Inquiries Bill [Lords] |
|
Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister giving the Committee an explicit assurance that every clause of the Bill is fully in accordance not only with the letter but with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Mr. Leslie: Yes. I think that later clauses in the Bill deal with freedom of information arrangements, because inquiries, not being public bodies, might not want to be and should not be subject to freedom of information requests during the inquiry process. However, I think that we made amendments on that issue in the other place, and we might come to those aspects later. In general, I think that we have said—I stand to be corrected—that after an inquiry has
Restrictions on public access would not be ordered lightly by chairmen or by Ministers in restriction notices. Clause 20(4) sets out the factors that must be taken into account when determining whether the public interest test has been met. It makes it clear that the Minister or chairman must always weigh the reasons for restriction against the extent to which issuing the restriction
That will usually be a strong argument to retain public access. Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 would give the Minister setting up an inquiry no role whatever in deciding the form of the inquiry and the terms of public access. When a Minister is setting up an inquiry, they must be sure that they will not endanger witnesses or put national security at risk. Those are very important considerations, and public access or private hearing can make an important contribution on those two points. 4.45 pmA Minister has to be able to set up an inquiry in a way that will allow it to get to the truth most effectively. Decisions about privacy must be part of that process. As has been said in the other place, there are cost implications. For example, Ministers have established a number of recent health inquiries partially on the basis of private hearings, because it meant that they could operate more efficiently, streamline procedures and get to the truth more quickly. I think that in a judgment about the Allitt inquiry, Lord Bingham said:
In rare cases in which large portions of the information would be sensitive, it is much better to have a single decision about public access right at the start—which can of course be challenged—rather than numerous applications for public interest immunity throughout the inquiry, which can be very protracted and cause delays. The powers that are sought in clause 20 are not new; existing legislation, including the Children Act 1989 and the Police Act 1996, has explicit powers for Ministers to hold an inquiry or part of an inquiry in private. What is new in the Bill is the set of qualifications on the use of those powers. In fact, for the first time we set out the reasons why a Minister may hold an inquiry in private. The Bill in many ways restricts Ministers’ current powers in that respect. It creates a clear structure in which decisions about public access and privacy must be made. Any attempt to use the clause to impose improper or unreasonable restrictions could, and undoubtedly would, be challenged through judicial review. The clause is well framed and details the
Mr. Djanogly: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland accepting the openness of the Conservative party. That was very nice. I agree with what he said on that issue and—he will be pleased to know—with his comments generally. The Minister maintained that there was a presumption of public access. He said that it permeated the clauses of the Bill. I need to go away, weigh up his words and consider to what extent they are adequate. I will not press the amendment to a Division. This is an issue to which we might want to return later—unless my Liberal Democrat colleague explains to me that he has assessed the Minister’s words. Mr. Carmichael: No. Mr. Djanogly: In that case, I will stick with that approach at the moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Risk of damage to the economy Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 24, page 11, line 44, leave out from ‘in’ to end of line 2 on page 12 and insert
I do not think that I need detain the Committee unnecessarily on this amendment, because having assessed in part the Minister’s comments on the previous group of amendments, I am fairly confident that he will want to accept this amendment. We are dealing with whether the cart or the horse comes first. The provision as it currently stands requires the panel to be satisfied that the public interest in the information that is being revealed outweighs the public interest in avoiding a risk of damage to the economy. That is to say that the disclosure outweighs the restriction. In fact, we would say—the Minister says that there is a presumption in favour of disclosure—that the disclosure should be the status quo or the presumption that requires to be rebutted. It is as simple as that, and I cannot imagine for the life of me why the Minister would wish to oppose the amendment. Mr. Leslie: Clause 24 is designed to allow for cases in which only the Treasury, Bank of England or the Financial Services Authority will have access to the full background about why public disclosure of a particular piece of information risks seriously damaging the economy of the United Kingdom. Column Number: 79 A European Community law bar prevents regulators of financial services from sharing certain information. In some cases, that will prevent the Treasury, Bank of England or the FSA from sharing the background information with the panel. That means that the panel would be making an assessment of the risks of disclosing a particular piece of evidence without the full picture available to them. For that reason, the balancing test in clause 24 needs to be more favourable to restricting disclosure. The inquiry panel would often be assessing the public interest while unaware of the true extent of the likely damage to the economy. Therefore, it is right that information should be released by the inquiry panel only when the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs public interest in avoiding the risk of damaging the economy. To answer the hon. Gentleman, I can certainly give the assurance that the tripartite authorities would not seek to make an application under clause 24 where the
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister is a big disappointment to me; perhaps I need to be more imaginative when I anticipate his arguments. That said, this is not something on which I want to delay the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Bridget Prentice.] Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Five o’clock till Thursday 24 March at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 23 March 2005 |