Localism Bill

Lord Wills Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

199: After Clause 74, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that the Government are not active in this area. The transparency agenda will make the Freedom of Information Act look like a poor relation of a Government who are really committed to transparency and will push this ahead. In the light of those assurances that what we really want to do is make sure that we have our ducks in a row before we move forward, rather than any hostility to the ideas that the noble Lord has raised, I hope that he feels ready to withdraw his amendment.

[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.