Mr.
Kidney: I apologise for missing the fact that the relevant
authority is the Minister; my hon. Friend is quite right. In the kind
of case that he described, it is perfectly understandable that a
Minister might want to direct that such information should not be
published—certainly information such as people’s names,
addresses
and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would happen in
exceptional situations rather than simply inappropriate ones? Will he
reflect that “inappropriate” is quite a wide test for the
power, and that something such as “exceptional
circumstances” would be more narrowly
focused?
Mr.
McFadden: We could have a discussion about
“exceptional” and “inappropriate”. We agree
that regulators should not be exempted from the duty for frivolous
reasons. “Exceptional circumstances” might take it too
far. It could cause a regulator difficulties in cases where strong data
protection reasons exist for not disclosing enforcement action but the
case is not seen as exceptional. We could argue about the specific
term, but on data protection grounds and grounds of safety for those
involved in the enterprise, we think that the provision in subsection
(4) is a prudent part of the Bill’s information release
function.
Mr.
Prisk: This has been a useful debate. The hon. Member for
Stafford rightly raised questions, which the Minister has delicately
answered, about inappropriateness. I do not wish to stretch it too far,
but does the Minister agree that although it might be helpful if the
word “inappropriate” remained in the Bill, it would also
be helpful if it were understood that it is the Government’s
expectation that the matter would not be regarded as
routine?
Mr.
McFadden: That is a perfectly fair
point. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
65 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
66Compliance
with regulatory
principles
Mr.
Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in
clause 66, page 32, line 6, at
end add— ‘(2) Where the
regulator is a local authority or authorities, prior to the provision
being made the relevant authority shall consult the LBRO as to whether
the authority or authorities are fully compliant with the said
principles and will continue to act in accordance with those
principles. (3) Notwithstanding
subsection (2), the relevant authority may proceed to make the
provision in subsection (1) with the condition that the LBRO is
satisfied that any authority that is not fully compliant will become
fully compliant within one year of the provision being
made.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 3— Duty to secure observance of Code of
Practice— ‘Where any
local authority has been granted powers under Part 3 of this Act, the
LBRO shall have the duty or reviewing and, if appropriate, certifying
every three years whether local authorities are compliant with the
provisions of any Code issued under Section 22 of the Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Act
2006.’.
Mr.
Prisk: I want the new clause to be regarded as a distinct
element. If the Minister embraces both proposals warmly, the matter
will be resolved, but if not, we may
wish to press them to a Division. It would be appropriate to hear his
response, but we might wish to deal with new clause 3
separately. Amendment
No. 45 would insert two subsections into the clause. It relates to
local authorities, and it would reinforce the need for all regulators
to be fully compliant with the Hampton principles. We have debated
them, so I shall not rehearse them now. The amendment stems, as does
new clause 3, from worries that have been expressed by business. I am
particularly grateful to the British Retail Consortium for bringing the
issue to my attention. It is worried that this part of the Bill does
not explicitly state roots in the Hampton principles, and it wants
consistency in the compliance of regulations with those principles. It
says that not only when regulators begin their process should they be
seen to be compliant, but that there should be a process by which that
is made consistent throughout their
operation. The
amendment would provide the Government with a compromise. It would
allow the powers to proceed as the clause envisages, even if some
authorities are not currently compliant. It would give the Local Better
Regulation Office a role to ensure that such authorities become
compliant in a year. It would make sure of the opportunity to achieve
Hampton compliance. We can all think of local authorities that may
achieve that at a particular point, but we believe in the principles
and want the whole system to be skewed towards ensuring that the
maximum number of authorities are compliant, and thus able to
participate. New
clause 3 would ensure that other regulators who can use the
administrative penalties are also consistently compliant with the
Hampton principles. As the Minister
knows, the Macrory report was clear that the use of administrative
penalties should only be for regulators who are consistently compliant.
As drafted, the Bill does not seem to secure ongoing compliance. It
requires an assessment prior to the first allocation of the powers, but
not thereafter. It may well be that with the vast range of resources
behind him, the hon. Gentleman can identify the fact that such a
provision is embedded in another part of the Bill. Unless he can show
that a consistent compliance provision exists, the new clause would
strengthen the Bill’s Hampton credentials. Consistency is just
as important as being compliant at the beginning, so if I may I shall
move the amendment and new clause
3. The
Chairman: We shall come to new clause 3 formally later,
but we can debate the two provisions together
now.
Lorely
Burt: I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. So
many companies will feel frustration if they are encumbered with a
local authority that is not working within the spirit and the law of
the Hampton principles. The new clause would give the LBRO auditing
powers to see that local authorities comply with the Hampton principles
and the ability to certify them as compliant every three years. I
should be grateful if the Minister would elucidate on whether such
matters are catered for elsewhere in the Bill or whether the proposal
would introduce something new that would be
helpful. It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
