Roads: Young Drivers
Lord Wills Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
Obviously it is important to look around the world, and we do. I agree that enforcement is important, and that is one of the very important areas for telematics, which provide a running judgment on the way in which a car is being driven at any moment.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that of the serious accidents caused by young drivers, the great proportion of those accidents, and fatalities, are caused by young men drivers, not by young women drivers. This is as much a cultural problem as anything else. What are the Government doing specifically to tackle that aspect of the problem?
Baroness Kramer
We have extensive programmes on issues around drink driving, and I am sure your Lordships are aware of those campaigns. We have a very good safety record in this country, frankly, but we can never be complacent about that. As I say, the focus of the work is now on what we can do with telematics, which now enable us to tackle this problem in a much more targeted way. Research is under way so that we will be able to do that effectively.
Publishing Industry
Lord Wills Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on securing this debate. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interests.
This is a timely debate. As we have heard, digital technologies are disrupting the business models that have sustained the industry for so long. They are redistributing power within publishing, between publishers and retailers and between different sorts of retailers. However, as my noble friend Lord Dubs so eloquently set out, there is no existential threat to publishing in the way that canals, for example, were replaced by railways. Millions will continue to derive huge pleasure from reading and, as long as they do so, there will be a publishing industry.
However, these new technologies are potentially disruptive for what is available to read. For all the growth of self-publishing which has been enabled by these new technologies, and it is welcome, publishing is for the most part still a fragile ecology, where a wide range of talents and skills remain critically interdependent. Creative artists, whether writing fiction or non-fiction, rarely, if ever, create on their own in a garret. They are supported by agents and publishers, all striving together for that elusive creative and commercial success which underpins not just publishing but all the creative industries which do so much for this country. Those support systems depend, above all else, on effective intellectual property rights.
This is a complex area of public policy, as the Government have recognised. Rightly, they are trying to balance the interests of rights holders, creators, consumers and users, and this has always been a difficult balance to strike. However, it has been made all the more difficult by the extraordinary developments in digital technology over recent years. In the light of this rapid change and the inherent difficulty of the task, no one can be certain that the Government have got the balance right. If they have not, there could be serious consequences for publishing and all the creative industries.
I was therefore dismayed to see the Government reject amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill in Committee, which unfortunately I was unable to attend, which sought to provide mechanisms to protect against such uncertainty—particularly the proposal for a new office to keep the interests of intellectual property rights holders in the forefront of public policy which, in such a rapidly changing world, and in which their importance has been overlooked in the past, seems simply prudent. To rely, as the Government seem to wish to do, on the existence of, in Sir Robin Day’s immortal phrase, here-today and gone-tomorrow Ministers seems to defy all the experience of recent years when the development of public policy in this area has painfully failed to keep pace with the implications of rapid technological change. I hope the noble Lords who proposed these amendments—I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is down to speak in this debate—will submit them again on Report and that the Government will then reconsider their approach.
More generally, it is likely that the publishing industry will change even more in the next 10 years than it has done in the previous 10 years. Its customers—readers—will determine those changes, but public policy cannot stand aside. I look forward to the Minister setting out what the Government are going to do to support this vital industry.
Roads: Roadworks
Lord Wills Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that we are making improvements. The previous Government introduced a permit system that allows local authorities to co-ordinate roadworks as much as possible to ensure that they do not interfere with each other and that we do not have more works than are necessary. However, noble Lords have to understand that that is quite difficult when you have got telecoms going alongside water pipes and gas pipes.
Lord Wills
In pursuit of the earlier question about reinstatement, does the Minister accept that one problem is that the utility companies that do the work often do not notify the local authorities when they have finished and therefore it can take weeks for the local authorities to put right the damage that some of these utility companies have done? Can the Minister offer any reassurance about the process of notification of when works are completed?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not convinced that there is the problem that the noble Lord describes. With the permit system, the contractor has to tell the local authority when the work should be completed. If it is not completed on time, the local authority can impose overrun charges. However, I will take this up with my officials and make sure that there is not an unresolved problem.
Animals: Experimentation
Lord Wills Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the regulations governing experiments on animals.
Lord Wills
My Lords, over the past 50 years there has been a profound shift in the way we view our relationship with animals. The ethical framework for that relationship has been changing and that process has become highly contentious and a matter of deep concern for millions of people in this country. At the most extreme, it has led to lawbreaking and violence.
The impact on public policy has been far reaching, as recent debates over hunting with dogs and over circus animals have shown. Perhaps the most important and difficult area is the use of non-human primates in research because it is the area with the most serious and far reaching consequences and because of these animals' evolutionary closeness to us.
There are many who believe that research involving experiments on animals is not justifiable in any circumstances. Others believe that it can be justified only if specifically directed towards medical need, while some believe it can also be justified in the investigation of more basic scientific research. However, it is now widely accepted that scientific and medical research should be carried out only if there is a clear potential benefit and if there is no other means of achieving it. So, for example, following bans introduced by the previous Government on the use of animals to test cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients in 1997 and 1998, the use of animals to test cosmetics or their ingredients is now banned throughout the European Union. This remains a deeply contentious area of public policy, with a wide range of ethical and philosophical considerations in play, passionately held beliefs on all sides, and in a scientific field which is developing at an extraordinary rate.
In these circumstances, it is the Government who hold the ring, balancing these competing views, and it is important that they do so. If the public believe that animals are being cruelly treated or that there is no measurable benefit from the experiments being carried out on them, then public consent is likely to be withdrawn from the scientific and medical research being conducted using animals, and potentially valuable research will be lost.
Clearly, the Government's task is not an easy one. The Bateson review, published in July this year, found that in most cases research involving animals was now generally productive and of good scientific quality which may lead to the understanding and treatment of a wide range of human diseases. It also found that in 9 per cent of the research programmes reviewed, no clear scientific, medical or social benefit had emerged. The Minister will be aware that there is growing unease now on all sides about what might lie ahead.
Scientists feel beleaguered, as the Minister will have detected, for example, from a recent question from the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in your Lordships' House. I see the noble Lord is due to speak later in this debate and perhaps we will hear more from him then. Those who advocate higher standards of animal welfare and the cessation of experiments using non-human primates are also worried. It is these concerns that I now wish to address in the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers and reassurance to all sides.
Immediate concern is being caused by the implementation of the new EU directive on animal experiments. The Minister will be aware, for example, of the RSPCA's lobbying on this issue and that it is generally accepted that in many ways the EU directive requires standards weaker than current UK ones. I recognise that the Home Office consultation on how to implement the directive has only just closed so the Minister will not yet be able to set out any firm conclusions. However, his department took a 25 per cent cut in its budget in the spending review, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that the Government will not use implementing the EU directive to reduce the number of Home Office inspectors and the number of inspections they carry out each year.
The Minister will be aware how important these inspectors and their inspections are to maintaining and improving standards of animal welfare in experiments. These are not unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; they are vital guarantors of high standards of animal welfare in experiments. While the great majority of scientists carrying out such experiments act ethically and with scrupulous regard to the highest standards of animal welfare, the Minister will have been briefed that there have been notorious cases where distinguished scientists have ignored such concerns and argued they were entitled to do so in pursuit of their research. Given the closed and hierarchical nature of some universities, it can be difficult for those charged with upholding animal welfare standards on site to stand up to such academics. This is particularly important as around 70 per cent of scientific research involving animals is carried out in non-commercial academic institutions, which are self-regulating apart from the role of the Home Office. So Home Office inspectors and inspections represent a crucial protection against such concerns for animal welfare being ridden over roughshod.
There have also been concerns that the ethical review process should not be scrapped but retained and improved; concerns that the EU directive should not permit higher levels of animal suffering; and concerns about newly permitted methods of killing animals which are likely to cause public concern. I should welcome any reassurance the Minister can give on these issues.
Transparency is a crucial aid to good governance. I understand that the Government have accepted that the EU directive requires reconsideration of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. Amending the section so that it does not apply to disclosures in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act would increase transparency. That would mean that someone leaking information for commercial gain or to assist extremists would still commit an offence. However, if an FOI request went to the Home Office, the Home Office could then release information provided other relevant exemptions did not apply. Those exemptions should be sufficient to protect legitimate interests, such as health and safety, the locations of animal experimentation, the privacy of the names and addresses of researchers, breach of confidence and any genuinely commercially sensitive information. I should be grateful if the Minister could set out what consideration the Government have given to amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.
Looking beyond the EU directive and its implementation, there remain fundamental questions about the use of non-human primates in experiments. Last year, I understand that some 2,649 non-human primates were used in scientific and medical research in the UK, under strictly regulated conditions. While there may be no immediate substitute for the carefully regulated conditions that I have described, that should not be an argument for not continuing to seek such substitutes in the future. The Weatherall report, which was published five years ago in 2006, noted:
“There is an impressive body of work directed at developing alternatives to non-human primates in research. There have been remarkable advances in recent years in molecular and cell biology, non-invasive imaging, computer modelling and systems biology approaches, as well as techniques for human studies”.
I hope the Minister can reassure your Lordships tonight that the Government will encourage and support such work continuing. In the long term, this can be done, and broad public support for the use of such animals in experiments maintained, only in the context of the national strategic plan called for by the Weatherall report five years ago. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships what progress is being made in drawing up such a plan and when he expects a draft to be published and put out to consultation.
In maintaining such public support, it is also crucial that there should be a clear potential benefit from such experiments. As I mentioned earlier, it is now generally accepted that their use in testing cosmetics does not result in such benefits. Therefore, the European Commission is now consulting on a ban on the marketing of all cosmetics that have been tested on animals, wherever they have been produced. I understand that while other European countries have supported such a ban, the UK Government have still to make their views known. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell your Lordships’ House whether the UK Government will support such a ban and, if not, why not.
As long as it is accepted that animals may be used in experiments, questions will arise about the acceptable limits of such experiments. Here it is becoming accepted that it is the lifetime experience of the animal that is of paramount importance. Project licences detail only individual procedures that cover only direct suffering and ignore contingent suffering, such as conditions of housing, husbandry and transport, and the period of time over which such direct and contingent suffering occurs. If the Government are to maintain a broad public consensus on the use of animals in experiments, this must include maintaining a broad consensus on acceptable levels of cumulative severity of suffering. This cannot be left to self-regulation. The maintenance of public consensus is a job for government. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to address this issue in the context of the new world into which we are now moving.
Finally, the coalition agreement pledged that the Government will,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”.
The Minister will be aware that there are many who wait anxiously to see some practical results from this pledge. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, for example, has submitted more than 30 proposals for ways to make progress in fulfilling this pledge. I should be grateful if the Minister could say when the Government will respond to these suggestions. This is a particularly difficult and contentious area of public policy, involving as it does profound ethical issues, potentially invaluable research into the treatment and cure of human disease, valuable commercial and economic interests and the passionately held beliefs of millions of people in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions of distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House to this debate, informed as they will be by their extensive experience in this field. I also look forward to answers from the Minister to the questions that I have asked tonight.
Localism Bill
Lord Wills Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
“Freedom of information and contracts
(1) Any contract for any sum over £1 million made by a relevant authority with any person after the coming into force of this section shall be deemed to include a freedom of information provision.
(2) Where such a contract is to any extent performed by means of a sub-contract, that sub-contract shall be deemed to include a freedom of information provision.
(3) In this section a “freedom of information provision” means a provision stipulating that all information relating to the performance of the contract which is held by—
(a) the contractor,(b) a sub-contractor, and(c) any other person on behalf of the contractor or sub-contractor,is, notwithstanding any contrary provision, deemed to be held on behalf of the relevant authority for the purpose of section 3(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or regulation 3(2)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.(4) A freedom of information provision shall not require—
(a) a contractor to disclose to the relevant authority any communication between itself and a professional legal adviser in connection with the giving of legal advice to it with respect to its obligations, liabilities or rights in relation to the relevant authority under the contract;(b) a sub-contractor to disclose to the contractor any communication between a professional legal adviser and itself in connection with the giving of legal advice to it with respect to its obligations, liabilities or rights in relation to the contractor under the contract.”
Lord Wills
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 200 and 201 in my name on the Order Paper. The amendments are similar to those that I tabled in Committee, so I do not intend to detain your Lordships' House long by rehearsing at length the arguments that I made for them then.
However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was good enough to write to me on 18 July setting out why the Government felt that they could not accept those amendments, and placed a copy of that letter in the Library. Despite all the fine words in that letter— some noble Lords may even have read it—about freedom of information, I found the arguments advanced by the Government so weak that I felt I had no alternative but to table the amendments once more in the hope that the Government might think again.
I hope that I have good reason to think that the Government might think again about the amendments, designed to promote transparency, because of the pledge that they made in their coalition agreement, to,
“extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency”.
However, as I set out in Committee, if the Bill works as it is intended to, far from extending the scope of freedom of information, it will restrict it. This comes in the context that, nearly a year and a half into the life of the Government, they have done virtually nothing to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act beyond the actions taken by the previous Government. By any account, the Government have a considerable way to go if they are to demonstrate that they made that commitment to transparency 18 months ago in good faith.
In his letter, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, rejected what is now Amendment 199, which deals with the question of what information the public can obtain under the Freedom of Information Act about the work done for a local authority under contract. He did so on the grounds that the Government are committed to reducing the regulatory burden on business. That is a commendable commitment. I say that as someone who set up a small business and ran it for 12 years. But it is not an overriding commitment. However irksome business may find regulations, Governments still impose them in the public interest. This Government have, for example, quite recently proposed to do that for the banking sector.
The Government say that they believe that freedom of information is in the public interest, so presumably, if businesses want to profit from taxpayers' money, they should be prepared to account for the use of it to the taxpayer. I should be grateful if the Minister could say in his reply whether the Government agree with that principle. If so, why are they resisting the amendment, especially as I have reworded it to ensure that very small businesses are not caught by it because there is now a limit of £1 million on the size of the contract that would be covered? That is particularly the case as the Freedom of Information Act and regulations already contain exemptions to protect the legitimate interests of business—for example, trade secrets or information likely to prejudice their commercial interests.
Much the same arguments apply in support of Amendment 200, which would bring companies controlled by local authorities within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. In his letter, the Minister rejected that on the grounds that,
“it would create uncertainty for requests about the coverage of the FOI Act given that companies could pass in and out on transfer of shares”.
I agree that there might occasionally—not often, but occasionally—be some such uncertainty, but it could easily be clarified. It hardly constitutes a compelling argument for keeping secret from the public important information about how their money is being spent. Clearly the Minister recognised that this was not the strongest of arguments as he then added:
“Where a company is only partly owned by the public sector, there is an increased likelihood that areas of its business will be unrelated to the public sector”.
That is true but it is not a reason for keeping secret those areas of business which are paid for by the public and operate on the public’s behalf. It is not beyond the ingenuity of all those clever officials and lawyers who work for the Government to draft accordingly.
Lord Wills
I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken in what has been a not particularly lengthy but very revealing debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for his contribution. It reminded everybody of the battles that still need to be fought for the public to get the mechanisms that they need to hold those who serve them properly to account.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for although I think he disagreed with the wording of my amendments—I have always made it clear that I am very happy for them to be revised—I detected a sympathy towards the general thrust of them. I hope I am not wrong in that. I join him in paying tribute to the Minister as he has a very honourable, long and splendid record in campaigning for transparency and freedom of information. Any criticism I might be about to make does not reflect on him personally. He has a very long and honourable record in this field.
I agree with him. This bit of legislation will benefit, I am absolutely confident, from post-legislative scrutiny. Post-legislative scrutiny was a very welcome constitutional innovation brought in by the previous Government. I am wholly in favour of it and I think this legislation, as all legislation, will benefit from it. I agree with him on that but there I am afraid our agreement ends. I ask him to look at Hansard tomorrow to see what I actually said about the record of this Government. I did not say they had done nothing. I said they had done nothing that they had not inherited from initiatives taken by the previous Government. Everything he has mentioned was set in train by the previous Government. In the coalition agreement they said they would increase transparency. I take that as going beyond what the previous Government did. That is where, I am afraid, I was very disappointed in the Minister’s response. In all sorts of other areas of constitutional legislation which we have debated at great length in this House they have rushed it through with great vigour and energy, brushing aside getting all their ducks in a row and all those other metaphors the Minister brought out just now. There has been none of that. It was so urgent and so important it had to be ramrodded through Parliament at great speed with consequences we are going to suffer from for a very long time.
Why is transparency for this Government so much less important than all those other constitutional measures? In my view it should be even more important and the Government are showing absolutely no urgency in this field. If this Bill simply left the situation as it was I could perhaps sit down now and say, “Oh well, give the Minister a bit more time to see what happens”, but it does not. When this Bill goes through, as it will, if it works as intended, and I am sure it will more or less, it will not leave things as they are. It will decrease, perhaps significantly, the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The people we serve, the voters and taxpayers, will suddenly find they cannot get information they think they have a right to know because suddenly great swathes of services will be removed from their right to know. That cannot be right. The Minister said they will do it when they get they get their ducks in a row and all the rest of it—some time, never. He cannot even commit to coming back at Third Reading—
Lord McNally
There has been an absolute tsunami of transparency. My right honourable friend Francis Maude has been frightening the life out of Whitehall and his ministerial colleagues by the way he has been forcing through transparency and the transparency agenda. It really is no good the noble Lord, Lord Wills, rewriting the history of the past 18 months. In fact, this has been a period of real progress in transparency in government. He should have the decency to acknowledge it.
Lord Wills
If the Minister would actually listen to what I was saying—I would be delighted if that was the case. I would sit down happily. I am sitting here on the Back Benches. I have no need to sign up to the Front Bench position any more on anything. I sit here quite happily committed to greater transparency. If what the Minister had just said were the case I would sit down happily now, but it is not the case. The coalition agreement says greater transparency. All the Government are doing is carrying through what the previous Government had already put in place. That is the record. It is not rewriting history. It is there firmly on the record. All I asked the Minister to do at the end was to set a timescale—maybe next year, maybe two years or sometime this Parliament. Absolutely nothing he said suggests that he going to do anything in this Parliament to make sure that this Bill does not restrict the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. On that basis, with great reluctance, I am afraid I am going ask to test the opinion of the House.
Localism Bill
Lord Wills Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
“(2) Except to the extent that regulations under section 9GA(4) prescribe otherwise, meetings of a local authority executive or of a committee of the executive are to be open to the public.”
Lord Wills
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 133A to 133C and Amendment 181A, which are in my name. I should perhaps apologise to the Minister and her officials for having given them relatively little time to consider these amendments. I will of course understand if she is not yet in a position to respond substantively to all of these amendments, but I should be grateful if she would undertake at least to consider them and perhaps respond in due course. These amendments are grouped together because they all deal with the application of the Freedom of Information Act to bodies being given greater powers under this Bill and are all informed by the principle that with greater power should come greater accountability. It is a principle which of course, chimes with the coalition agreement. As I am sure the Minister will not need me to remind her, it states:
“We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency”.
Amendment 52A is my attempt to deal with the issue raised by the amendments which have just been discussed. It is designed to try to increase the transparency of local authority agreements. For those authorities operating executive agreements new regulations are to be made, as the Minister has just said, governing the circumstances in which meetings and documents must be open to the public. I take it that the assumption behind these provisions is that the new regulations will be brought into force before or at the same time as the new executive arrangements take place. However, if that does not happen and new executive arrangements come into force before the proposed regulations, the default position will be that an executive will be free to decide for itself which of its meetings are to be open to the public and which are to be held in private.
In theory, at least, executives would be free to hold all their meetings in private if they so chose. Amendment 52A reverses that default position. In the absence of regulations—with the best will in the world, regulations do not always appear when Ministers intend— this amendment ensures that all meetings of the executive or its committee would have to be held in public. In my view, that is a better default arrangement than one which permits executives to exclude the public from all of their meetings and operate entirely in private until such regulations are made.
Clearly, this is not the most fundamental safeguard of openness and, as my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have said, it is difficult to get the wording right on this issue. Everything will depend on the provision of the regulations that are to come. However, as I understand they are not available yet, even in draft, it is difficult at this stage of the proceedings to comment further. However, I hope that this amendment will be at least a start in bringing transparency to such proceedings.
Amendments 133A to 133C set out to improve the transparency of services delivered by a local authority through others. The Bill envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities’ functions will be carried out for them by other bodies operating under contract. Amendment 133A deals with what information the public can obtain under the Freedom of Information Act about the work done for an authority under contract. If the authority carries out the work itself, all information about that work is subject to the Act but the public's rights to information are less straightforward when the work is done by a contractor.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act establishes that the right of access is to information which a public authority holds. Section 3(2)(b) of the Act provides that information which another person holds,
“on behalf of the authority”,
is treated as being held by the authority itself. However, how much of the information that a contractor holds about the contract is held on behalf of an authority? The answer is not self-evident. The contract itself may specify that particular information is to be treated as held on behalf of the authority or that a specified type of information must be provided to the authority, if it asks for it to help it answer a freedom of information request. Yet what if such a provision applies only to a very limited class of information? The effect may be then to exclude from access any information which is not specifically mentioned.
For example, in 2007, Islington Council received a freedom of information request for information about the criteria used to reward parking attendants for good results. I am sure that noble Lords will know that this is an electrically sensitive issue for many motorists in London and elsewhere in the country. The parking attendants were employed by National Car Parks Ltd under a contract with the council. The rewards included bonus performance payments and points that could be spent at Argos. The requestor wanted anonymised information about the rewards provided to the best performing parking attendants, including the number of penalty charge notices issued by them, the number of complaints involving those attendants and the number of notices subsequently cancelled. The requestor clearly suspected that the incentives were leading attendants to issue as many notices as they possibly could, regardless of any justification—clearly, a matter of considerable public interest.
The council replied that it did not hold such statistics and that the contract did not give it the power to obtain them from the contractor. The Information Commissioner then examined the contract in force at the time and found that it imposed no requirement on National Car Parks to provide statistical information about the Argos points, the performance payments to individual staff or the criteria used to decide who should receive these. He concluded that this information was not held on the council's behalf and not accessible to it under the Freedom of Information Act, yet that information was central to any attempt to understand whether the incentives were encouraging notices to be issued improperly. That is exactly the kind of problem that may occur when people attempt to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about contracts.
Amendment 133A attempts to deal with this issue by stating that any new contract entered into in future by a local authority will be “deemed to include a” contractual “freedom of information provision”. It stipulates that all information about the performance of the contract which is held by the contractor is,
“deemed to be held on behalf of the … authority for the purpose of … the Freedom of Information Act”.
Incidentally, this would also apply to the Environmental Information Regulations, which provide a parallel right of access to environmental information. If such a request for information is made about the performance of the contract, that information would be within the scope of the legislation, even if held by the contractor. No confidentiality clause would be capable of setting that provision aside. The intention is that the public's right to information—that right to “greater transparency” included in the coalition agreement—should be the same whether a particular task was carried out in-house or contracted out.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for his fairly extensive exposition on the Freedom of Information Act and its relationship with local government. I am sure that he will forgive me if I say that, not having had any detail of his speech beforehand, I simply am not out of my own head going to be able to answer all the important points that he raised, but I will do my best to cover some of them. If, later, we find something of significance, I will make sure that we write to him in response.
We have already discussed Amendment 52A, as the noble Lord acknowledged. I cannot say anything more than that we are very much in favour of open access to meetings of local authorities, but we recognise that there are occasions when confidential information has to be discussed—for example, information on contracts and members of staff. Meetings have to be closed sometimes, but we will make it clear that there has to be a presumption in favour of openness. We think that it is there anyway but we will underscore it.
My noble friend Lord McNally had hoped to be here because he has an overall eye on freedom of information. While I am very happy to take on anything, that seems to be one step too far, but he has asked me to say, in response to this, that the Government are committed to increasing transparency and that, almost without exception, central and local government are proactively publishing information about their contracts online. As noble Lords know, it is a requirement of government to do that and many local authorities have now taken that up and are doing it, which means that access to contract information is available to anyone who wants to see it. We feel, too, that in what is being done we have struck a balance between commitments to increase transparency and commitments to reduce regulatory burdens, particularly on business. I will go into that further in a minute. We do not believe that it is necessary to extend the Freedom of Information Act to those bodies at present with information about contracts with public authorities, which can be requested from them. A local authority can be quizzed about any contract that it has and we are proactively publishing contractual information online.
Amendment 133A would impose unacceptable additional burdens on business, similar to those that would be imposed if the Freedom of Information Act was extended to companies—not public companies but private ones. The Government have included provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, to extend the Freedom of Information Act with very limited exceptions to all companies wholly owned by public authorities. A few more of those will be coming up in the light of the legislation.
We have considered the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to companies where a majority of shares are owned by any number of public authorities, but to take this step would create uncertainty over which bodies were subject to the Act, particularly as bodies could pass in and out of its scope on transfer of shares. Should there be a strong argument for including a specific body, the option of inclusion through other means, such as an order under Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, still remains.
Amendment 133C would introduce a statutory requirement for the publication of an annual report by every local authority, including the smallest parish councils receiving very low volumes of freedom of information requests. We do not think that that is a burden that should be borne. Statistics about compliance with the Freedom of Information Act for government departments and a range of other central government bodies are already published voluntarily by the Ministry of Justice—indeed, the noble Lord may have generated this—on a quarterly basis. We would obviously encourage the publication of similar information by other public authorities receiving a significant number of freedom of information requests, including those within local government. The Freedom of Information Act will shortly be subject to post-legislative scrutiny, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, when it will be reviewed to ensure that it is delivering an efficient and effective mechanism by which the public can exercise their right to know and hold government to account.
Finally, on extending the Freedom of Information Act to cover the Housing Ombudsman, it is worth noting that we are planning to extend the Act to a considerable number of new bodies through legislation and we intend to keep those under review. While I do not say “in”, I do not say “out” at the present time.
I am very conscious that I have not been able to do anything like justice to all that the noble Lord has said. I hope that he will forgive me for that. I have answered some of the questions arising from the tabling of the amendments, although I appreciate that the noble Lord went wider than that to some extent. As I said in my previous commitment, we will go through Hansard to make sure that, if there is anything I have not touched on adequately, we will come back to it and write to him.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Of course, I understand and I apologise again for not having given her and her officials longer to consider these matters in more depth. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie for their contributions to this debate. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord True, says about the burdens on local authorities. I am well aware that transparency can be extremely frustrating and irritating for all those in executive authority.
The noble Lord is right: I am an enthusiast for freedom of information legislation. I think that I was almost alone among my ministerial colleagues in being such an enthusiast and I have no doubt that the same sentiments as he has just articulated are to be found widely among local authorities. All that I can say to the noble Lord and all those who find this legislation irksome, which I well understand, is that I believe passionately that in the end greater transparency helps to improve the services that we all work to deliver, whether in local government or central government. I wish that I shared his confidence that statutory freedom of information requirements are not necessary, which I think was the burden of his remarks. If I shared his confidence, I would not have put down these amendments. Sadly, I do not.
I am grateful also for the contribution made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, but most of all I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which she engaged with these amendments. However, her response was not quite as welcoming instinctively as I would have hoped, so I ask her to scrutinise the amendments in more detail and perhaps to consult the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I do not say that because I discount any possible burdens put on local authorities or contractors and small businesses. As someone who ran a small business in the past, I am deeply conscious of the need to avoid putting burdens on small businesses. These amendments were framed not to place a disproportionate burden on anyone. Perhaps on closer scrutiny that will become apparent.
I am willing to accept any suggestions for amendments and I am sure that the Government would be able to improve the drafting. The key point that I ask the Minister to take away is that, if the Government do not engage with the issues behind these amendments—not necessarily to accept these amendments as worded but with the issues behind them—that will mean, potentially, over time, a significant diminution of transparency in the operation of local authorities and those whom they contract to provide services for them. That is very serious for those who believe in freedom of information. It is in breach of a fundamental tenet of the coalition agreement, which is why I hope that this Government will take it seriously.
This Government are committed to greater transparency, but I suggest that, unless these amendments are engaged with in some form or other, we will see the progress towards greater transparency being reversed. I hope that the Minister will be able to write to me to reassure me on that point and possibly even to meet me before Report if she would be so kind, so that we could discuss these issues in more detail. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is the first in a series of amendments on the position of standards committees. A small number of us might like to have seen the Standards Board preserved, but clearly that will not happen. The focus of this amendment and subsequent amendments, which will be moved by other noble Lords, is on the preservation of standards committees in councils. This amendment deals with the position on page 256 of the Bill of authorities which currently have such committees and it would amend the previous legislation to omit most, if not all, of those listed. It is probably an accident of grouping that it appears here rather than with Amendment 97, to which I have added my name and which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will move. I assume that the noble Baroness will not be here. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that if we go more than a few minutes past seven o’clock, I will not be here either because I need to get back to my home in the north tonight. In case that eventuality arises, I add my strong support to the requirement for standards committees to be preserved. We need a mechanism in councils that is independently chaired—other amendments go into the detail of how such a procedure might work—to retain the confidence of the public in the standards to be observed by those who represent them locally. I hope that it will not be the same as the standards regime in another place but experience suggests that there is a need for a properly constructed scheme under which complaints can be ventilated and dealt with speedily, locally and impartially to sustain confidence in local democracy. To that end I move this amendment and indicate my support for the subsequent amendments.
Lord Wills
I hope that my noble friend will comment on a concern brought to me by a constituent when I was the Member of Parliament for North Swindon, which powerfully illustrates the case that he is making for the amendment.
A couple of years ago the constituent came to me with his concerns about the Wyvern theatre in Swindon, which is owned by Swindon borough council but the management of which is contracted to a private company. My constituent had learnt that the business of the lead member in the Swindon borough council cabinet with primary responsibility for letting this management contract had been given thousands of pounds worth of business—from memory, it had been given £10,000 to £12,000 worth of business—by the theatre. It was clear that the councillor concerned had acted properly in leaving the room whenever this contract was discussed. However, that did not satisfy my constituent who made the point to me over and over again that if a Minister had been in an analogous position there would have been a scandal and the Minister would have had to resign. He kept saying to me that even if the councillor had done nothing wrong himself, the private management company might still be trying spontaneously to curry favour with that councillor as his decisions could be of enormous importance to its commercial well-being.
I told my constituent that in my view there was nothing necessarily wrong with a councillor getting business in this way. Councillors are not paid a salary in the same way as Members of Parliament are, for example, and most councillors need to earn a living. I told my constituent that the way to deal with the matter was to find out whether a proper procurement process had been followed, whether the contract had been put out to tender, if it had not been, why not, and if it had been, how many people had responded to the tender, what prices had been offered and whether the contract had been awarded on price, quality or for some other reason—in other words, whether it was all transparent. My constituent pursued this route and I did so on his behalf. We went to the council, which could not do anything. We went to the private company which was not covered by the freedom of information legislation and refused to give any information, so the situation was completely opaque and remains so to this day.
I hope the Minister will agree that such a lack of transparency on such a potentially sensitive issue is not acceptable and that this amendment may provide a way to tackle the opaque nature of such a transaction. I am sure that this situation is not unique to Swindon. If the amendment is not acceptable, perhaps the Minister can come up with some other proposal. I hope my noble friend will agree that his amendment would help to deal with this sort of issue.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am not sure that it would. Standards committees were established to investigate allegations about members’ conduct. If a member has complied with the requirements of registering an interest and declaring it, unless there was any evidence on the part of a complainant that he had done something improper such as lobbying colleagues behind the scenes or something of that kind, I cannot see that the standards committee route would avail. Other processes might be worth pursuing—for example, via the audit committee of a council or possibly the district auditor. However, I cannot see, in the particular circumstances that my noble friend has outlined, that that would fall within the province of a standards committee or the Standards Board. There does not seem to be a sufficient prima facie case of misconduct on the part of an elected member who has actually declared an interest and absented himself from a decision-making process. I am sorry that that does not sound too helpful, but the system was not designed for such a case as that which my noble friend has outlined.