The amendments on the Paper--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is about to embark on comments which may be more appropriate to the next motion which I shall put to the House. At present, we are considering the Question, That the Lords amendments be now considered. Once that is disposed of, we can consider the Question, That the Lords amendments be made. The right hon. Gentleman might prefer to address his remarks to that question rather than to the one before the House now. I shall dispose of the first question, after which the right hon. Gentleman can speak on the second motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Mr. Shore : Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments relate to clause 4, which authorises from the appointed day the establishment of the new site for the market in Temple Mills. Under clause 4(3), the corporation of the City of London is enabled to exercise

Column 719

"all rights, powers, authorities, privileges, obligations and liabilities"

in the new market site as they operated in the old Spitalfields site. Subsection (4) specifies certain amendments to both the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Act 1902 and the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1922. It has been argued that the wording of the original clause 4(3) was technically unsatisfactory and did not do that which it was intended to do. The amendments before us, therefore, are designed to clarify the real intention of the clause.

7.30 pm

The first amendment, inserting new clause (3A), reads : "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that no obligation relating to the holding of the market shall require the Corporation to permit the carrying on of market trading on any part of the new site on which the carrying on of such trading would constitute development for which planning permission has not been granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971."

The new form of words raises the question of planning permission under the 1971 Act. This is the first reference to that Act that I have come across in all the debates on the Bill. My questions are simple. What developments relating to the carrying on of trading on the Temple Mills site would constitute development for which planning permission is needed? Was permission sought for any development on the present Spitalfields site? If so, was such an application ever refused?

The second main amendment is to clause 4(4), and refers to the corporation's power to dispose of lands in the new Temple Mills site not required for the purpose of the market. The words added in the amendment free such land

"from any trusts attaching to it by reason of that land having formed part of the site of the market."

What trusts presently exist relating to land in the Temple Mills site? Is any compensation available to any trust whose interests may be involved? I look forward to the sponsor's explanation of the amendments and to his answers to my questions.

Finally, I wish to express my regrets that the debate on this important Bill must be confined within the ambit of these amendments and that we cannot seek, as we would wish, to persuade the House not to proceed further with a Bill that rides roughshod over so many of my constituents.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and I shall deal briefly with the relevant points. First, I must emphasise that these Lords

Column 720

amendments are no different from any other Lords amendments, and that the procedure is identical to that followed in all the private Bills that have been passed in this House since the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member. There has never been any opportunity of debating at this stage the principle of the Bill.

As I have done previously, I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's deep constituency interest in this issue, and that of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) who may wish to speak later. I am authorised to say that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) fully support the Bill, as amended, because it is in the interests of their constituents.

The right hon. Gentleman asked, first, about the developments for the carrying on of trading at the Temple Mills site. The answer is, arguably any market trading outside the new market buildings for which planning permission has been given, such as the car parks or landscaped areas on the Temple Mills site. That is the simple answer.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked what trusts presently exist and whether any compensation is available. There are no such trusts, so the question of compensation does not arise. I should explain what the trusts are. The corporation is subject to a trust, the beneficiaries of which are all members of the public who wish to come and trade. It is one of those archaic lawyer's delights. There is not a trust in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman and I, as occupants of the Clapham omnibus, would expect. Those are the answers to his questions.

The Committee of this House found no need, after long debate, to make amendments. After many days of debate upstairs, for some strange reason their lawyers decided to gild the lily. There is no more to this than that. These are technical amendments, which do not alter by one jot or iota the principle of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to .

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order) Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended .

Question , That the Bill be now considered, put and agreed to . Ordered ,

That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed .

Column 721

Data Protection

7.37 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I beg to move

That the draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.

Before discussing the reasons for the order, I should like to say a little about the Data Protection Act 1984, under which the order will be made. The Act has its origins in the 1981 European convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data.

When the Act came fully into force on 11 November 1987, we were able to ratify the convention. The convention and the Act balance the duties of data users--that is, those who hold and process personal data on computers- -with protection for data subjects--those about whom the data are held.

Data users have an interest in the legislation, because compliance with the convention enables transfer of data to and from other ratifying countries without artificial obstruction ; and data subjects benefit from the protection and the rights given to them under the Act. The legislation was enacted in July 1984, and Mr. Eric Howe became the Data Protection Registrar. Mr. Howe was recently reappointed for a further five-year term. The registrar is independent of Government and reports directly to Parliament : his fifth annual report was published in July 1989.

The main duties of the registrar are to maintain a public register of data users to ensure registration by those data users, to promote observance of the data protection principles set out in the schedule to the Data Protection Act 1984 ; to give advice and guidance on good practice ; to consider complaints, and generally to enforce the Act. With around 130,000 registered data users and hundreds of millions of automated personal data files, and new situations and issues arising every day, that is a substantial task. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Howe for the way in which he and his office have carried out their duties under the Act.

In addition, I should say that the working of the Act is being reviewed by an interdepartmental committee chaired by the Home Office with representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment and with the Data Protection Registrar as adviser. The terms of reference of the committee are as follows : "to review the implementation of the Data Protection Act, particularly with regard to the impact on data users of registration requirements ; and to make recommendations."

The review was occasioned by the Government's deregulation policy and concern among data users about administrative burdens arising from the Act. The committee hopes to report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary fairly soon, but obviously I cannot say what its recommendations might be.

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : As a result of the review, will one of the options be the scrapping of the bureaucratic machinery by which privileges under the Data Protection Act are maintained? Surely my hon. friend agrees that it represents a considerable administrative operation involving many staff and a great deal of

Column 722

money. There is a respectable school of thought that believes that all that is needed in the circumstances is the basic legislation and the right of access to the courts. In that event there would be an opportunity to save a great deal of public money and to provide a more realistic framework of protection.

Mr. Lloyd : We are having the review because we want to ensure that the Data Protection Act does not merely do its job, but does it in a manner that results in the least burden on industry and on data users, while maintaining the protection that data subjects have a right to expect. The purpose of the committee is to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) wants to go, subject to the protection that data subjects should have under the Act, which it was designed to give them.

The order needs an affirmative resolution in both Houses if it is to come into effect. The Data Protection Act gives subject access rights to individuals. That means that they have a general right of access to automated personal data held on them by a registered data user. But there are exemptions, so that, for example, personal data held for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime are exempt if allowing access would be likely to prejudice that purpose. The Act also enables the Secretary of State to make certain further exemptions by order. Hon. Members may remember that we debated four such orders on 3 November 1987 ; an account of those debates may be found at columns 885 to 905 of the Official Report. One of them was the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987, made on 9 November 1987 under section 30(2) of the Act. It exempted data held for the purpose of regulating financial services from the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act. The reason for the exemption is that, without it, a data subject could discover what information regulators held about him and thus frustrate the detection or investigation of his malpractice and potential court proceedings.

While the protection of data subjects is very important and indeed at the heart of this legislation, should not their rights be overriding in all cases. In this particular case, Parliament considered that the interests of others--for example, those damaged by the suspected malpractice--must prevail.

The order amends the 1987 order in the light of sections of part III of the Companies Act 1989, which will come into force on 21 February, and of part VIII of that Act, which it is proposed should be brought into force on15 March.

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) : What will be the effect of the order on data held about patients by the National Health Service? Will such patients be protected adequately, and will the concerns expressed by the medical profession be met?

Mr. Lloyd : The order will have nothing to do with those categories, because we are discussing delegated legislation as a result of the Companies Act 1989 rather than legislation pertaining to data held on patients or other individuals in other sectors. As my hon. Friend knows, some private Members' legislation on that matter made such data more available to the individual concerned. It is to that and any subsequent legislation that my hon. Friend should look in this instance.

Column 723

The order brings the 1987 order into line with new powers in the Companies Act 1989. First, while the Companies Act 1985 enabled the Secretary of State to require production and explanation of a company's records, the Companies Act 1989 allows competent persons other than departmental officials to carry out such inquiries. That will enable the Secretary of State to bring in special expertise in increasingly complex cases and will give more flexibility to cope with sudden increases in work load.

Secondly, the 1989 Act will enable the Secretary of State to assist overseas regulators in the company law, financial services and insurance spheres by investigating in the United Kingdom on their behalf. The new power will protect United Kingdom investors by helping overseas regulators who are investigating wrongdoings that may have been perpetrated by persons who, undetected, would subsequently be free to carry on investment business into or in the United Kingdom. It will also help our investigators to gain reciprocal assistance from overseas regulators, particularly those who already have compulsory investigation powers that can be used on behalf of overseas regulators--for example, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The new power is thus a response to the current and expected sophistication and internationalisation of markets with transactions straddling one or more national borders.

Mr. Butterfill : My hon. Friend will remember that, when we discussed the Financial Services Act 1986, considerable concern was expressed about the need for confidentiality in some areas. There was particular concern that some institutions in London, which relied upon confidentiality for their investors, should not have their legitimate interests prejudiced in a way that affected the viability of the London market and encouraged people to place their business outside London. Is my hon. friend satisfied that the order will not be a licence for overseas investigators to come in and look at everything that is going on, to the detriment of our market?

Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend is right to be concerned. The order does not make it mandatory upon the Secretary of State to provide the information for which he is asked by an overseas agency or country, but it empowers him to transfer that information, when he thinks there is good reason, to countries that have also signed the convention--it has similar rules to the Act that we brought in. I am certain that we have the necessary safeguards and that the Secretary of State will not exercise his right to transfer that information without good reason.

To unravel a suspected breach of the law, regulators frequently and increasingly find it necessary to trace transactions to all the countries to which they have ramified.

Thirdly, part VIII of the Companies Act makes various amendments to the Financial Services Act 1986. Most of them relate to the powers of the Securities and Investments Board, which exercises powers under the Financial Services Act transferred by the Secretary of State. As Parliament recognised in approving the 1987 order, it may be essential for the effective operation of a regulator such as the board that individuals on whom data are held are not able to have access to those date.

Column 724

Part II of the schedule to the order therefore updates the 1987 order to take account of modified or new functions under the amended Financial Services Act. In particular, the Companies Act amendments confer new powers to issue statements of principle and codes of practice to designated rules as applying directly to members of a self-regulating organisation recognised by the Securities and Investments Board and to use the enforcement powers in the Financial Services Act to assist an overseas regulator.

Mr. Butterfill : Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the criticisms levelled at the way in which the Financial Services Act operates in practice has been that it has led to an enormous increase in regulations and, therefore, a huge increase in the cost of compliance for companies operating in London? Many of those companies feel that it has led them to be less competitive internationally. Is my hon. Friend happy that the increased number of regulations required by the order will not inhibit our domestic market?

Mr. Lloyd : The Financial Services Act is not a matter for me and is certainly beyond the scope of our discussions tonight. The order does not give extra work to companies, but it gives the Secretary of State more freedom to make the investigations that he is already empowered to make and to transfer information abroad under conditions that are in our interests. It does not create any new burdens for the City, industry or any other data user.

The principles, designated rules and codes of practice provide the primary regulator with more flexibility in regulating the carrying on of investment. The order is not controversial. It has been the subject of detailed discussion between my Department and the other Departments in Whitehall with the main interest in its subject matter. As the Act requires, the Data Protection Registrar has also been consulted and is content with the order. Therefore, I happily commend it to the House.

7.53 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : The order is complicated and an example of how not to draft legislation. I refer specifically to part II of the schedule. I have spoken to a few people today, none of whom seems to understand what this is about. I appreciate the Minister's explanation, which has helped considerably. In the explanatory note, only two full lines are devoted to part II. If we are to produce such orders in future, the House should be given a proper explanatory note so that we understand what we are dealing with.

As the Minister said, the order deals mainly with consequential amendments emerging from the Companies Act 1989. It extends the list of functions in the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987, which is embraced by section 30 of the Data Protection Act. This means that individuals will be further denied access to computer files containing information about them. In losing that liberty, individuals give authorities the opportunity to identify fraud and maladministration in the financial services industry.

The Government will claim that they have got the balance right between these two aspects, and are minimising individuals' loss of liberty against the broader benefit of stamping out

maladministration. How do we

Column 725

know that that is so? How can we be sure that the Government are not erring on the side of oppression--a strong word, but one which serves in tonight's debate?

Mr. Butterfill : I do not know whether, in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman has experienced the same as I have in Bournemouth, West. There, a large number of investors in Barlow Clowes thought that they had lost their entire life savings. Only the generosity of the Government has enabled them to recover most of them, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for that. Surely the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) would accept that such fraud is sufficiently serious to warrant this order--indeed, makes it essential.

Mr. Randall : I fail to see the logic of that. We all have constituents who have been affected by Barlow Clowes. However, a balance must be struck. We must ensure that people have access to files about themselves. The order would prevent people from having access to those files so that the Department of Trade and Industry could carry out investigative work and not be impaired by people making public information that would create difficulties for the DTI. I fear that the Government are erring on the side of oppression--I use that word intentionally, because it illustrates my point. It is exceedingly difficult to establish whether the balance is right. Why are the exemptions under section 30 of the Data Protection Act 1984 so extensive? The 1987 order, or the 1987 version of what we are discussing--now we have the television cameras on us, the public can see the scale of it--

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam) : It is small print.

Mr. Randall : The Government Whip, who should be silent, says that it is small print. He strengthens my argument : the print is small and we can see the extent to which people's freedom of access to files has been limited. Why are the exemptions so extensive? For example, why, under the 1987 order, do the Bank of England's functions result in limiting individuals' access to their personal files? Why is that necessary? Why are the functions in relation to the certification of directors restricted?

Some people might say that there are pretty obvious reasons for making personal files exempt under section 30 of the Data Protection Act. I am not sure on what grounds we could argue that tonight in the context of this order. No one here knows the principles on which those decisions are taken. I have given just two examples, but there are yards of them. How was the list arrived at? It arises from within the Department of Trade and Industry which in turn consults the Data Protection Registrar. The Minister explained that at some length. However, the power and influence of the registrar is exceedingly limited. It would be almost impossible for him or the Home Office to assess whether the huge list of additions that we are considering makes sense. The Data Protection Registrar, who is independent, is not, unlike the DTI, involved in investigative work, so he cannot make many suggestions.

I imagine that the registrar would simply say that he could see no obvious reason why these functions should not exist. It is clear, therefore, that the role of the

Column 726

indpendent registrar in establishing whether limits should be placed on individuals' access to personal files is highly limited. The initiative and power rest with the DTI.

I am dubious whether the Government have struck the right balance between people's freedom to see files about themselves and the benefits of denying access in tackling corruption in the financial services industry. I am inclined to be a little suspicious of the Government in this respect. I suspect that they will tend to restrict people's access to their files merely because of the ethos of secrecy that pervades Whitehall. The Opposition see great virtue in creating a more open society. We should like a freedom of information Act that would go much further towards compelling Departments to provide information far more readily.

Most other countries in the developed world, including Australia, Canada and the USA, are way ahead of Britain, and we are beginning to look outdated and obsessed with secrecy. Few would disagree with that proposition. There must be a change, and we must develop our democracy.

Mr. Norris : The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a recently retired chairman of the campaign, I broadly agree with him about the desirability of a freedom of information Act. But does he agree that the Australian and American systems have fairly comprehensive exemptions relating to commercial confidentiality, because of the obvious desirability of such confidentiality in investigations of fraud?

Mr. Randall : I do not argue against exemptions ; I argue against unnecessary exemptions. I do not know from the information in the order whether these exemptions are necessary or unnecessary. I challenge hon. Members to judge whether they are. We cannot make an assessment, because the information is not available.

Mr. Butterfill : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the order gives discretion to the Secretary of State? He will be

accountable--eventually--directly to Parliament. Is not that the safeguard that we need?

Mr. Randall : The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The Secretary of State has certain powers and is expected to carry out certain functions. To do so he has to ensure that the availability of information does not prejudice the carrying out of those functions. The 1987 order and this order make the number of functions embraced by section 30 of the Data Protection Act 1984 very large--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the debate, but there are limits. Presumably the order to which the hon. Gentleman is referring came before, and was approved by, the House. We cannot reopen that debate now.

Mr. Randall : I agree. I am talking about the way in which this order extends the scope of the 1987 order. I question whether the list should be as long--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That would be going beyond the bounds of what is proper tonight. We are debating the merits or otherwise of the matters intended to be added to the list. We cannot discuss the generality of that list, or whether it is too long or too short.

Mr. Norris : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, at the point at which we approve the new order, we are reconstituting the earlier legislation--

Column 727

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to challenge my ruling, or to debate it, and that he cannot do.

Mr. Randall : I do not challenge your ruling, as you very well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to the additional functions of certain persons in assisting overseas regulatory authorities. Those functions make the overall list rather long, but I note your comments, and will refrain from pursuing the point. Other countries have shown that huge savings can be made by rooting out poor and inefficient administrations. Had they not encouraged more openness, the public in those countries could not have challenged the authorities, because they would not have had the information with which to do so. The information revolution in the developed world--it is directly related to the information held in the computer files referred to in the order--is moving at an incredible pace. We must match these impressive developments in technology and information with equally impressive developments in openness so as to protect people's privacy and access rights.

Mr. Butterfill : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we all accept that the rights of the citizen need safeguarding, if we allowed unlimited access to information, it could tend to inhibit the functions of an Executive and make it unduly cautious? If they know that everything they do may be subject to public scrutiny, an Executive may always be inclined to err on the side of caution and never propose anything innovative or exciting.

Mr. Randall : I am not advocating unlimited access--that would be absurd--but this order prompts the question : are we going in the right direction? Massive changes are under way.

I should like to deal with some specific parts of the order. Why does paragraph 2 of part I of the schedule limit access to personal files via section 30 of the Data Protection Act 1984 in connection with persons assessing overseas regulatory authorities? The Minister touched on that in his speech, but I should be grateful for a little more detail.

One could argue that the exemption order is needed to investigate malpractice involving computer data in the United Kingdom. However, the files could be held at the same time in another country. One could argue that we have access via the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987 to United Kingdom regulators, and now we need access to overseas regulators. I accept that argument, but I am still not satisfied that we are maximising the extent to which we provide access by individuals to personal files. We seem to be using a massive sledgehammer to crack a very small nut.

Mr. Butterfill : Does the hon. Gentleman suggest an arrangement under which information provided for the investigation of overseas fraud by an overseas regulator should be made available to a United Kingdom citizen who might be the subject of such an investigation by an overseas regulator?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That is going well beyond the scope of the order.

Column 728

Mr. Randall : We all want corruption and maladministration to be eliminated. If a company or the Government wish to restrict access to personal files, the burden of proof for the restriction should rest with the company or with a Department. Why not make public the justification for restricting a person's access to his own files? That has not been referred to, but I do not see why it should not happen.

I do not suggest that we should make public all the details surrounding a case involving corruption. Plainly, such information would have to be exempted. I am talking about setting the principle on which restriction of access to information is made public. I should be interested in whether the Minister finds that broad principle acceptable. To me it is not at all unreasonable. It may be hard for some people to swallow, but I think that this is how matters will continue to proceed, now and in the future.

Part II of the schedule seems to relate to exempting, via section 30 of the Data Protection Act, certain new functions that are now part of the Financial Services Act 1986. I imagine that the new functions in that Act have arisen through changes in the Companies Act 1989. Perhaps the Minister will explain specifically the functions referred to in paragraph 4 of part II of the schedule because I cannot understand them. Paragraph 5 of part II talks about "Functions in relation to exemption of advertisements". That is gobbledegook, and we should have had an explanation. I am sorry to have to ask the Minister to explain such things. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind paragraph 1 of part I of the schedule? It says that the Secretary of State would authorise an officer to carry out investigations. Why does the paragraph refer to an "other competent person"? Is it because the Department of Trade and Industry has reduced its staff to such an extent that it no longer has the expertise to carry out that vital work, or is it a deliberate policy to involve the private sector rather than civil servants? I have no hang-ups about the private sector, but I wonder whether such sensitive work involving personal privacy should not be done by Government officials.

8.15 pm

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : The order follows a long tradition of orders that recognise the importance of data protection and the rights of subjects to have access to that data, while at the same time excluding such data from public access.

Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I should like to look in detail at the schedule. I shall comment first on the interesting substitution in part I :

"or other competent person authorised by the Secretary of State". The 1987 order designated an officer. I assume that the new wording is necessary because, quite properly, in the discharge of his functions, the Secretary of State may wish to empower an outside investigator or inspector to gain access to information about a person that is pertinent under the order.

That is to say, it may be financial data about the person, which could lead to prosecution for dishonesty or fraud. If such an authorised "other competent person" was not mentioned in the order, the Secretary of State would be

Next Section

Home Page