Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Wills

Wednesday 15th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

Will the noble Baroness confirm that those figures do not cover local government? Will she further confirm that it is her understanding as it is mine that most of the interests that the citizens of this country have are in local authority functions and not central government functions?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I can certainly confirm that the figure I quoted for the extension of requests under the public interest test relates only to central government. As to general requests under FOI, these bodies were monitored by the MoJ. I am afraid that I do not have to hand which bodies they are. The figures do not cover local government.

However, I accept that there is room for improvement, especially where the deadline is extended to allow consideration of the public interest test. The Information Commissioner is watchful of public authorities where timeliness is an issue and has taken effective action in this area. In 2011, the commissioner announced that out of 33 bodies being monitored in relation to timeliness issues, 26 had made sufficient improvement to be removed from his watch list. While further action is required from the remaining bodies, it is clear that the Information Commissioner’s Office has been effective in improving timeliness.

The introduction of new statutory deadlines is a potential way of strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, as the noble Lord has put forward, provided that it does not lead to hasty decisions that are not fully informed. An absolute limit of 40 days raises some concerns about the potential for such an effect and therefore we need to give the impact of changes of this type full consideration before their introduction. For that reason, I cannot accept his amendment today.

As the noble Lord has predicted I might say, but not for the reasons he suggests, this is something that I strongly believe should be properly scrutinised and considered in the course of post-legislative scrutiny, which is now under way by the relevant Select Committee of the other place, chaired by the right honourable Alan Beith. I certainly will ensure that he receives the official record of our debate today.

It is also worth pointing out that I genuinely think that the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, as much as it has merits, requires very careful consideration. I will look forward to his contribution to the process of post-legislative scrutiny that is ongoing.

Amendment 55ZB, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, seeks to extend the Freedom of Information Act to information held by contractors working on behalf of public authorities about the performance of those contracts where those contracts are worth more than £1 million. The noble Lord has found support today from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is aware, the Government have extended the FOI Act and are taking steps to extend it further. We have made an order under Section 5 of the Act extending its scope to, among others, the Financial Ombudsman Service. We have commenced consultations with more than 200 further bodies about their possible inclusion through future Section 5 orders and we intend to consult more than 2,000 housing associations later this year in relation to their possible inclusion.

In addition, Clause 103 of this Bill will extend the Act to companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities, thereby removing the anomaly whereby a company is subject to the FOI Act only if wholly owned by one public authority but not by two or more. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that these are significant changes.

I understand the point that the noble Lord and others have made today that as services are subcontracted out, whether by local government or by other public services which have been mentioned today, the public should not be left short of any information that might be needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of those services. But as I mentioned to the noble Lord in Committee when we debated this, even when a service is subcontracted out, it is still the responsibility of the public authority in terms of the accountability for that service to the public. It is the relevant organisation which should be held to account. In the way in which the contracts are constructed, it should be possible for the public to receive from the contracting authority the information that is needed in order to ensure that the services being carried out and paid for with their taxes are actually performing as they would want them to.

As my noble friend Lord McNally stressed last year, it is important to ensure that changes to the way public services are delivered do not undermine our pledge to increase openness and accountability, and there is certainly a challenge to be met here. I would like to restate that our continued opposition to this amendment does not stem from any lack of commitment to the cause of increased openness and accountability. We are already considering this issue and it will be further considered in the response to the Cabinet Office consultation on the draft transparency and open data strategy.

I may have covered this point, but I want also to say to the noble Lord that there is a provision in the FOI Act as it stands that extends its scope to public bodies. I believe that it is set out in Section 5. If and when other public authorities, bodies or organisations should be covered by the Act, we do not need new legislation, or we will be subject to the kind of delay that he seems to think post-legislative scrutiny would bring about. We actually have a mechanism to ensure that as and when we feel it is right and proper to extend the Act, we can do so.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

No, I am not saying that. I am not in a position to go that far because it would take us into an area on which I do not have the authority to speak today. I am making two separate points. One is that a public authority is the body which is accountable to the public for any services that it might subcontract out. In the course of its contractual arrangements with the subcontractor I would expect, in order to ensure it is properly accountable, it should ensure that it is able itself to access the information it needs. I do not think it is proper to prescribe the detail in the way that has been put forward by the noble Lord. For example, it is not clear how the £1 million contract threshold would be calculated. How would additional payments which might take the value over £1 million be taken account of? Different public authorities might take different approaches to valuation. If that happens, the approach will not be applied consistently. I worry that the amendment might be attractive on its face but deceptively difficult to operate on the ground. I am not saying that issues such as this are insurmountable; I merely use this as an illustration of why careful consideration is necessary to ensure clarity for public authorities, the Information Commissioner and users alike.

I have also made the point previously that to comply with FOI requests for contractor information public authorities would need to have access to any information held by the contractor that is potentially relevant in terms of responding to the request. Such a requirement to share all such information with the public authority so that the authority might comply with FOI requests could adversely affect the effective delivery of the contract. Again, I am sure that solutions to this issue exist, but they require careful consideration.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that our opposition to the amendments results from the need to make sure that effective and proportionate solutions are developed. It does not result from a lack of a commitment to transparency or the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act. I therefore invite the noble Lord—

[Lord Wills]

Before the Minister invites me to withdraw the amendment, will she answer two questions for the purpose of clarification? The first is in relation to the undertaking that she gave in Committee to contact the Information Commissioner. Has such contact been made? If so, what was the result of it? If it has not, when will it be made? Secondly, she referred earlier to her belief that the Government have the mechanism and the will to act promptly should they decide that it is necessary to do so, and that the delays that I fear will happen will not take place. Is that mechanism Section 5 of the Act and, if not, what mechanism is she referring to other than primary legislation?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the former of his questions, I am not able to give the noble Lord a reply today, but I will follow it up with him in due course. On the latter, I am not proposing any new legislation; I am referring to Section 5 of the FOI Act, in that it gives us the opportunity and the provision, should we need it, to extend the Act to cover new bodies in the way that we are using it right now. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the Minister for a characteristically gracious and thorough response. I am grateful, too, for the support that I have received from all sides of the House for both amendments. I am sorry that the Government have not taken account of the compelling cases made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Collins on the Front Bench. I note what the Minister said in relation to Amendment 55ZB and my fear that any legislation will create a delay. She referred to Section 5. I am afraid that this only makes my point: the extension of the coverage of the Act under Section 5 to which she referred, and to which the Government always refer as a great indicator of their commitment to freedom of information, was, I have to tell the Minister, work put in train by the previous Government. I was the responsible Minister. It has taken all this time. That work was started in around 2008—I cannot remember exactly when. Four years later, this Government are now able to claim credit for that. The extension would not necessarily cover all the areas that should be covered by my amendment, so if the Minister is relying on that as a mechanism for speed in rectifying this problem, I am afraid that she is just wrong.

I hope that the Government will look again at this issue. I hear what the Minister says and I have no doubt about her personal commitment to transparency, but all the noises that we hear in the media as emanating from Whitehall are of the deep hostility of the entrenched, vested interests of the state to this agenda of transparency. All I can say is that I wish the Minister well in her forthcoming battles with those vested interests.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Wills

Thursday 12th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, as my noble friend has already made clear this afternoon the Government are very committed to greater transparency and to making sure that the Freedom of Information Act introduced by the previous Administration operates as effectively as possible. That is behind our commitment to introduce post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, which is now under way and being carried out by the Justice Select Committee.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, explained, Amendment 151B would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report detailing the Government’s actions in relation to Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, which enables the Act to be extended to bodies performing functions of a public nature or providers of public services under contract. Amendment 151D proposes that public authorities are required to publish annual reports containing prescribed classes of information about their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and environmental information regulations.

In relation to Amendment 151B, I fully appreciate the need for transparency in relation to the Government’s exercise of the power in Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Government are, and will continue to be transparent in this area. We have given advance notice of planned consultations under Section 5 and, of course, any order made under that section is subject to the affirmative procedure. We see no practical benefit in introducing a requirement to publish an annual report. I also agree with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 151D regarding the transparency of freedom of information activity. Public authorities should be accountable for their performance in respect of freedom of information requests and actions. However, I am not persuaded of the case for introducing a statutory requirement to publish an annual report along the lines proposed here. We need to be alert to the resource implications before placing any new burdens on public authorities. That said, I recognise that the transparency of freedom of information performance across the public sector is also something to which Parliament may wish to return, as I have already said, in the post-legislative scrutiny that is now under way. While I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, in light of the fact that that post-legislative scrutiny will provide a forum for such proposals to be properly considered in the round, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the Minister for her gracious and largely positive response, although I am slightly baffled as to why the Government have not seized on these simple amendments. This would be an easy thing for them to do. When in the future I stand up, as I will probably feel obliged to, to berate them for their slow progress in extending transparency, they would be able to hold it up and say, “Look, we’ve done this already”. I say with all respect to the Minister that the announcement about the consultation on Section 5 came quite late in the Government’s lifetime, after many occasions on which I and others had had to badger them about their lack of progress on it. It is not a regular occurrence—the amendment would make it obligatory for that sort of transparency to be provided only annually, so I am slightly baffled as to why the Minister has not seized on this offering more gladly than she has. However, I am grateful for her positive words and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment. I hope that she and the Government will understand that it is important that post-legislative scrutiny should not be used as an excuse to delay all action on this indefinitely. They will be held to account on their pledge to extend transparency and, the sooner they deliver on it, the better for the health of our democracy. For the time being, though, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing and explaining his amendment, and also for the supplementary comments from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

I am not going to apologise for the fact that this Government are carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act and that I will refer to it on several occasions during the course of these debates. Such scrutiny is a very important and proper way of looking at existing legislation to see whether it is working effectively and operating as intended and for looking at ways in which it can be improved in the round. As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, on many occasions over the past year I have heard references to the need for post-legislative scrutiny and how that would be an important part of any legislation that passes through Parliament. Therefore, we should see as a good thing the fact that we have that mechanism in place for this Act and that it is happening at this time.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills has explained his amendments effectively, so there is no need for me to repeat any of what he said. However, as he said, these two amendments are similar to those he tabled during the passage of the Localism Bill through this House. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not feel that his concerns were adequately addressed on that occasion. As he says, my noble friend Lord McNally stressed during the debates on the Localism Bill the Government’s commitment to the Freedom of Information Act and described some of the measures that we are taking to extend its scope. For example, as the noble Lord is aware, the Bill includes a provision to extend the scope of the Act to companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities. We have also made an order under Section 5 of the Act extending its scope to, among others, the Association of Chief Police Officers. In addition, we are currently consulting more than 200 further bodies about their possible inclusion, and we intend to extend this consultation to more than 2,000 housing associations later this year.

Our continued opposition to the proposals within these amendments does not stem from any lack of commitment to the cause of transparency. As my noble friend stressed last year, it is important that we ensure that changes to the ways in which public services are delivered do not undermine our pledge to increase openness and accountability. I absolutely share the point made by the noble Lord about that.

This issue is already being considered as part of the Government’s response to the Cabinet Office consultation on a draft transparency and open data strategy, which is due to be published early this year. It is also an issue which the Justice Select Committee may wish to consider during its post-legislative scrutiny of the Act. It is, of course, open to noble Lords—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, with his experience and expertise in this matter will do so—to make representations to the committee as part of its work.

More generally, it is important that we assess carefully the likely impact of any change against the benefits that it will bring. This is to ensure that transparency is both maintained and enhanced but with due regard to any burdens that might be imposed. For example, under Amendment 151C, it would be problematic for both contractors and public authorities to comply with freedom of information requests for contract information. Public authorities would need to have access to any information held by the contractor that is potentially relevant in responding to the request. Such a requirement to share all such information with the public authority so that it could comply with freedom of information requests could adversely affect the effective delivery of that contract. In particular, it might, for example, provide the public authority with commercially sensitive information on other matters to which the authority would not—or, arguably, should not—have access.

In addition, Amendment 152A, for example, which seeks to make all companies more than 50 per cent owned by the public sector subject to the Act, would increase the risk of activities not relating to the public sector being made subject to the Act given the varied interests that these bodies might have. The noble Lord made reference to that argument before, but it is a very compelling argument. If there is a strong argument for including a specific body in relation to the specific things that it does, this is better achieved through other means, such as an order made under Section 5 of the FOI Act. However, as I have indicated, we are already extending the scope of the Act to all companies that are wholly owned by any number of public authorities, as provided for in Clause 101 of the Bill.

Amendment 152A relates solely to the local government sector. As my noble friend Lord McNally explained to the House at the Report stage of the Localism Bill, it would not be appropriate, as is proposed in the amendment, simply to amend the Freedom of Information Act in relation to bodies that have entered into contracts with local government. In addition, although I do not think that this argument was deployed by my noble friend during the passage of that Bill, in preparing myself for today’s debate it seemed to me that the proposal could act as a disincentive to competition among contractors. That is another argument and reason why we should not necessarily go down this route.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that our opposition to his proposals stems not from an aversion to increased transparency but from our desire to ensure that effective and proportionate solutions are developed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her broadly constructive, helpful and typically gracious response. However, I say to her that she does not have to persuade me, as I am genuinely trying to be helpful. When I was a Member of Parliament, 75 per cent of my casework—I dealt with about 1,200 different cases every month—was complaints about Swindon Borough Council. What most people really want to know about is what their local authority is doing for them. At some point in the future, unless the Minister makes good on the warm words that we have just heard from her and brings back under the scope of the Act those local authority functions that are being given out to private contractors, every MP on the Government’s side will be battered by complaints from their constituents, who will ask, “Why can we not find out more information about this work, which our money is paying for—work that is being done on our behalf—because of the result of legislation that you have passed?”. That is the current situation.

I would be very happy to give way to the Minister. If she is going to reassure me, I will be delighted.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I simply point out to the noble Lord that my understanding is that, although a local authority may contract out a service to a provider, the local authority is still accountable for the delivery of that service. Therefore, any individual should be able to request—using the Freedom of Information Act if necessary, or through correspondence with their local MP—the information that they need to be able to satisfy themselves that what they pay for through their local taxes is actually providing the service that they expect and that they deserve to receive.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the Minister for what is a very valiant attempt, if I may say so. I will not detain the House at length, as I am about to withdraw the amendment. However, if she refers to the column in Hansard where I originally raised this point, during the passage of the Localism Bill, she will see that that is not quite the case. There are many instances where services have gone to private contractors that people just cannot find out about. For example, on the issue of parking tickets, many people are very suspicious about the way that private ticket companies operate. People suspect that the ticketing is a revenue-raising operation rather than an attempt to ensure that the traffic can move safely and securely through town. When people want to find out about that, they cannot do so because private sector companies are not covered by the Act. As I say, the Minister does not have to persuade me, but all the Members of Parliament in the other place will be besieged by constituents in the years to come unless this Government make good on their pledge to get this information back into the public domain. There will be a heavy price to pay—that is all that I can say.

For the record, I am afraid that I am not persuaded by her arguments, for what it is worth. Of course post-legislative scrutiny is a good thing, and the Minister is quite right to bang the drum about that. I support the Government on that, but they have ignored their own good practice in this case by removing such matters from the Act in having already taken a piecemeal decision about this.

However, I remain willing to be persuaded about the Government’s good intentions. I believe that the Government want to extend transparency, but I make the point—I tried to make this point to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as well—that open data is an admirable project, on which the Government are doing great work. That work was begun by the previous Government, and I support this Government in the way that they are taking it forward so vigorously. That is a great thing, but it is different from freedom of information. There is one crucial difference. As regards open data, it is for the Government to decide what data they release. They have been open and are pushing the transparency agenda vigorously—all credit to them for that—but the Government decide on that matter. As regards freedom of information, the citizen decides what information he wants. It is bottom up as opposed to top down. They complement one another and they should be working together, but they are different. That is not an adequate excuse in my view.

However, I have detained the Committee long enough and, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I agree that any person guilty of an offence of altering or destroying information that has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act should be prosecuted, and they should not be able to evade prosecution because the Information Commissioner has been unable to consider the case within six months of such an offence occurring. I am aware that the Scottish Government have recently launched a public consultation exercise which, in part, asks for views on whether to lengthen the time limit for bringing prosecutions under the equivalent provision in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, from six to 12 months. I am also aware that the current time limit applicable to Section 77 of the UK Act has been the subject of some comment by the Commons Science and Technology Committee in its reports into the events, which have already been mentioned today, at the University of East Anglia.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made reference to evidence given to a committee in September by the Information Commissioner. In the Government’s response to the Commons Science and Technology Committee last year in May, we stated that we would work with the Information Commissioner’s Office to determine the extent to which perceived difficulties with the current six-month time limit for initiating prosecutions stand up to scrutiny. To date, there is a lack of concrete evidence to demonstrate that prosecutions have not been brought as a result of the existing arrangements. However, because the Government share the concerns expressed by noble Lords today, should evidence emerge of a widespread and genuine problem, consideration will be given to the most appropriate means of remedying this issue. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, will not be surprised to hear me say that this issue might be one that could be looked at as part of post-legislative scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made reference to the Information Commissioner’s evidence in September last year. That is something that I was not specifically aware of, but I understand that we are in discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office. It may be that measures similar to those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, would be the most appropriate way of responding to conclusive evidence in favour of change, should that emerge. Certainly, the solution proposed in Amendment 151J to lengthen the period from six months from the commission of an offence to three years, but within six months of the prosecuting authority being furnished with relevant evidence, is commonly used when a longer timescale for bringing a prosecution is justified. However, we would need to consider what was most appropriate to ensure the right measures were put in place. I am sympathetic to what he is saying, but the Government are not in a position to commit to it.

Amendment 151K seeks to address the issue in another way, that is, by making the Section 77 offence triable either way. The six-month time limit for bringing a prosecution of course applies only to summary offences. I take it that the noble Lord envisages that the maximum penalty for the offence, when it is tried on indictment, should be an unlimited fine. We need to bear in mind that Clause 79 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill removes the limits on fines of £5,000 or more on conviction by the magistrates’ court. That being the case, it may be more efficient to continue to try these offences in the magistrates’ court.

Both the time limit and the maximum penalty are issues that the Justice Select Committee may wish to consider during the post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that on the basis of what I have been able to say today, the noble Lord will feel it possible to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wills]

I am very grateful to the Minister and I am reassured by her response. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment, but could I ask her to do something? She rightly said that there has to be a need for compelling evidence—or concrete evidence, I think, was the expression that she used. Could she contact the Information Commissioner and ask him to produce the evidence that he has to that effect and the problems that he has encountered and why he thinks it is a problem? Perhaps if I tabled these amendments again on Report she could tell the House what the response has been, what evidence there is or whether there is any evidence. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.