House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Dec 1992

(d) in subsection (8), at the end, there shall be added the words "except that, for the purposes of such application to any appeal by virtue of section 442(1)(c), references in subsections (1) to (3) of section 446 to the appellant shall be construed as references to the convicted person and subsection (4) and (5) of section 446 shall be disregarded".

( ) In section 453C(3) (powers of High Court at time of disposal of appeal) --

(a) after the words "442(1)(a)(ii)" there shall be inserted the words ", or by virtue of section 442(1)(c)," ; and

(b) for the word "appellant", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "convicted person".'.-- [Lord James Douglas- Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 44, line 5, at end insert--

( ) In section 14(1) (legalised police cells), after the word "under" there shall be inserted the words "section 39 of".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : During earlier consideration of the Bill, I made it clear that the Government intend a wholesale revision and replacement of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 and of standing orders made under those rules. These amendments may be regarded as evidence that work is in progress to achieve that intention. In the course of that work, it has been noted that some of the provisions in the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 leave one in doubt about the nature and standing of the rules to which they refer.

Column 499

Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 will make it clear that all rules made under the Act are to be made under section 39 of the Act which will ensure that the new rules that are being prepared will be comprehensive and will be made under a single enabling provision. Amendment No. 23 will simplify and clarify the terms of section 42 of the Act which, as amended, will require all rules and orders made under the Act to be made by statutory instruments subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House. The other amendments are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 21, in page 44, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert--

(3) In section 19 (provisions of 1989 Act applying to remand centres and young offenders institutions)--

(a) in subsection (3), for the words "the rules" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 39 of this Act" ; and (

(b) in subsection (4), in sub-paragraph (iii) of the proviso-- (

(i) for the words "paragraphs (i) and (ii)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (i)" ; and

(ii) for the words "of the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "under section 39 of this Act".'.

No. 22, in page 44, line 13, at end insert--

( ) In section 39(1) (rules for the management of prisons and other institutions)--

(a) the word "and", where it occurs for the third time, shall cease to have effect ; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "and for any other matter as respects which it is provided in this Act that rules may be made under this section".'.

No. 23, in page 44, line 27, leave out from beginning to rules' in line 32 and insert

, for the words from "regulations" to the end there shall be substituted the words "an order made under section 37(1) or".'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

Repeals and Revocations

Amendment made : No. 24, in page 47, line 35, at end insert--

In section 270(2), the words "of two weeks or any extension thereof authorised by the High Court".'.

No. 25, in page 48, line 28, leave out Section 39(4)' and insert In section 39, in subsection (1) the word "and" where it occurs for the third time ; and subsection (4)'.

No. 26, in page 48, line 31, leave out from or" ;' to and' in line 37.

No. 27, in page 48, line 42, leave out committees' and insert committee'.-- [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Third time.

7.54 pm

Mr. McFall : As we said on Second Reading, we should understand the true context of the Bill. First, it emerges from a period of unprecedented upheaval in the Scottish prison service. Secondly, and just as importantly, it

Column 500

emerges from the fact that we are top of the league in Europe for gaoling people. We therefore need to do something to try to alleviate the situation.

The Bill provided a good opportunity to consider a number of issues. The Opposition can take comfort from the fact that we have highlighted a number of areas for future discussion and, I hope, for future progress, not least the issue of fine defaulters. Fine defaulters comprise 40 per cent. of those entering prison. That is a waste of prison resources about which something should be done and we look forward to the Government taking that on.

We have brought our concerns regarding sections 71 and 72 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 to the Minister's attention and he has responded. In England and Wales there has been a review of health services for mentally disordered offenders and others requiring similar services. It has reported under the chairmanship of Dr. John Reid. I should like a similar course of action to be taken for individuals in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

I thank the Minister for his helpful letters to us during the Committee proceedings right up to today's deliberations.

We were pleased to note that the issue concerning ethnic minorities had been addressed in Barlinnie prison, where prison officers have a formal relationship with Strathclyde community relations council. That is good news, which we welcome. We welcome any progress which can be made on this.

The issue of young people and their rehabilitation is important, and we should like the Minister and others to bear in mind our concern about that. I have received a number of helpful representations from various bodies. One was from a solicitor who has defended criminal cases for more than 20 years. He said : "It is my experience of defending the same people again and again over the years, that the vast majority of my clients give up committing crime not because of any particular sentence which is imposed on them by a Court but rather despite sentences which are imposed on them. Most people give up committing crime because they simply mature or they get a job or they meet a girl who keeps them on the straight and narrow or some other significant life event which causes them to confront the way they have behaved in the past and resolve not to behave that way again".

That illustrates the role that families and other people outside prison play in rehabilitation. That aspect must be emphasised and kept in mind.

I do not want to be too partisan, but I have to point out that there has been no input from the Scottish National party to the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report. That is a gross failure on behalf of the SNP. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others have occupied the airwaves for the past four or five days telling us to boycott this place. The hon. Gentleman receives more than his fair share of attention in this place. As Peterhead prison is in his constituency, it is incumbent on him to represent its interests.

I wish the Opposition to be associated with the good work that is going on in Peterhead prison with regard to the vicious circle of sex offences. Under a project being carried out at Peterhead prison, treatment is given to inmates to try to break the cycle of sex offences. The Glasgow Herald of Saturday 12 December contained a good report by James Freeman, the home affairs

Column 501

correspondent, of his visit to Peterhead prison. I should like the Government to support the work undertaken in that prison by the governor, Alec Spencer.

I mentioned the SNP and, to be fair, I shall mention the Liberal Democrats. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said on Second Reading that hardly a Christmas goes by without a tabloid newspaper describing the pleasures enjoyed by those who happen to be in prison at that time. He said that in no way would the reporters exchange their life for that of the prisoners. That is extremely important, and with Christmas so close we should bear it in mind. I commend those comments by the hon. and learned Gentleman and congratulate him on his contribution in Committee.

The Opposition welcome the parole recommendations, the work of Kincraig and the Minister's response to the issue of children's evidence. We hope that the Minister will place the Bill in the context that I mentioned at the beginning of his speech. He will have the full support and backing of the Official Opposition for progressive and enlightened measures in the Scottish prison service. We hope that the Bill will be followed by others so that we may have a more sensitive and enlightened criminal justice system in Scotland. We therefore support Third Reading of the Bill.

8.1 pm

Dr. Godman : I shall not speak for more than three minutes, because I am starving. Scots Members who are present will not be surprised to hear me say that I intend to confine my speech to clauses 33, 34 and 35. Those who urge us to boycott this place when it is debating such important Scottish legislation exhibit a lack of judgment. As I have said before, those three clauses give added protection to child witnesses who are caught up in the horrendous circumstances of sexual abuse and child abuse and often in cases of the most appalling neglect.

Will the Minister ensure that the equipment and installations to enable child witnesses to take advantage of the Bill's provisions are installed as quickly as possible? As the Minister knows, only two courts in Scotland have closed circuit television links. They are in Edinburgh and in sheriff court No. 5 in Glasgow. England and Wales has more than 40 Crown courts with such installations. I hope that at least one sheriff court in each of the sheriffdoms will be given such equipment. That is the least that we can demand on behalf of children who are caught up in such cases. It is wrong to expect child witnesses to travel hundreds of miles to give evidence in a court or a building containing such a television system.

We are debating remarkable measures which will place Scots law in advance of the law elsewhere, because they will give added protection to children while at the same time maintaining the rights of the accused.

8.4 pm

Mr. Hood : My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said that he would speak for only three minutes because he was starving. I am a bit peckish myself and I look forward to dining with my hon. Friend in about five mintues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred to the Scottish National party. I shall not comment for partisan reasons

Column 502

-- [Interruption.] Perhaps in my naive way I am not explaining myself properly and people will think that I am being mischievous. My constituency covers more than 600 square miles and is one of the largest in the United Kingdom. On television and in the press I see reports about people who share my profession and are paid a good salary to come here and represent those least able to represent themselves. The Bill is the best example for politicians who engage in rhetoric, play gesture politics and tell us that we should not be here. They say that we should sit on our backsides, swan off on rallies or push umbrellas up and down in the pouring rain. That is not my way of representing the 60,000 people who sent me here. Such an attitude is complete nonsense and those who hold it should speak to George Beattie, an innocent man who has served 13 years in prison and whose only chance of representation is to have his Member of Parliament speak in the House on his behalf. They could also speak to Margaret Smith, who has been in prison for 10 years. It is about time she was out, and she needs someone to speak up for her. Those who want to play silly political games should speak to people who need consideration.

The Bill seeks to improve the running of our prisons and look after the people who are in them. There has been much agreement about the Bill's aims, and for that reason they will probably succeed. We always have our failures and I am sure that we are not smug enough to think that this time we have got it right. However, all hon. Members will agree that we must seek continually to improve the way in which we treat people in our prisons and run our criminal proceedings. I have referred to George Beattie and Margaret Smith. There are also 14-year-old children in Scottish prisons. That is not right, and while it continues we must seek to improve the way in which we operate.

8.8 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) : it is preposterous that Scottish National party Members do not appear for a major debate on important Scottish legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has a significant prison in his constituency. This legislation is extremely important to the officers who work in that prison.

I pay tribute to the Kincraig committee, whose report has largely been implemented through the Bill. I am grateful to Opposition Members and to my hon. Friends for their constructive contributions to the debates on the Bill. We have made substantial strides on the issue of children's evidence, in which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has always been especially interested. I pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission for its work. The Lord Advocate particularly appreciates the immensely detailed hard work carried out by the commission. The Bill will be important both for prison officers and for prisoners. The prison service has made significant improvements in the management of prisons and further positive changes will be made in the next few years.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and to the hon. Member for Dumbarton that the change in the law to allow the right of appeal against

Column 503

sentences which are too lenient is a substantial reform to the law of Scotland, and one that I believe will be welcomed. I believe that the protection of children in court proceedings will also be regarded as extremely important.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who put the case for disadvantaged groups. Any fears expressed by Helena Kennedy about the blindness of justice have not been borne out in the House on this Bill. We have carefully considered how accused persons, people with disabilities, prisoners on appeal and others will be affected by the matters on which we are legislating. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) for his efforts to enhance the protection of Scotland's rare birds.

I am glad that the House has made its will plain to the other place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it abundantly clear in his speech that this House opposes any exclusion of evidence from proceedings brought under the War Crimes Act 1991. I firmly believe that it is right that proceedings under that Act should be conducted under the same evidential regime as other proceedings in respect of serious crimes. I hope that the other place will now accept the decision of the House of Commons.

It is fair to say that the Bill has attracted a large measure of cross- party support and I strongly commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Column 504

Environmental Information

8.11 pm

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean) : I beg to move

"That the draft Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 8th December, be approved." I shall start with a disclaimer. Having heard the points of order after Scottish questions today to the effect that too many English Members of Parliament had participated, and having sat through a large part of the Scottish debate that has just finished, I thought it right to point out to the uninitiated who, hearing my Scottish accent, might think that this debate is a continuation of Scottish business, that I am introducing Great Britain regulations. These regulations give the public new legal rights of access to environmental information. As long ago as 1984, we accepted a recommendation by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that there

"should be a presumption in favour of unrestricted access for the public to information which the pollution control authorities obtain or receive by virtue of their statutory powers".

The Government have consistently supported the principle that the public should have rights of access to environmental information, and we have demonstrated our commitment by establishing public registers of environmental information through successive legislative provisions.

In seeking the support and agreement of the House to these regulations, I should like first to say something about the background, then to describe the overall approach and then to deal with some of the issues which have emerged in the course of preparing the regulations and consulting on them.

First, the background to the regulations is that they implement United Kingdom policies, but they take their present form because they also have to apply European Community directive 90/313 on freedom of access to information on the environment. When the text was finalised during the Irish presidency in 1990, we in the United Kingdom were already well advanced in the process of putting in place statutory registers of environmental information. We supported the overall aims of the directive not only because it was consistent with our national policy, but because it placed comprehensive duties to provide access to environmental information on member states elsewhere in the Community.

We published a consultation paper in January this year setting out our proposals for implementation of the directive. We received more than 170 responses from a wide variety of bodies covering industry, local government and the voluntary sector. As one would expect, most people welcomed the principles behind the proposals.

At the end of October this year, we invited comments on draft regulations to implement the directive, together with draft guidance intended to help provide the detail for which many consultees have asked. Again, we received a substantial number of responses to the draft regulations and draft guidance. We have considered the responses carefully and have made a number of changes to the draft regulations and guidance. The draft regulations, taking account of those amendments, are before the House tonight.

Column 505

During the drafting of the regulations, we had to consider extremely carefully a number of technical drafting issues. I shall come back to those later. That has had an effect on the time available for consultation and the consequent timetable for parliamentary consideration. I am sure that the House will agree, however, that it is imperative that we do everything we can to honour our obligations in EC law. We are especially concerned about the performance of some other member states in that respect. It will not help our arguments in Brussels if we fail to meet Community requirements and then criticise others for the same failing--so we do not intend to fail.

In drafting the regulations, we needed to acknowledge that there was already a substantial body of existing legislation covering public rights of access to environmental information. We wanted to be sure that people continued to enjoy those rights. Therefore, the approach followed in the draft regulations is to apply their requirements to environmental information that is not already available on request under any existing statutory provision. In addition, to ensure compliance with the directive, the arrangements for making available information to the public under statutory provisions must be sufficient to satisfy the requirements set out in the regulations.

Under the regulations, "relevant persons" must make available environmental information on request. I hope that the House will bear with me if I continue to use the term "relevant persons" in the rest of my remarks as shorthand for all the bodies subject to the regulations' requirements. Relevant persons have up to two months to respond to requests for information. Refusals must be in writing and show the reasons. Relevant persons may charge for making information available, provided that the charge does not exceed a reasonable amount. Failure to comply with the regulations will be a breach of duty and an aggrieved person could seek a judicial review or pursue the matter through a private action in the courts.

Relevant persons can protect certain types of confidential information. That could include information relating to international relations, national defence or public security, internal communications or to commercial or industrial confidentiality. Relevant persons will be under a duty to protect other types of confidential information--for example, any of the types of information which may be treated as confidential and are already the subject of restrictions on disclosure. Other types of information that relevant persons will be under a duty to protect include personal and volunteered information, unless the supplier of the information agrees to its disclosure or it is otherwise authorised.

I shall now deal with some of the comments made by consultees on the draft regulations. First, on the scope of the regulations, we have carefully considered whether we should include a list of bodies to which the regulations apply. We are conscious, however, that any list that we include in the regulations will soon become out of date and will need frequent updating. We also have to recognise that production of a list which is not definitive may not be very helpful to anyone and could expose us to challenge in the European Court of Justice for failure to implement the EC directive. It will be for the bodies concerned to take a view on whether they are "relevant persons" under the regulations. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to rule on those questions.

Column 506

The question of the extent to which charges should be made for supplying information has attracted much comment. There is the very reasonable concern that charges will be too high and will discourage the public from requesting information. However, there is the equally reasonable concern that new obligations to supply information will bring extra costs. We have tried to strike a balance between those concerns. There is therefore a discretionary power to make a charge in respect of the costs reasonably attributable to the supply of information. The payment of such a charge can be made a condition of supplying information. Holders of information can make a charge to cover their costs, and those requesting information may be charged only a reasonable amount. Inspection of statutory public registers will remain free of charge.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I do not wish to anticipate what others may say, but one of the questions which always crops up when one talks of "a reasonable charge" is whether it is the real, additional cost to the provider of the information, or levied according to a more subjective test. Is it the Government's view that the cost should be only the additional cost to the provider of providing that information to the person who has requested it?

Mr. Maclean : I do not intend to pontificate on what may be the reasonable cost. I shall not be the judge and jury on that matter. I have introduced the regulations and made a requirement that the cost shall be reasonable. The company must ensure that the cost is reasonable. If the person who requested the information feels aggrieved and feels that the cost is not reasonable, he or she has rights of redress.

I stress the fact that inspection of statutory public registers will continue to remain free of charge. The House should take that fact on board. We have also considered, but rejected, suggestions that we should prescribe a standard charging regime applicable in all cases. A standard charging regime would place a straitjacket on all the many and different bodies responsible for providing information, and would inevitably fail to take account of all their different circumstances and how they operate. The regulations therefore leave it to the discretion of the relevant person concerned whether to charge for information and, if so, how much.

On the key issues arising from comments on the exceptions to the right to information dealt with in the regulations, there has been concern that information of commercial value provided to environmental regulators and other relevant bodies could become available to competitors through the arrangements set out in the regulations. Those fears are unfounded. Where there are statutory restrictions on the release of commercially confidential information or trade secrets, they must continue to apply under the regulations. Where other information has been provided in response to statutory requirements, the relevant person has discretion not to provide the information to others if it is commercially confidential. Where information has been provided on a voluntary basis, the relevant person is under a duty not to provide the information to others without the agreement of the supplier. The regulations are not a charter for one company to poach commercially sensitive information from another.

Column 507

I shall now deal with concerns that the provisions allowing relevant persons to refuse to supply information if it is contained in internal communications or incomplete documents provides a ready formula for refusing all requests for information. The provisions are aimed at enabling organisations to conduct their internal administrative work in private. I hesitate to generalise on those issues because every case would need to be dealt with on the facts available, but that is precisely the point : it will be a matter of fact whether a document really is incomplete or whether it really is an internal communication. In addition, relevant persons will be under a duty to separate out environmental information and make it available, unless it is incapable of being separated. Ultimately, a court could be asked to take a view on those matters and be the final judge.

As for volunteered information, I know from my experience in the Ministry that regulatory authorities and industry find it very helpful to discuss information volunteered by industry when considering applications for authorisations or consents. This is information which a company will not be required by statute to disclose, but none the less it is of immense assistance in helping the regulatory authority to understand the operating practices and background of the company concerned.

Although much of that information will be "environmental information"-- under the terms of these regulations, it is quite likely--indeed, I am fairly certain--that it would not have been volunteered in the first place if the supplier believed that it would be passed on to somebody else, particularly competitors. We recognise those concerns, and the regulations therefore provide relevant persons with no discretion at all to disclose volunteered information to others without the prior consent of the volunteer supplier. We think that that is essential to ensure the continued supply of important volunteered environmental information.

I must now refer to rights of redress for a person who is refused information. Under the regulations, everyone refused information has a right to that refusal being in writing and the reasons for the refusal being specified. That should establish clearly why the information has been refused, but it will also provide an opportunity to resolve any misunderstandings which may have arisen.

If a person requesting information believes that he or she has been wrongfully refused, additional rights are available under the regulations. He or she may seek judicial review of the decision concerned or pursue the matter through a private action in the courts. It should be of some reassurance to suppliers of information who feel that they have been financially damaged by its disclosure that they could, if they wished, pursue a claim for damages by a private action. But court actions are not welcomed by anyone. We saw in the last debate how only lawyers become rich as a result of such actions. It will be the responsibility of every relevant person to be open and fair in how requests for information are dealt with and they must do everything possible to explain why, if it really is necessary, information cannot be supplied.

There is clearly much support for the general principle of providing the public with access to environmental information. I have many more pages of compelling arguments which could support the regulations, but that

Column 508

information is entirely confidential and I cannot reveal it to the House, so I merely commend the regualtions to the House.

8.27 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I am tempted to begin by observing how far we have come in the past five years. Five years ago, I introduced into a House a private Member's Bill, which is now the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988. Surreptitious attempts were made by the Government, emanating especially from the Whips, to stifle the Bill at birth. Eventually, however, a combination of public opinion, governmental embarrassment and Bernard Levin managed to ensure that we got the Act on the the statute book. I pay particular tribute to my late and noble colleague the Baroness Ewart-Biggs, who helped to pilot that measure through the House of Lords subsequent to its passage through the Commons.

Matters have moved on since then and I welcome the Government's introduction of regulations to improve access to environmental information. It is crucial that the general public has as much access to information about what is happening to the environment as possible. After all, environmental degraduation affects us all. Even the Prime Minister appears to have woken up to this fact. About 16 months ago, he made a speech at a conference organised by The Sunday Times, in which he said :

"We have opened the door to environmental information." He was a little ahead of himself in that claim, because it is only now that the door is really open. He continued :

"Every individual, every group, will in future have access to the information they need in order to act as an environmental watchdog. That information is the citizen's right, and the Active Citizen will use that right constructively."

The Prime Minister was correct. The rhetoric was fine, the objective is excellent, but I am afraid that the regulations do not measure up to the ideals. The Government are submitting them late--this is the last possible moment at which they could do so. They are seriously inadequate in a number of key respects. Not only do they fall far short of embracing the spirit of European Community directive 90/313, but I have some major questions about whether they fulfil the letter of the directive.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has unearthed a couple of explanatory documents from the Department of the Environment that are helpful in so far as they go, but they do not address some of the concerns raised outside the House by Friends of the Earth and other organisations. I have a list of some of those concerns. First, what actually counts as environmental information? Paragraph (2)(b) of regulation 2 speaks of

"any activities or measures which adversely affect anything mentioned in sub-paragraph (a)".

That is water, air, soil, fauna, flora and so on. How will this work in practice? How will we know whether a particular piece of information is regarded as adversely affecting some of the essential components of our environment?

Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth) : I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I do not understand--perhaps he would kindly explain-- how the drafting in the regulations differs materially from article 2(a) of the European directive on the point that he has just described.

Column 509

Mr. Smith : I am not criticising the regulations for differing from the directive in that regard. I shall come on to a number of other points of that nature, but that does not invalidate the point, which is that if we are to have regulations, we need to be certain how the basic definitions in them will be interpreted.

Let us take two examples of what counts as environmental information. One has recently come to public notice. The Secretary of State overturned a recommendation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that information about the inputs to power stations run by National Power should be made accessible to the public. National Power contended that this information was not relevant to the environmental impact of running power stations. HMIP demurred. The Secretary of State clearly sided with National Power. Inputs to a power station may not directly impact on the environment, but will have an inevitable consequence eventually on the environment once they have been used through the power station. In such cases, does that count, under the regulations, as environmental information? That is a valid question to which the answer is unclear.

Let us take another example, that of the contracts that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. had for the reprocessing of nuclear wastes in the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The nature and content of those contracts have never been made public, yet, they have a considerable impact on the future running of the plant and are crucial to an assessment of the case as to whether that plant will have an environmental impact. In that instance, it is unclear whether that counts as environmental information. We need to have the broadest possible definition, but will that be what the regulations mean in practice? There is a serious question mark about that, and it ought to be addressed.

Secondly, the definition of "response" in relation to the two-month deadline is unclear. There is a world of potential difference between a mere acknowledgement of a request and the provision of a full answer, both of which could qualify as a response. Surely this ought to be more clearly spelt out. If a response is to be required within two months, we ought to know precisely what sort of response is required. Will it have to be more than an acknowledgement? The regulations are ambiguous about that.

Thirdly, it is worrying that a charge can be made for the provision of information. That has already been the subject of an exchange across the Floor of the House. Notwithstanding the qualification of reasonableness, there is always a danger that the ability to charge will be used as an effective barrier to the seeking of information. Rather than removing my concern about that fact, what the Minister said in response to questions across the Floor of the House intensified it.

Challenging a judgment of reasonableness in the courts would be a prohibitively expensive course for the applicant to embark upon. While charging of the public for access might be reasonable if strict rules about the actual costs incurred by the body providing the information were to be inserted, where no such rules apply--there are none in the regulations--it is possible that the ability to charge will be used to prevent access.

Fourthly, the exclusion from access to information relating to matters affecting international relations is a broad definition, putting anything with a third-hand connection with international relations outside the scope

Next Section

Home Page