24/03/2017

:00:12. > :00:18.From after to the end of the subsection and insert, any members

:00:19. > :00:23.of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the

:00:24. > :00:28.United Kingdom. With this, Mr Speaker, I will also address

:00:29. > :00:34.Amendment three and four, extending the range of individuals able to

:00:35. > :00:40.benefit under section 26 of the act, 2014, which my honourable friend is

:00:41. > :00:43.seeking to achieve. I shall also look at Amendment five, six, seven

:00:44. > :00:47.and eight looking in detail at what we mean by the expression and

:00:48. > :00:50.journalist in clause one. My honourable friend from Bury North

:00:51. > :00:57.will deal with the definition of journalistic material and I shall

:00:58. > :01:01.leave him to address it. Amendment number nine deals with the

:01:02. > :01:05.arrangement for exercising the right to inspect and 11 extends the period

:01:06. > :01:11.within such rights can be exercised beyond 30 days. Amendment 12 would

:01:12. > :01:14.enable documents which are claimed to be commercially confidential to

:01:15. > :01:19.be inspected but not copied. Amendment 13 will extend the right

:01:20. > :01:23.to inspect past contracts and 14 will leave the definition of

:01:24. > :01:29.commercial confidentiality in common law, not altered. Amendment ten,

:01:30. > :01:32.arguably the most radical of these amendments, would extend the right

:01:33. > :01:37.to inspection beyond local government, to the audit of accounts

:01:38. > :01:45.of any health service body as defined in the 2014 act. It will be

:01:46. > :01:51.obvious from that brief summary of the amendment is that they are all

:01:52. > :01:59.faithful to the long title of the Bill, to extend local or garment --

:02:00. > :02:03.local documents under the act 2014. My amendments are also inspired by

:02:04. > :02:08.recent experiences of how secrecy in local government is undermining the

:02:09. > :02:14.ability of members of the public to is scrutinised properly what is

:02:15. > :02:17.happening and properly hold councils to account. They also seek to

:02:18. > :02:25.address some of the issues raised in the second reading debate on the

:02:26. > :02:29.25th of November. Turning to... I will give way to the honourable

:02:30. > :02:33.member. I am grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. He

:02:34. > :02:38.touches on the second reading debate. Which I hope to address in

:02:39. > :02:44.my remarks later today. Does my honourable friend share my concern

:02:45. > :02:47.that the matters which were raised in the second reading debate were

:02:48. > :02:53.not addressed when this was dealt with in committee? I think my

:02:54. > :02:56.honourable friend is on to a good point. In the second reading quite a

:02:57. > :03:00.lot of reference was made to the fact we will discuss this in

:03:01. > :03:04.committee. I know my honourable friend from Dorset North said if I

:03:05. > :03:09.am put on the committee I would like to raise this as an amendment. But

:03:10. > :03:15.he was never put on the committee. And I think the committee stage

:03:16. > :03:19.lasted for all of 21 minutes, Mr Speaker. If the records are correct.

:03:20. > :03:24.I did not think there could have been a proper scrutiny. Despite that

:03:25. > :03:27.there were some interesting remarks made at committee stage, some of

:03:28. > :03:32.which I will refer to shortly. I will give way to the honourable

:03:33. > :03:38.member. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make it very clear

:03:39. > :03:45.that we had at committee stage a debate, no member was precluded from

:03:46. > :03:51.putting down an amendment and we had a good turnout on the day that we

:03:52. > :03:55.took the debate through committee. But I will be responding to his

:03:56. > :04:03.points more in detail when I have the chance to speak. It was actually

:04:04. > :04:11.only 11 minutes, I am told, that it lasted! I'm sure my honourable

:04:12. > :04:17.friend will be able to explain further in due course. Currently, Mr

:04:18. > :04:21.Speaker, a person who is registered as an elector in a local authority

:04:22. > :04:26.area has the right to inspect and have copies of a wider range of

:04:27. > :04:31.accounts, related documentation, under section 25 of the act, and

:04:32. > :04:36.therefore has no additional benefit under section 20 six. This amendment

:04:37. > :04:38.addresses the issue of electors in other local authority areas. Unless

:04:39. > :04:45.they can show they are persons they can show they are persons

:04:46. > :04:49.interested within the meaning of section 26, they have no rights. But

:04:50. > :04:52.at no time in my submission has it been more important for such

:04:53. > :04:58.electors in other local authority areas to see what is going on

:04:59. > :05:00.elsewhere. With the abolition of the audit commission, which provided

:05:01. > :05:06.easily assessable comparative data for local authorities, it has become

:05:07. > :05:09.more difficult to make comparisons, despite comparative data being so

:05:10. > :05:15.important to issue accountability and policy-making. I will give way

:05:16. > :05:18.to the honourable member. I chair the public accounts commission. We

:05:19. > :05:22.have been looking at issues of accountability of local government.

:05:23. > :05:26.My honourable friend makes a good point. The National audit office

:05:27. > :05:31.audits all of central government departments, a massive task, and is

:05:32. > :05:35.now effectively the auditor of local government. Whilst I favour this

:05:36. > :05:39.reform there is much less detailed inspection of local government

:05:40. > :05:45.audits and finance. That is undoubtedly a fact and my honourable

:05:46. > :05:48.friend is right to raise this. I am grateful for that intervention. He

:05:49. > :05:54.speaks with great knowledge and experience on this matter. This

:05:55. > :06:00.amendment, Mr Speaker, in a sense is supported by my honourable friend

:06:01. > :06:03.for Calder Valley. Col 1211 in the second reading debate, he intervened

:06:04. > :06:07.and said might not the Government in the interests of honesty, openness

:06:08. > :06:12.and accountability consider opening things up completely well beyond the

:06:13. > :06:19.intention of the Bill so anybody can access this information? And the

:06:20. > :06:22.Minister, my honourable friend for Nuneaton said I shall come onto that

:06:23. > :06:28.a little later and explain why the balance is right. Unfortunately, Mr

:06:29. > :06:31.Speaker, apart from asserting the measures in the Bill are

:06:32. > :06:35.proportionately never got on to that particular important point. And I

:06:36. > :06:43.hope the Minister on the front bench today will be able to redress that

:06:44. > :06:45.shortcoming. I was also somewhat perplexed by the comments from my

:06:46. > :06:54.honourable friend on the front bench today, the Minister representing

:06:55. > :07:01.Britain cool, -- the Minister said he participated in the Bill on the

:07:02. > :07:04.7th of February and in congratulating our honourable

:07:05. > :07:07.friend, he said I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher, who in her maiden

:07:08. > :07:14.speech introduced the public bodies admission to meetings act 1960, in a

:07:15. > :07:18.similar vein. It was about opening up local government to journalists

:07:19. > :07:22.and other interested parties. With the greatest of respect to my

:07:23. > :07:24.honourable friend I think the core of Margaret Thatcher bottom-macro

:07:25. > :07:30.Bill was making sure our public access and that is what -- Margaret

:07:31. > :07:36.Thatcher's Bill was making sure our public access and I think we need

:07:37. > :07:39.more open public access in the same sense the late Baroness wanted

:07:40. > :07:46.public access to the actual meetings of local authorities. Her references

:07:47. > :07:52.in the public bodies admission to meetings act to journalists were

:07:53. > :07:58.talking about making sure that accredited newspaper representatives

:07:59. > :08:00.attending such council meetings should be provided with reasonable

:08:01. > :08:10.facilities for taking their report and so on. I do not think it is fair

:08:11. > :08:15.with the distinguished former Prime Minister in supporting the Bill and

:08:16. > :08:19.not supporting this amendment. I suspect the noble Baroness would

:08:20. > :08:25.have been a strong supporter of the moment number two, which am putting

:08:26. > :08:28.forward today. But this amendment is also highly relevant in the current

:08:29. > :08:34.climate where many councils are seeking to reorganise into new

:08:35. > :08:43.structures. As you know as well as anybody, Mr Speaker. Bucks, Dorset,

:08:44. > :08:47.Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Kent at district council level and no doubt

:08:48. > :08:54.a lot of others in future are toying with this idea of reorganising into

:08:55. > :09:00.new structures. And at present it is very difficult for local taxpayers

:09:01. > :09:05.to get hard access to information about what is happening in another

:09:06. > :09:11.council. Despite the fact that local council might be aspiring to take

:09:12. > :09:14.over the assets and income of the Council where the taxpayer is

:09:15. > :09:20.resident. I will illustrate this point with an example from

:09:21. > :09:24.Bournemouth. In speaking of Bournemouth, can I say how proud we

:09:25. > :09:30.all are, those who live near Bournemouth, at the way in which our

:09:31. > :09:38.honourable friend for Bournemouth East conducted himself on Wednesday.

:09:39. > :09:44.That is an example of public service at its best. And I fear what I am

:09:45. > :09:51.about to say compares unfavourably with the conduct of my honourable

:09:52. > :09:55.friend. On the 9th of February, Bournemouth and Poole Council made a

:09:56. > :09:58.submission to the secretary of state to incorporate Christ Church Council

:09:59. > :10:00.in a new unitary authority comprising of Bournemouth, Poole and

:10:01. > :10:16.Christchurch. They say they effectiveness cannot

:10:17. > :10:20.be achieved in anyway other way. Bournemouth has a replition of being

:10:21. > :10:25.profligate, spend thrift and secretive. The topical example is

:10:26. > :10:29.the decision announced earlier this week to make its Chief Executive

:10:30. > :10:34.redundant, it came out of the blue, the Chief Executive is to be made

:10:35. > :10:43.redundant and he is going to be given a ?394,000 pay-off. That is

:10:44. > :10:49.comprising ?85,000, six months' pay because aparentedly they don't want

:10:50. > :10:53.him to work any longer and he is to receive ?63,000 in statutory

:10:54. > :10:58.redundancy pay, although no reason has been given as to why the

:10:59. > :11:03.position is redundant. He is also going to receive ?246,000 in account

:11:04. > :11:07.of early release of pension funds. I have no criticism of the Chief

:11:08. > :11:13.Executive. I think he's on to a good thing. And I'm sure fifs made an

:11:14. > :11:20.offer like that, Mr Speaker, I would be sorely tempted by it. Somebody

:11:21. > :11:23.quick, make an offer. But Bournemouth proposal, currently

:11:24. > :11:28.before the Secretary of State, which is actually signed by Bournemouth

:11:29. > :11:33.Council leader, and five other council leaders in Dorset, be

:11:34. > :11:37.adviceages Christchurch tax payers having to subsidise Bournemouth

:11:38. > :11:41.residents for up to 20 years by paying higher council tax than the

:11:42. > :11:46.people in Bournemouth and Poole. So they will effectively have to meet

:11:47. > :11:51.the bill for the Bournemouth Chief Executive's redundancy. And the

:11:52. > :11:54.extraordinary thing about this, Mr Speaker, is that there was no

:11:55. > :11:59.meeting of the council to discuss whether or not they wanted to make

:12:00. > :12:03.the post of Chief Executive redundant. There was no even meeting

:12:04. > :12:08.of Bournemouth Cabinet to discuss this and there has been no

:12:09. > :12:13.discussification for the substantial pay-off, although I understand there

:12:14. > :12:19.is to be a meeting of the council later next week, where they will

:12:20. > :12:23.approve retrospectively or try to approve retrospectively the decision

:12:24. > :12:28.to which I have already referred. But fortunately, in our locality we

:12:29. > :12:33.have an excellent newspaper, the Daily Echo and they heard about this

:12:34. > :12:39.and told the world that there are all sorts of headlines. And talking

:12:40. > :12:45.about the ?390,000 pay-off, which as I said earlier is a slight

:12:46. > :12:50.underestimate, but, anyway, it gets the message across, and they do

:12:51. > :12:59.disclose, in I think Teed edition that the council is going -- noed's

:13:00. > :13:01.-- today's edition, that the council will now discuss this following the

:13:02. > :13:14.revelations by the newspaper earlier this week. But one is still left

:13:15. > :13:17.with the question as to how has this arisen and it goes to local

:13:18. > :13:22.accountability. It seems what happened is that the Chief Executive

:13:23. > :13:25.has fallen out of favour with the leader of the Bournemouth borough

:13:26. > :13:31.council because he sought to question the lead ears conflicts of

:13:32. > :13:37.interest with his businesses. And the leader of Bournemouth borough

:13:38. > :13:43.council runs a company, or an organisation called Hospitality

:13:44. > :13:48.Solutions and this morning I interrogated the website of

:13:49. > :13:51.Hospitality Solutions and it sets out all the things that Hospitality

:13:52. > :13:56.Solutions does but particularly it gives advice on town planning

:13:57. > :14:00.consultation for new build hotel and leisure development, planning

:14:01. > :14:06.support to maximise site potential, planning applications and report,

:14:07. > :14:10.project planning and management and building and refurbishing management

:14:11. > :14:16.and it says "To arrange an initial discussion without any obligation,

:14:17. > :14:23.the person to contact is none other than John Beesley, FIH, who is the

:14:24. > :14:28.leader of the council." And it was earlier last month - in fact an

:14:29. > :14:37.approval was given, I think actually it was in January, the 23rd January,

:14:38. > :14:45.I think. Yes, 23rd January. The Bournemouth planning board gave

:14:46. > :14:52.approval to a ?40 million hotel and apartment redevelopment in

:14:53. > :14:59.Bournemouth and on the site of the former Belvedere Hotel, to build a

:15:00. > :15:03.141-room hotel with leisure facilities, a sky bar and 66

:15:04. > :15:11.residential flats, a businessment car park and so on. -- a basement

:15:12. > :15:16.car park and so on. I understand that the developers of that site

:15:17. > :15:21.sought and obtained the advice of known other than the leader of the

:15:22. > :15:25.council when developing their ideas. And the leader of the council, not

:15:26. > :15:29.wearing his hat as ledder of the council, but wearing his hat as a

:15:30. > :15:35.planning consultant, gave them advice and encouraged them to go

:15:36. > :15:40.along and make their pitch to the planning department. The planning

:15:41. > :15:42.department knowing of his involvement as a consultant,

:15:43. > :15:50.although of course not being influenced by the fact that he was a

:15:51. > :15:56.leader of the council. I suspect what has happened is, Mr Speaker,

:15:57. > :16:01.that this and various other things that have been going on has raised

:16:02. > :16:06.an eyebrow on the part of the Chief Executive and he was about to start

:16:07. > :16:13.an investigation into the conduct and conflict of interest of the

:16:14. > :16:17.leader of the council and the leader of the council effectively has used

:16:18. > :16:22.public money in order to ensure that the Chief Executive's best interests

:16:23. > :16:30.are served by taking the money and not inquiring any further into these

:16:31. > :16:35.issues. I think, Mr Speaker, this is a current example of what is

:16:36. > :16:45.happening across the country in local Government. I don't know,

:16:46. > :16:49.whether, Mr Speaker, you read Roughman Burrows in the Private Eye.

:16:50. > :16:56.There was so much information, it is almost like that they have to have a

:16:57. > :17:01.second supplement on Rotten Boroughs. That there is so much

:17:02. > :17:06.material coming out that it is unable to get into the public dedo

:17:07. > :17:10.main, because of the pressure that is put upon local newspapers, if

:17:11. > :17:14.they cause trouble with their local council, then they may suffer

:17:15. > :17:17.discrimination, because there won't be any advertising for any local

:17:18. > :17:25.council jobs in their newspaper and so on and they won't get access to

:17:26. > :17:30.information. THE SPEAKER: Order, the reference by the honourable

:17:31. > :17:34.gentleman to the Rotten Boroughs Column is of itself orderly but it

:17:35. > :17:41.might help and inform the debate if that reference to be related more

:17:42. > :17:45.specifically to the terms of the important amendment to which the

:17:46. > :17:50.honourable gentleman is speaking, Mr Christopher Choke. I take that

:17:51. > :17:54.point, absolutely, Mr Speaker. Will my honourable friend allow me. I

:17:55. > :17:57.want to speak directly to his amendment in terms of understanding

:17:58. > :18:05.what other local authorities are doing. Now I see the minister is

:18:06. > :18:08.sitting in his place. We've had hugely controversial arguments about

:18:09. > :18:13.whether to have a mayor and I and others managed to defeat that but

:18:14. > :18:17.there is now a proposal,s this only a rumour that North Lincolnshire

:18:18. > :18:23.mayp want to take over West Lindsey, which I represent, or merge with it.

:18:24. > :18:26.I as an elector of West Lindsey, have absolutely no way of knowing

:18:27. > :18:31.what is going on in North Lincolnshire and I personally think

:18:32. > :18:36.- I personally think that if this is now being discussed in private, that

:18:37. > :18:41.electors in West Lindsey, who are crucially concerned with this,

:18:42. > :18:46.should have a right to know what is going on. My honourable friend makes

:18:47. > :18:50.a very good point and that is, in essence, what I have been saying

:18:51. > :18:54.about the position in Bournemouth. Because if Bournemouth is going to

:18:55. > :18:59.take over or merge with Christchurch in a unitary authority, then the

:19:00. > :19:03.people in Christchurch need to know the nature of the debts and

:19:04. > :19:09.liabilities of Bournemouth borough council, and the sort of way in

:19:10. > :19:14.which it conducts its proceedings. Particularly, on the issue of

:19:15. > :19:19.planning, because one of the key losses in such a merger would be the

:19:20. > :19:23.loss of cries church borough council's control over its --

:19:24. > :19:27.Christchurch borough council's control over oits engreen belt and

:19:28. > :19:31.planning property. And that I think is one of the biggest concerns that

:19:32. > :19:36.my local residents have got, that they fear that, effectively, they

:19:37. > :19:41.will lose control over the quality of their local environment which, at

:19:42. > :19:47.the moment they can control through local planning policy. So, Mr

:19:48. > :19:53.Speaker, the point of this amendment is to try and ensure that anybody

:19:54. > :19:58.can get access to this information, rather than just limiting it to

:19:59. > :20:03.journalists. Obviously the information to which I've been

:20:04. > :20:08.referring earlier will only become available after the - when the audit

:20:09. > :20:13.for this financial year is conducted. And that may be rather

:20:14. > :20:22.later in the day than most people would wish. Will my honourable

:20:23. > :20:26.friend give way? Of course I will As he will know, many local papers are

:20:27. > :20:30.stretched financially and many are deterred for publishing things

:20:31. > :20:32.perhaps about maybe, including the leader of Bournemouth council,

:20:33. > :20:36.because they feared being sued and they don't really have the resources

:20:37. > :20:42.to defend themselves. Yoo my honourable friend agree with me that

:20:43. > :20:45.why it is so important that not just journalists have access to this

:20:46. > :20:51.material, but the public do, so they can make their own minds up, and not

:20:52. > :20:55.being reliant on a newspaper which can afford to publish something

:20:56. > :20:59.which may end up with them being in court. Of my honourable friend is

:21:00. > :21:02.right. We in this place are trying to do a job to hold these councils

:21:03. > :21:10.to account. I put down a parliamentary question earlier this

:21:11. > :21:13.year trying to find out what the - How much arears and non-domsic rates

:21:14. > :21:19.there were in Bournemouth. I got the answer I think it is about ?10 and

:21:20. > :21:24.?12 million in uncollected, non-domsic rates, to the credit of

:21:25. > :21:29.the council, within weeks, they had issued summones against all the

:21:30. > :21:33.people who own arears. I like to think I might have had some

:21:34. > :21:37.influence in that but they are talking about ?10 or ?12 million

:21:38. > :21:43.worth of business, non-domsic arears at a time when they are saying it is

:21:44. > :21:49.absolutely essential that we save 1% of turnover by abolishing existing

:21:50. > :22:02.sovereign councils. It's farce K and trying to get these councils

:22:03. > :22:07.themselves it's farcical. Trying to get the councils to address the

:22:08. > :22:14.issues is difficult. And trying to get the scrutiny economies part of

:22:15. > :22:17.the localism act, in 2011, that hasn't worked because often the

:22:18. > :22:21.scrutiny committees are occupied by people who don't really understand

:22:22. > :22:26.or are not interested in genuinely holding the council to account and

:22:27. > :22:29.there is also the problem that the scrutiny committees are not entitled

:22:30. > :22:36.to look into issues relating to planning, which is often one of the

:22:37. > :22:39.most controversial local issues. And there are lots of other things I

:22:40. > :22:45.could say about neighbouring councils. But I won't trouble the

:22:46. > :22:50.House with all that now. I see that my honourable friend for Mid Dorset

:22:51. > :22:54.is here and North Poole. And I'm sure he may wish to add to this

:22:55. > :23:01.catalogue in due course, if he contributes to this debate.

:23:02. > :23:06.But the essence of this amendment is that everybody should be able to get

:23:07. > :23:10.access to this information, and it shouldn't just be limited to

:23:11. > :23:17.journalists. And other interested parties.

:23:18. > :23:23.Now, the idea ideas, as I think I said before, are very much supported

:23:24. > :23:31.Miyamoto honourable friend for Calder Valley who wanted to extend

:23:32. > :23:33.these rights to everybody and I anticipate, probably, the response

:23:34. > :23:40.Miyamoto honourable friend, the sponsor of the bill is going to make

:23:41. > :23:45.to this point because during the second reading of the -- the

:23:46. > :23:52.response from my honourable friend. . He said, if the frights extended

:23:53. > :24:04.to anyone there would be great potential to make mischief to

:24:05. > :24:07.multiple requests to ask for documents without an ability to

:24:08. > :24:12.make... I implore my honourable friend to

:24:13. > :24:16.reflect on what show said. It was a sweeping genisation and where is the

:24:17. > :24:20.evidence that the freedom to look at documents would be abused and if it

:24:21. > :24:25.was, there are already safeguards dealing with vexatious behaviour.

:24:26. > :24:30.So, that, in summary, is amendment number 2.

:24:31. > :24:34.Amendment 3, would not go so far as amendment 2, but would extend the

:24:35. > :24:40.limited extension to which the bill gives to journalists to politicians.

:24:41. > :24:45.The example I gave above is obviously relevant, earlieer, is

:24:46. > :24:50.obviously relevant to this but another example concerns the

:24:51. > :24:53.difficulties which councillors in one area have in obtaining

:24:54. > :24:57.information about has happened or is happening in other parts of the

:24:58. > :25:01.country. And something like, for example, fair funding for schools,

:25:02. > :25:05.there is a very lively local debate on about that but it is very

:25:06. > :25:10.difficult to drill down into the data in other council areas to find

:25:11. > :25:13.out exactly how well orred aboutly one's own schools in one's own area

:25:14. > :25:22.compare with others. I think there is a very good reason

:25:23. > :25:28.for saying politicians should be able to have equal access... I will

:25:29. > :25:32.give way to the honourable member. I am grateful to my honourable friend

:25:33. > :25:40.for giving way. This whole Bill before us this morning arises from

:25:41. > :25:45.the problem in defining terms. I wonder if my honourable friend has

:25:46. > :25:50.given any thought to exactly what constitutes a politician. For

:25:51. > :25:55.example, does it include somebody that is a candidate in an election,

:25:56. > :26:04.or only elected politicians? My honourable friend has tried, very

:26:05. > :26:11.successful, probably, to torpedo my amendment! I accept the implied, or

:26:12. > :26:18.even expressed criticism he is articulating. But I would fall back

:26:19. > :26:24.on the general common law, Mr Speaker. And rely upon the general

:26:25. > :26:27.common law interpretation of a politician and say that is probably

:26:28. > :26:33.the best way of dealing with it without having to define

:26:34. > :26:38.specifically in the terms of the Bill and amendment. Turning to

:26:39. > :26:43.amendment four, this clarifies the law by making it clear persons

:26:44. > :26:49.interested also includes nondomestic rate payers. The reason I raise this

:26:50. > :26:57.is this is an issue which was the focus of the court case on the

:26:58. > :27:04.application of HTV Ltd and Bristol city council, reported E W H C, 129.

:27:05. > :27:10.Paragraph 48 of the judgment of the justice on May the 14th in 2004

:27:11. > :27:14.said, I have reached the conclusion that the interest which the claimant

:27:15. > :27:20.has as a non-domestic rate payer is sufficient to bring it within the

:27:21. > :27:24.concept of persons interested. Mr Speaker, Bristol city council in

:27:25. > :27:28.that case argued to the contrary, citing insubordinate changes to the

:27:29. > :27:35.nondomestic rate legislation in the Finance act of 1988. With

:27:36. > :27:37.forthcoming further changes introducing 100% business rate

:27:38. > :27:41.retention and the pooling of business rates across local

:27:42. > :27:48.authorities, I think it is worth using the opportunity of the Bill to

:27:49. > :27:51.clarify and put on the record that the existing legislation does

:27:52. > :27:58.expressly incorporate the rights of non-domestic rate payers. That is

:27:59. > :28:04.the background to amendment four. Five, six and seven are alternative

:28:05. > :28:11.ways of limiting the term "Journalist" in this Bill to real

:28:12. > :28:20.journalists. It is noteworthy that in the public body admission to

:28:21. > :28:23.meetings act of 1960, section 14 C, Julie accredited representatives of

:28:24. > :28:25.newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting proceedings for those

:28:26. > :28:32.shall be afforded reasonable facilities. And the NUJ, National

:28:33. > :28:37.union of journalists website sets out what is needed to establish that

:28:38. > :28:47.you are indeed an accredited journalist. Says, an accredited

:28:48. > :28:51.journalist must have implied identification, a business card,

:28:52. > :28:55.implied ID badge and letter of signing on corporate letterhead

:28:56. > :28:59.which must identify the immediate outlet, name, address and phone and

:29:00. > :29:04.there must be proof of assignment sampled and published within the

:29:05. > :29:06.last six months or a current master including the reporter's name and

:29:07. > :29:13.title or official letter of assignment from a media outlet.

:29:14. > :29:16.These are necessary for a person to be admitted to four example a press

:29:17. > :29:21.conference as an accredited journalist. It seems to me, Mr

:29:22. > :29:26.Speaker, if we are going to extend these rights to journalists, we

:29:27. > :29:33.should being carried showing those journalists to be accredited rather

:29:34. > :29:39.than amateur. -- we should be encouraging these journalists. We

:29:40. > :29:50.are moving into a completely digital age. Where people can set up blogs,

:29:51. > :29:53.Facebook pages, this is inevitable bust up my honourable friend is

:29:54. > :29:59.slightly living in the past now, where we now talk about the NUJ and

:30:00. > :30:03.having to be accredited. He is trying to put his finger in the dam.

:30:04. > :30:09.It is not going to work. You need complete openness and transparency.

:30:10. > :30:17.It is not the first time anybody has suggested I'm living in the past!

:30:18. > :30:24.Taking my honourable friend's point, I think if you are going to give

:30:25. > :30:28.privileged access, which is what our honourable friend is seeking to do,

:30:29. > :30:35.intending privileged access over other members of the public to

:30:36. > :30:38.journalists, I think that with those we need to have as journalists

:30:39. > :30:46.people who are qualified in the sense they understand the law and

:30:47. > :30:49.they are not just people who are perhaps prejudiced and not objective

:30:50. > :30:56.and don't have the standards we normally expect of journalists. That

:30:57. > :31:03.is my feeling about it. But if we are going to give them special

:31:04. > :31:08.privileges, that they should be accredited. But I have expressed

:31:09. > :31:14.this in alternative ways so we could also refer to them as professional

:31:15. > :31:20.journalists. Various, Mr Speaker, as you may know a society called the

:31:21. > :31:24.Society of professional journalists. That society requires a professional

:31:25. > :31:30.journalist must adhere to a strict code of ethics to retain public

:31:31. > :31:34.trust, confidence and reliability. I'm sure my honourable friend would

:31:35. > :31:39.think it is important journalists should adhere to a strict code of

:31:40. > :31:44.ethics. And to make sure of this the process of gatekeeping is upheld

:31:45. > :31:47.within mainstream media. It relies on all experienced journalists and

:31:48. > :31:54.editors filtering nonfactual information from news reports before

:31:55. > :32:00.publication, or broadcast. I don't want to go into the issue of fake

:32:01. > :32:05.news, Mr Speaker. But I think that is probably more important now than

:32:06. > :32:09.ever, that we should make sure there is some basis for the reports which

:32:10. > :32:18.are put forward by journalists and how it is going to be policed if not

:32:19. > :32:26.by a body like the National union of journalists, and so on. Ordinarily I

:32:27. > :32:28.feel that I can follow and to some extent anticipates the honourable

:32:29. > :32:34.gentleman, such as the frequency with which I have heard his speeches

:32:35. > :32:37.over three decades. But on this occasion my senses have deserted me.

:32:38. > :32:41.I thought the honourable gentleman was going to tell as family members

:32:42. > :32:48.of society has. Mr Christopher choke. I was not going to go into

:32:49. > :32:55.that level of detail! -- Mr Christopher... There are quite a lot

:32:56. > :33:00.of points I seek to make. I am sure however many members of the society

:33:01. > :33:06.has, if this Bill is amended in the way I suggest it will have even

:33:07. > :33:14.more. I give way. My honourable friend is beginning to lose me. It

:33:15. > :33:17.seems to me he made a very good case for his earlier amendment, to

:33:18. > :33:21.provide access to as many people as possible, which I am with him on. He

:33:22. > :33:25.appears now to argue about restricting the number of people

:33:26. > :33:30.that have access to these things which seem supply in the face of his

:33:31. > :33:32.earlier amendment. Can I clarify that he supports his earlier

:33:33. > :33:39.amendment rather than this one, which might be seen as a prohibitive

:33:40. > :33:45.amendment? Absolutely. I support my earlier amendment... And the reason

:33:46. > :33:51.I put forward these alternatives was in the event of my earlier amendment

:33:52. > :33:57.is not being accepted by... That is very defeatist! It is, indeed! It is

:33:58. > :34:07.uncharacteristic of me to be defeatist. This is a belt and braces

:34:08. > :34:11.thing. If we are going to give access, privileged access, to a

:34:12. > :34:14.group of people, I think that group of people, if it is going to be

:34:15. > :34:18.journalists, as my honourable friend would want, I think rather than

:34:19. > :34:24.having anybody basically being able to call themselves a journalist,

:34:25. > :34:29.should in fact be an accredited professional, or indeed a qualified

:34:30. > :34:35.journalist. I will give way to the honourable member. I am very

:34:36. > :34:39.grateful for that. I hope you will not be defeated on his first

:34:40. > :34:43.amendment and I would encourage them to strive for it and I think he will

:34:44. > :34:47.get a lot of support. But if the first one fails, surely the next

:34:48. > :34:52.text option is for as many people in the terms of journalist to have

:34:53. > :34:58.access, surely that is a better fallback position than trying to

:34:59. > :35:04.restrict it even more? I understand my honourable friend's point. But my

:35:05. > :35:10.feeling is, why should we, in order to maximise access, why should we

:35:11. > :35:13.distort the meaning of journalist? By saying that any member of the

:35:14. > :35:17.public can describe themselves as a journalist and then come within the

:35:18. > :35:23.terms of this Bill rather than making it clear that really we want

:35:24. > :35:28.all members of the public? If we are talking about journalists, I think

:35:29. > :35:32.we owe it to them to make sure we retain a standard amongst

:35:33. > :35:38.journalists with accredited journalists... Has my honourable

:35:39. > :35:42.friend noticed that the title to clause one of this Bill, inspection

:35:43. > :35:48.of records by journalists and citizen journalists? I hope when I

:35:49. > :35:52.come to my amendment he will see that I have gone in exactly the

:35:53. > :35:59.opposite direction rather than trying to narrow the definition I

:36:00. > :36:06.have tried to widen it out. That is probably why I did not seek to

:36:07. > :36:11.address my honourable friend... Mr Speaker, I am sorry that we can't

:36:12. > :36:15.reach a consensus on this particular group of amendments. I think there

:36:16. > :36:21.is strong consensus regarding the earlier ones. And finally on this

:36:22. > :36:29.point, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact the N UJ does

:36:30. > :36:34.have a code of conduct... Of course. It will be an interesting point he's

:36:35. > :36:36.making about professional qualifications and accreditation of

:36:37. > :36:40.journalist and newspaper people. Would he agree that would also

:36:41. > :36:44.applied editors of newspapers and perhaps large publications

:36:45. > :36:52.representing London? Indeed, absolutely. And editors are included

:36:53. > :36:56.within the definition, the wider definition of journalists. I think

:36:57. > :37:05.the honourable lady makes a good point. As far as the NUJ code of

:37:06. > :37:13.conduct is concerned, it does set out a 12... Rules or principles

:37:14. > :37:16.which journalists who are members of the NUJ are expected to abide by. I

:37:17. > :37:27.will not tell the House about all of them. One for example, Mr Speaker,

:37:28. > :37:32.is to avoid plagiarism. Another is to resist threats or any inducements

:37:33. > :37:38.to influence, distort or suppress information. And not to produce any

:37:39. > :37:44.material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of

:37:45. > :37:50.age, gender, race, etc. And I think most important of all, to do his or

:37:51. > :37:55.her utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies and differentiate

:37:56. > :38:02.between fact and opinion. I think that is something that we don't

:38:03. > :38:10.always find in journalists. Those amendments... Before my honourable

:38:11. > :38:17.friend gives way, amendment five, six and seven are put on the audit

:38:18. > :38:20.paper as an alternative, really. I could not adopt all three. I wonder

:38:21. > :38:26.if he would let the House know which of the three alternatives he

:38:27. > :38:29.personally prefers? I think of those three I prefer the accredited one. I

:38:30. > :38:36.think the accredited journalist is a well understood expression. As I

:38:37. > :38:44.said earlier, it is even referred to in statute such as the 1960 access

:38:45. > :38:57.to meetings legislation. Mr Speaker, this takes me on to amendment

:38:58. > :39:03.burrow-macro -- to amendment eight, which talks about journalists and

:39:04. > :39:09.seeks to make sure we don't define journalist in this. The office of

:39:10. > :39:16.National 's to this list a series of roles are defined as journalists. --

:39:17. > :39:21.the office of National statistics has a series of roles defined as

:39:22. > :39:29.journalists. It includes such people as the editor of the London Evening

:39:30. > :39:32.Standard. Turning to amendment nine, this will make sure that any person

:39:33. > :39:38.making an inspection within subsection one of section 26 of the

:39:39. > :39:44.2014 hacked, can do so at all reasonable times and without

:39:45. > :39:48.payment. -- 2014 hacked. If section 26 achieves the Government's

:39:49. > :39:51.purpose, we need to make sure that it is included because otherwise it

:39:52. > :39:53.would be too easy for the objective of transparency and accountability

:39:54. > :40:12.to be frustrated. It it was said "Local elected

:40:13. > :40:19.exercise their rights over a total of 11,000 bodies only about 65 times

:40:20. > :40:24.in the whole year." Only 65 instances of the rights under

:40:25. > :40:28.section 25 being exercised by local electors in a whole year. And

:40:29. > :40:36.although that was, under section 25, it would be ridiculous, I think, to

:40:37. > :40:44.suggest that extending the same rights to section 26 applicants,

:40:45. > :40:50.would be burdened, unduly burdensome and would be too expensive.

:40:51. > :40:54.Amendment Number 11 would extend the period in which inspections can be

:40:55. > :41:00.carried out beyond the current 30-day limit. Again, the minister

:41:01. > :41:02.told us at second read that the ability to inspect and make copies

:41:03. > :41:09.of the most recent accounting of the most recent accounting

:41:10. > :41:12.information from a local authority during the specific period, could

:41:13. > :41:15.provide compelling and timely evidence of poor spending decisions

:41:16. > :41:21.in the last accounting period." Why is the period in which this can be

:41:22. > :41:26.done limited to 30 days, Mr Speaker? As I said in the context of the

:41:27. > :41:31.available statistics, on take-up of those powers, the time period seems

:41:32. > :41:37.to have had little impact but if, as the minister hopes, there is an

:41:38. > :41:41.expediential increase in take-up, following my amendments and this

:41:42. > :41:46.legislation, it would be desirable, wouldn't it, to spread the load of a

:41:47. > :41:50.longer period than 30 days so, that there wasn't this sort of great

:41:51. > :41:54.surge of activity over a specific 30-day period. I can't understand

:41:55. > :41:57.why it shouldn't be possible, once the accounts have been audited and

:41:58. > :42:01.are produced and available, why it shouldn't be possible to access

:42:02. > :42:08.those accounts, not just within that 30-day period and that's the purpose

:42:09. > :42:11.of amendment number 11. Will my honourable friend give way.

:42:12. > :42:14.Certainly Obviously my honourable friend speaks about knowledge and

:42:15. > :42:18.this is a general win request for information. We have the Freedom of

:42:19. > :42:23.Information Act, and what I would like to hear from him and I suspect

:42:24. > :42:27.the House would like to know is how the ability of a member of the

:42:28. > :42:33.public to get freedom of information about local authorities relates to

:42:34. > :42:37.his or her freedom of information about central government? I don't

:42:38. > :42:43.hold myself out as an expert on the free dom of information act but

:42:44. > :42:48.local authorities are subject to the freedom of information legislation,

:42:49. > :42:51.like any other public body but freedom of information depends upon

:42:52. > :42:53.being able to know what question to ask and quite often it is only when

:42:54. > :42:55.you have actually looked at the you have actually looked at the

:42:56. > :43:01.accounts or documents relating to the accounts that you know what

:43:02. > :43:06.question to ask, so I think that's really the importance of this. I

:43:07. > :43:10.will give way in a minute. In other ways, the free dom of information

:43:11. > :43:15.powers can be more potent because they can be exercised at any time

:43:16. > :43:19.and the local authority is under an obligation to respond I think within

:43:20. > :43:24.20 days or a reasonable period, so it can be more potent but opened,

:43:25. > :43:28.the base information that enables people who really understand what

:43:29. > :43:34.questions they want to ask, will probably only be ascertained by

:43:35. > :43:37.inspecting the documents. I thank my honourable friend for allow ming to

:43:38. > :43:43.intervene on this, I would think and I'm not an expert, that a freedom of

:43:44. > :43:46.information request is more costly to the council than what this bill

:43:47. > :43:49.is proposing and perhaps the balance between cost and effectiveness needs

:43:50. > :43:56.it be taken into consideration as well? My honourable friend may make

:43:57. > :44:00.a fair point but, of course, one of the problems is that some councils

:44:01. > :44:05.are really open and transparent and so they get very few freedom of

:44:06. > :44:09.information requests because they give out information, make it

:44:10. > :44:14.available and I'm going to come to an example later on, of an example

:44:15. > :44:19.where that's not been happening and so you then get even councillors

:44:20. > :44:21.saying - am I going to have a freedom of information request in

:44:22. > :44:25.order to get information from the Chief Executive of the council on

:44:26. > :44:29.which I serve, which is intolerable, actually. So, I think a will the

:44:30. > :44:35.depends on the culture of a council, and going back a long way, when I

:44:36. > :44:43.was first elected to Wandsworth council in 1964, it was in the --

:44:44. > :44:49.1974 it was in the aftermath of a big corruption scandal where the

:44:50. > :44:56.housing committee chairman of the Labour council, prior it 1974, was

:44:57. > :45:04.sentenced to a term of imprisonment for receiving payments from somebody

:45:05. > :45:07.called T Dan #13s Smith. But the culture was everything was open.

:45:08. > :45:13.Tender documents were open and everybody can see what is happening.

:45:14. > :45:16.And it's a pity that that transparency is not the norm in so

:45:17. > :45:31.many councils up and down the country. So, urning it now, Mr

:45:32. > :45:34.Speaker to amendment 12, this res moves the restriction in section 264

:45:35. > :45:38.A of the act on the entitlement of a person to inspect any part or record

:45:39. > :45:43.of a document containing information which is protected on the grounds of

:45:44. > :45:46.commercial confidentiality. Now this is an area where there is an

:45:47. > :45:52.interesting interaction between the rules under the freedom of

:45:53. > :45:57.information and the rules relating to council - getting access tok do

:45:58. > :46:04.uments under the powers in the 2014 act. This amendment doesn't go the

:46:05. > :46:10.whole way, because it would not remove the restriction on copying.

:46:11. > :46:15.But it is inspired by a recent set of events in Christchurch and when

:46:16. > :46:19.local people wanted to try to get to the truth of an extraordinary

:46:20. > :46:24.episode and you will remember, Mr Speaker, we had an adjournment

:46:25. > :46:30.debate about the issue of beech cuts in Christchurch, just before we rose

:46:31. > :46:36.for the summer recess and in that adjournment debate I was able to

:46:37. > :46:41.draw the attention of the House to an extraordinary state of affairs

:46:42. > :46:46.whereby Christchurch borough council had entered into an agreement with

:46:47. > :46:50.an organisation scald Plum Pictures develop overnight residential beech

:46:51. > :46:54.huts as part of a competition organised by the Channel 4 programme

:46:55. > :46:58.Amazing Spaces. They didn't need to get planning permission, there was a

:46:59. > :47:03.big stink about all this and I think, partly as a result of the

:47:04. > :47:13.adjournment debate, the contract was aborted, Mr Speaker. And the

:47:14. > :47:15.council's scrutiny committee then started an ininquiry and despite the

:47:16. > :47:20.recommendations of that scrutiny committee which reported two or

:47:21. > :47:26.three weeks ago the councillors have still not been shown a copy of the

:47:27. > :47:35.original contract, despite the fact that obviously that contract was

:47:36. > :47:42.negated and they are citing commercial confidentiality and so

:47:43. > :47:49.continue to do. I wrote to the Chief Executive asking to see a copy of

:47:50. > :47:52.the contract with Plum Pictures and I have not received an answer to

:47:53. > :47:55.that lemplt I was waiting, actually to see what the result from the

:47:56. > :48:00.scrutiny committee would be but the Chief Executive apparently doesn't

:48:01. > :48:07.have any obligation to even comply with the recommendations of the

:48:08. > :48:13.scrutiny committee. At second reading, our honourable friend said

:48:14. > :48:19."Clearly the aim of the bill is to throw the light of Frans pansy on

:48:20. > :48:26.council proceedings where taxpayer's money is being spent. In that

:48:27. > :48:28.reality it is vital it is used as a tool to hide documents and

:48:29. > :48:33.proceedings should become more open." In moving this amendment, and

:48:34. > :48:39.speaking to this amendment, I know that I've got the support of other

:48:40. > :48:50.colleagues who participated in the second reading debate.

:48:51. > :48:55.And, so that takes us on to next amendment, which is amendment 13, Mr

:48:56. > :48:59.Speaker, which compliments amendment 12 by enabling past contracts to be

:49:00. > :49:03.looked at as well as current ones and amendment 14 goes into the

:49:04. > :49:08.definition of commercial confidentiality. That would remove

:49:09. > :49:17.the definition from this bill, and rely upon existing common law, and

:49:18. > :49:21.there's a mass of documentation about common law, commercial

:49:22. > :49:24.confidentiality, andlinged in with the rules relating to freedom of

:49:25. > :49:29.information. Bearing in mind the time, I'm in the going to go into

:49:30. > :49:36.the detail of that now. But it seems to me that if we're going to ensure

:49:37. > :49:41.that this bill actually achieves its objective, there's no point in

:49:42. > :49:44.maintaining the complete close down on being able to get information by

:49:45. > :49:48.asserting - because that's all that has to happen - the council says -

:49:49. > :49:52.this is commercially confidential, and you can't look behind that and

:49:53. > :49:57.these amendments will actually enable a member of the public to

:49:58. > :50:01.actually look at the documents, they wouldn't able to copy but look at

:50:02. > :50:04.the documents and make their own assess am as to whether it was

:50:05. > :50:10.commercially confidential and whether or not it was in or not in

:50:11. > :50:14.the public interest that it should be made more widely available.

:50:15. > :50:19.So, I think at the moment the very tight drafting and the restrictions

:50:20. > :50:25.on anything that is, or maybe commercially confidential, I think

:50:26. > :50:31.that that is a big weakness in this bill. And, Mr Speaker, amendment 10

:50:32. > :50:37.- I said at the very beginning of these remarks that I would keep the

:50:38. > :50:41.most radical until the last. Amendment 10 would extend the right

:50:42. > :50:46.to inspect documents relating to the accounts of a health service body. I

:50:47. > :50:50.can't understand why, at a time when there is so much public concern

:50:51. > :50:57.about what is happening in various branches of the NHS, whether it be

:50:58. > :51:02.trust, hospitals, or Clinical Commissioning Groups or other

:51:03. > :51:07.organisations, I can't understand why we are not allowing members of

:51:08. > :51:11.the public to get access to the relevant documents.

:51:12. > :51:16.We know, for example, that there have been massive pay-offs of some

:51:17. > :51:22.NHS Chief Executives and other staff and administrators and at the end of

:51:23. > :51:26.the day, all the costs are not just borne by the national taxpayer but

:51:27. > :51:30.are taken out of the budgets which are available to local areas because

:51:31. > :51:36.they are allocated to the clinical commissioning groups, for example,

:51:37. > :51:40.in the case of Dorset, to the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group. So the

:51:41. > :51:45.question I ask my honourable friend, why shouldn't local people and local

:51:46. > :51:51.journalists be given assistance by this bill, to, in the words of the

:51:52. > :51:55.minister, sending reading, where he said at coup 1210 "By giving

:51:56. > :52:00.journalists the right to access recent accounting information from a

:52:01. > :52:03.range of local public bodies, the bill ll assist them in their

:52:04. > :52:07.investigations." I think my honourable friend is on to a very

:52:08. > :52:10.good point and this is a very powerful issue and there isn't

:52:11. > :52:16.really time to discuss it today. What I would like to see in this

:52:17. > :52:19.bill -- and again I'm addressing the menster here and the Government

:52:20. > :52:23.needs to grip this - is we want to have a culture now that members of

:52:24. > :52:26.the public, not just in local Government, not in health services

:52:27. > :52:30.but also in these academies where people are often being paid huge

:52:31. > :52:36.salaries should absolutely, all members of the pub lick, not members

:52:37. > :52:40.of the NUJ, not any cliques, not just councillors but all members of

:52:41. > :52:44.the public in a modern age should have access to these accounts? I'm

:52:45. > :52:47.very grateful to my honourable friend for that contribution and I

:52:48. > :52:53.hope the minister will be able to respond to this. I know that health

:52:54. > :53:02.is not his direct responsibility but he I'm sure will have been briefed

:53:03. > :53:05.by his colleagues on this because he will obviously have noticed this

:53:06. > :53:10.amendment and it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the

:53:11. > :53:14.Government to be able to demonstrate again to the public of the United

:53:15. > :53:18.Kingdom, that they are on their side, and that they are going to do

:53:19. > :53:24.everything within their power to ensure that there is a proper

:53:25. > :53:30.scrutiny and accountability of all these bodies which consume so much

:53:31. > :53:36.public resource. And in my area, Mr Speaker, there's

:53:37. > :53:42.been - and continues to be - a big conflict about whether or not Poole

:53:43. > :53:46.hospitals should merge with the Royal Bournemouth and in the end,

:53:47. > :53:50.during the course of the last Parliament, I was able to persuade

:53:51. > :53:53.the Competition and Markets Authority that the merger, the

:53:54. > :54:00.proposed merger should not be allowed to go ahead but now I'm told

:54:01. > :54:06.that covertly discussions are going ahead and that the two hospitals are

:54:07. > :54:11.trying to approach the Competition and Markets Authority to get them to

:54:12. > :54:15.change their rule which is n relation to this particular merger,

:54:16. > :54:22.which is normally that within ten weeks, ten years, they can't

:54:23. > :54:25.actually proceed with a merger. But that's all happening under the

:54:26. > :54:31.radar. Joe public doesn't know about it and it seems to me that that is

:54:32. > :54:38.another example of the way - the sometimes cavalier way - in which

:54:39. > :54:41.some of our local health organisations are operating and

:54:42. > :54:47.actually, we've all been discussing. I think everybody in the house with

:54:48. > :54:51.an English constituency has been discussing these plans for long-term

:54:52. > :54:56.transformation plans in the health service but I have to say that some

:54:57. > :55:01.of the basic information seems to be incredibly hard to get. I asked my

:55:02. > :55:06.local Clinical Commissioning Group whether if the plans that they are

:55:07. > :55:10.proposing to put forward were implemented, whether there would be

:55:11. > :55:14.fewer or more Acute Hospital beds. And if so, how many Acute Hospital

:55:15. > :55:21.beds are there at the moment and how many would there be in the future?

:55:22. > :55:29.The chief officer did not know that basic data. He came back later with

:55:30. > :55:35.the data and surprise, surprise, the number of beds was going to be

:55:36. > :55:38.reduced. The number of acute beds is going to be reduced by more than 10%

:55:39. > :55:44.despite current occupancy rates in December and January being of the

:55:45. > :55:50.order of 95%, against a national best practice figure of 85. And so

:55:51. > :55:55.it goes on. Too much is being done in the name of the public but

:55:56. > :56:03.without the public being able to get down to the detail and find out who

:56:04. > :56:09.is benefiting and in whose interests some of these decisions are taken.

:56:10. > :56:15.As my honourable friend says, this amendment is the most radical and

:56:16. > :56:21.far reaching. I'm sure, because it will not have been clear across

:56:22. > :56:26.government, it will not be acceptable to my honourable friend.

:56:27. > :56:31.But I hope that when he does respond to this group of amendments he will

:56:32. > :56:39.give encouraging noises about this. And how the Government is really

:56:40. > :56:44.sympathetic to the case for bringing within the remit of local scrutiny

:56:45. > :56:50.more of these health public bodies. Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not want

:56:51. > :56:55.to speak for a whole hour and I have not. Because I know there are a lot

:56:56. > :57:01.of other people that wants to take part in this important debate. But I

:57:02. > :57:08.am grateful for the interest that has been shown by honourable members

:57:09. > :57:14.in the issues I have raised. I hope that in Ju course we will be able to

:57:15. > :57:26.get some acceptance by the promoter of the Bill that she is willing to

:57:27. > :57:32.adopt. -- in course. The question is the amendment be made. David

:57:33. > :57:37.Nuttall. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by paying

:57:38. > :57:46.tribute not only to the promoter of this Bill, my honourable friend, the

:57:47. > :57:51.member for old which, but my honourable friend the member for

:57:52. > :57:58.Christchurch. I think the whole house owes him a debt of gratitude

:57:59. > :58:04.for the forensic way in which he has analysed this Bill. And brought

:58:05. > :58:10.before the House such a wide array of amendments for the House to

:58:11. > :58:14.consider this morning. And I have to say that it seems to me that if this

:58:15. > :58:22.Bill had been subject to my honourable friend's level of

:58:23. > :58:26.scrutiny in its previous stages, and indeed if the initial legislation

:58:27. > :58:31.had been able to be examined by my had been able to be examined by my

:58:32. > :58:38.honourable friend in the detail with which he has demonstrated this

:58:39. > :58:45.morning, then perhaps we would not be in the position that we find

:58:46. > :58:49.ourselves in this morning. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot make any

:58:50. > :58:55.prediction as to the length of time I will need to address the House,

:58:56. > :59:00.other than to say that I will deal succinctly with the amendments

:59:01. > :59:06.before us. I wish to advance to the House of the reasons for my

:59:07. > :59:13.amendment and why I think it is important my amendment is accepted.

:59:14. > :59:19.I have adopted a slightly different approach to that adopted by the

:59:20. > :59:26.member for Christchurch, who has adopted if not a criticism -- it is

:59:27. > :59:30.not a criticism but maybe a more scatter-gun approach. I have

:59:31. > :59:37.concentrated my fire on just one amendment. And therefore I will

:59:38. > :59:41.guide the House through why I think it is absolutely critically

:59:42. > :59:48.important that my amendment to the Bill is accepted this morning.

:59:49. > :59:57.Before I do so, perhaps I could just pay tribute to the honourable lady,

:59:58. > :00:06.my honourable friend, the member for Brownhills. As the House will be

:00:07. > :00:14.aware, she has already achieved, quite rightly, a degree of expertise

:00:15. > :00:20.in private members bills. And steered through in what was her

:00:21. > :00:27.first session in the House a Private members Bill onto statute in dealing

:00:28. > :00:33.with Great Ormond Street Hospital. Everyone is grateful to her for

:00:34. > :00:41.that. She has demonstrated her expertise in the way that this Bill

:00:42. > :00:47.has been preceded so far. Piloting it through second reading in about

:00:48. > :01:01.80 minutes. As was mentioned earlier, through the committee in

:01:02. > :01:05.just 11 minutes will stop that. --. I am sure my honourable friend was

:01:06. > :01:10.pleased that wasn't the case, but I have to say that I think the speed

:01:11. > :01:16.with which it passed through the committee stage, I make the

:01:17. > :01:25.on the committee... -- was the case. on the committee... -- was the case.

:01:26. > :01:33.But in an intervention earlier, it is the case no amendments whatsoever

:01:34. > :01:42.were brought forward to the Bill during the committee stage. It is

:01:43. > :01:49.also worth placing on record, incidentally, that while in addition

:01:50. > :01:54.to my honourable friend the member, the promoter of the Bill, who was

:01:55. > :01:59.obviously present to present the Bill had committee and my honourable

:02:00. > :02:08.friend who was the Minister who dealt with the Bill, together with

:02:09. > :02:17.seven other honourable members, there were several members missing

:02:18. > :02:20.from the Bill committee. The members for Clapton, Swansea East, Oldham

:02:21. > :02:30.West and Royston South, Ealing North, Stoke-on-Trent, Liverpool and

:02:31. > :02:35.West Derby. It is particularly noteworthy that the member for

:02:36. > :02:43.Dorset North, who had quite a lot to say on this Bill in the second

:02:44. > :02:49.reading, missed the cut, as we say, when it came to selecting members

:02:50. > :02:55.for the committee stage. And perhaps had he made the cut and been

:02:56. > :03:00.selected to be a member of the committee, some of the matter is we

:03:01. > :03:07.would be touching on this morning may have been dealt with. But I do

:03:08. > :03:10.fear that the number and nature of the amendment along the audit paper

:03:11. > :03:17.today, it is proven evidence that we today, it is proven evidence that we

:03:18. > :03:21.have somewhat glossed over at committee stage and as evidence I

:03:22. > :03:28.cite the transcript of the second reading debate which took place on

:03:29. > :03:32.the 25th of November last year. That debate contained several references

:03:33. > :03:39.to things being ironed out in committee. My honourable friend

:03:40. > :03:42.herself said, I understand that honourable members have raised

:03:43. > :03:47.concerns today and they are exactly the kind of points I would be more

:03:48. > :03:53.than happy for us to consider in committee. My honourable friend the

:03:54. > :03:58.member for North Dorset said, there will be some issues to be teased out

:03:59. > :04:02.in committee. Which she then doubled up on in referring to what

:04:03. > :04:07.constitutes related documents when he said, I am absolutely certain

:04:08. > :04:15.that the issue will be ironed out in committee. Well, it was not, I am

:04:16. > :04:18.sorry to say. The purpose of my amendment is to clarify the

:04:19. > :04:27.terminology used in this Bill. And to avoid any possibility for

:04:28. > :04:34.confusion in the future. I hope that after I have spent a a few minutes

:04:35. > :04:40.advancing the arguments for why my moment is so important that it will

:04:41. > :04:45.be accepted as I believe that its inclusion will strengthen the Bill,

:04:46. > :04:52.and I have to say from the outset this is not what I would say is a

:04:53. > :05:02.wrecking amendment. I put it forward with the best possible spirit. This

:05:03. > :05:12.is a short... My amendment to clause one of the Bill simply seeks to put

:05:13. > :05:19.onto the face of the Bill what is in third in the explanatory notes and

:05:20. > :05:30.briefing papers about this Bill. And what I believe is the intention of

:05:31. > :05:38.my honourable friend's Bill. Section 26 of the local audit and

:05:39. > :05:44.accountability act says that subsection one that as each audit of

:05:45. > :05:50.account under this act, other than accounts of a health service body,

:05:51. > :05:55.any persons interested may inspect the accounting records for the

:05:56. > :06:02.financial year to which the audit relates and all books, contracts,

:06:03. > :06:07.bills, vouchers, receipts and other documents related to those records

:06:08. > :06:13.and make copies of all or any part of those records or documents.

:06:14. > :06:18.Subsection two says at the request of a local government Elector for

:06:19. > :06:22.any area to which the accounts relate, the local auditor must give

:06:23. > :06:26.the Elector or any representative of the Elector, opportunities to

:06:27. > :06:31.question the auditor about the accounting records and subsection

:06:32. > :06:36.three says, most importantly, the local auditor's reasonable costs of

:06:37. > :06:40.compliance with subsection two can be recovered from the relevant

:06:41. > :06:48.authority to which the accounts relate. That is the underlying

:06:49. > :06:56.provision in statute which my honourable friend's Bill looks to

:06:57. > :07:07.amend. But it is important to bear in mind that this act was itself a

:07:08. > :07:18.consolidation of a previous consolidation, namely the local

:07:19. > :07:22.government audit Bill of 1998. The exact name escapes me for the

:07:23. > :07:27.minute. It was a reference to a previous act and that is important

:07:28. > :07:37.as we will go on to see when we look at the leading case on this. So,

:07:38. > :07:49.Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can move on to the body -- bodies which are

:07:50. > :07:55.covered by the 2014 act, it covers a number of relevant authorities, set

:07:56. > :08:00.out in schedule two of the 2014 act. For example, county, district,

:08:01. > :08:04.borough and parish councils, combined authorities, police and

:08:05. > :08:10.Crime Commissioner 's, passenger transport executive, Park

:08:11. > :08:16.authorities and at that time it covered the Greater London

:08:17. > :08:20.authority. There are a number of bodies covered by this act. They

:08:21. > :08:34.will inevitably produce a wide variety of stories journalists may

:08:35. > :08:46.wish to pursue. Madam Deputy Speaker, the leading case on this

:08:47. > :08:52.matter is the case of HTV against Bristol city council. And the House

:08:53. > :08:59.of Commons library briefing on this particular Bill refers to this Bill

:09:00. > :09:06.and indeed the explanatory notes to the Bill make reference to the fact

:09:07. > :09:16.that it was this Bill which first identified the problem in the

:09:17. > :09:24.earlier legislation. It is important to bear in mind, as I have said,

:09:25. > :09:31.that although this case was in 2004 it refers to the previous act and

:09:32. > :09:38.not the current act which is being amended. In the case of letter are

:09:39. > :09:43.on the application of HTV against Bristol city council was heard in

:09:44. > :09:50.the administrative Court on the 14th of May in 2004. The case highlighted

:09:51. > :09:57.why it is important to these specific in legislation. And I

:09:58. > :10:02.believe the case highlights why there would be problems with my

:10:03. > :10:11.honourable friend's Bill if it passes without my amendment today.

:10:12. > :10:17.The claimant in this particular case was the television company HTV,

:10:18. > :10:26.which members will be aware will know it is ITV Wales. HTV was in the

:10:27. > :10:31.process of making an addition of its weekly current affairs show at the

:10:32. > :10:39.time called Bear Lake Serious, and the episode in question was about to

:10:40. > :10:42.cover accommodation and care service in the area. The producer of the

:10:43. > :10:48.television company approached the local authority to inspect the

:10:49. > :10:52.relevant records relating to the matter and specifically the producer

:10:53. > :10:57.wanted access to accounts that might shed light on the relationship

:10:58. > :11:00.between the council and the landlord, as there had been a number

:11:01. > :11:09.of complaints made by people about his conduct. Initially, a reporter

:11:10. > :11:14.from the programme attended the council offices and was given access

:11:15. > :11:19.to some material, but described the material as being in complete and

:11:20. > :11:24.indecipherable. And the producer then wrote to the manager of

:11:25. > :11:30.corporate communications at Bristol City Council, setting out a list of

:11:31. > :11:32.documents that she wanted access to. After taking advice, Bristol City

:11:33. > :11:41.Council refused access to the documents. On the grounds that the

:11:42. > :11:48.TV company was not a person interested under section 15 of the

:11:49. > :11:54.1998 audit commission act. That was the actor was referring to earlier.

:11:55. > :12:00.This is the very situation that this bill today would seek to clarify. In

:12:01. > :12:05.the HTV case, the TV company applied for judicial review following

:12:06. > :12:11.Bristol City Council Bosman decision not to grant access to the requested

:12:12. > :12:18.documents. HTV argued that anyone with a legitimate and genuine

:12:19. > :12:24.interest came within the scope of section 15 of what was then the 1998

:12:25. > :12:30.act. They contested the decision by Bristol City Council on two grounds.

:12:31. > :12:33.And it is the distinction between those two grounds identified in that

:12:34. > :12:41.case that ultimately has brought this bill before us today. And

:12:42. > :12:47.particularly why I have tabled my amendment. Firstly, HTV argues that

:12:48. > :12:54.as a local media organisation it had a legitimate interest in the

:12:55. > :12:59.information in order to fulfil its role of ensuring the accountability

:13:00. > :13:05.of the authority to the public. Secondly, and as an alternative

:13:06. > :13:10.argument, HTV submitted that as a non-domestic rate payer, or business

:13:11. > :13:14.rate payer, it had a financial interest in the account is

:13:15. > :13:19.sufficient to bringing it within section 15. Bristol City council

:13:20. > :13:23.accepted that when nondomestic rates had been determined locally, the

:13:24. > :13:30.claimant would have been a person interested under the legislation.

:13:31. > :13:34.However, it argued that the power to set nondomestic rates had been

:13:35. > :13:40.removed from local authorities and since money raised by an nondomestic

:13:41. > :13:44.rates was presently distributed from a central fund, the claimant was no

:13:45. > :13:49.longer a person concerned. The council also submitted that the

:13:50. > :13:53.information had to be sought for legitimate purposes concerning

:13:54. > :14:00.issues relating to the audit of the authority 's account. Mr Justice

:14:01. > :14:08.found in favour of the claimant and it turned out, but it is the grounds

:14:09. > :14:13.of the decision with which we are interested in which are very

:14:14. > :14:18.revealing. He determined in his judgment that HTV was a person

:14:19. > :14:28.interested under section 15, and for the purposes of the 1998 act, but

:14:29. > :14:31.this was solely on the grounds of being a nondomestic rate payer. The

:14:32. > :14:38.judge found that the defendants argument that HTV did not contribute

:14:39. > :14:43.directly to the council budget to business rates to be a purely

:14:44. > :14:48.artificial argument. The judge said, and I quote, I think it is somewhat

:14:49. > :14:54.artificial to say that nondomestic rate payers do not contribute to the

:14:55. > :14:58.local authority's budget. Older contributions are channelled through

:14:59. > :15:02.and will be subject to redistribution by central

:15:03. > :15:06.Government, the income will be received indirectly by the authority

:15:07. > :15:11.as a grant from central Government. Nevertheless, I think it gives them

:15:12. > :15:18.a sufficient interest in inspecting the account. This was the key points

:15:19. > :15:24.in the judgment was that being a media company was not sufficient to

:15:25. > :15:30.bring the claimant into the scope of the 1998 act. And they only

:15:31. > :15:33.succeeded on the alternative argument Mr Justice Alliance said,

:15:34. > :15:37.and again I quote his exact words, some of the ways the claimant puts

:15:38. > :15:42.its case cannot succeed. I reject the contention that it has a

:15:43. > :15:48.sufficient interest merely by virtue of being a media organisation. It

:15:49. > :15:55.seems to me that the use to which persons wish to push the information

:15:56. > :15:58.cannot of itself make them interested persons, and the judge

:15:59. > :16:04.also concluded that if they are right to inspect -- if their right

:16:05. > :16:08.to inspect documents existed at all, the motives for seeking to use that

:16:09. > :16:15.and for seeking access to the documents was not relevant. I think,

:16:16. > :16:22.Madam Deputy Speaker, that referring to that case and some of the detail

:16:23. > :16:34.of it explains and sets out very clearly why it is so important that

:16:35. > :16:40.this bill is clarified. Let us continue the example of a television

:16:41. > :16:46.company wanting access to documents from a local authority for the

:16:47. > :16:50.purposes of a documentary. What that HTV case demonstrated is that

:16:51. > :16:55.another company or journalist who lived and operated outside of the

:16:56. > :17:00.area would have no access simply by virtue of being a journalist. And

:17:01. > :17:03.they would neither have access as a domestic ratepayer as they would

:17:04. > :17:12.ultimately contribute to a different local authority. 13 years after the

:17:13. > :17:20.HTV judgment, we can see why this simple legislative change is now so

:17:21. > :17:24.important, and as I said, I do not seek in any way to wreck this bill.

:17:25. > :17:39.But I do think that it is important that we set out why it is that this

:17:40. > :17:49.amendment should be made today. My amendment is clarifying the

:17:50. > :17:56.definition of a journalist, which is set out in paragraph one a at the

:17:57. > :18:02.moment. Paragraph one a state that in subsection one, eight journalist

:18:03. > :18:12.means anyone who produces for publication a journalistic material,

:18:13. > :18:19.whether paid to do so or otherwise. I think the problem with that is

:18:20. > :18:26.that it is not clear exactly what constitutes a journalist. As I

:18:27. > :18:39.mentioned earlier in an intervention, the heading to the

:18:40. > :18:43.first clause of the bill states that its header, inspection of accounting

:18:44. > :18:50.records by journalists and citizen journalists, and although a

:18:51. > :18:55.journalist is attempted to be defined in subsection one A, there

:18:56. > :19:06.is actually no reference whatsoever anywhere in the bill to the phrase

:19:07. > :19:14.citizen journalist at all. And it was for that reason that I sought to

:19:15. > :19:21.bring forward my amendment one on the order paper today. Clause one,

:19:22. > :19:36.page one, I seek to insert at the end of line eight new clause !B --

:19:37. > :19:43.1B, which will mean the proposed inclusion in a newspaper or a

:19:44. > :19:48.magazine, whether paid for or distributed, including any article

:19:49. > :19:51.proposed to be published on any website on the internet, whether it

:19:52. > :20:00.can be accessed without payment or upon payment of a subscription.

:20:01. > :20:08.Members will have seen the explanatory note that I provided to

:20:09. > :20:13.the house just to give a flavour of the reason why I brought forward

:20:14. > :20:19.that amendment. The purpose of this amendment, I have stated, is to make

:20:20. > :20:22.clear that this section covers all the journalists who may wish to

:20:23. > :20:27.publish their articles in a newspaper or magazine or on the

:20:28. > :20:37.internet, irrespective of whether there are any charges for either. I

:20:38. > :20:46.suspect that there is not much controversy over the definition of a

:20:47. > :20:51.journalist, although, as we heard from Michael Fenn from Christchurch,

:20:52. > :21:00.the exact definition even of a journalist can be open to some

:21:01. > :21:05.dispute and I will come onto that with my honourable friend's

:21:06. > :21:11.amendments. But as far as my amendment is concerned, I see the

:21:12. > :21:20.real difficulty with the definition of what amounts to a citizen

:21:21. > :21:24.journalist, and rather than try and make the wording even more clumsy

:21:25. > :21:30.and complicated by trying to defer -- define the term citizen

:21:31. > :21:34.journalist, I have simply expounded -- expanded the term journalist to

:21:35. > :21:45.make it clear that of somebody wishes to publish their work on the

:21:46. > :21:55.internet, that should be covered by this bill. Will my friend Mike give

:21:56. > :22:00.way? -- will my honourable friend give way? I will give way to my

:22:01. > :22:05.honourable friend the learner to member from Christchurch. My

:22:06. > :22:09.honourable friend is making a fascinating contribution to this

:22:10. > :22:18.debate. Can he explain why he thinks that although citizen journalists is

:22:19. > :22:24.referred to in the rubric of clause one, there is no definition of

:22:25. > :22:27.citizen journalist but only a definition of journalist? Does he

:22:28. > :22:33.agree with me that that rather suggests that there was originally

:22:34. > :22:37.other material in clause one which was then cut out of the bill as a

:22:38. > :22:41.result of negotiations between our honourable friend and the

:22:42. > :22:45.Department, but the department have failed to observe that there was no

:22:46. > :22:52.longer any definition of citizen journalist and amended accordingly?

:22:53. > :22:58.Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, there may be some reason as to why within

:22:59. > :23:01.the bill there is no definition of citizen journalist, but I have to

:23:02. > :23:07.admit to the house I am not aware of what that reason might be. What I

:23:08. > :23:12.can say, before I give way to my honourable friend the member for

:23:13. > :23:20.Shipley, is that in the explanatory notes to the bill, it says quite

:23:21. > :23:25.clearly at paragraph four, accordingly we are seeking to extend

:23:26. > :23:32.the definition of any persons interested in section 26 of the act,

:23:33. > :23:39.the act being the local audit and accountability act 2014, to include

:23:40. > :23:45.journalists including citizen journalists, but crucially it goes

:23:46. > :23:51.on to say that bloggers and others who scrutinise local authorities but

:23:52. > :23:56.you may not be accredited members of the press, to enable them to access

:23:57. > :24:01.a wider range of accounting material in order to report and publish their

:24:02. > :24:04.findings so that it is available to local electorate in an area, thus

:24:05. > :24:12.providing them with information that will enable them to better hold

:24:13. > :24:18.their local council to account. Now, who can disagree with that? It seems

:24:19. > :24:23.to me to be an entirely laudable aim and it is rather disappointing that

:24:24. > :24:28.that laudable aim wasn't carried through onto the face of the bill

:24:29. > :24:35.and that is what my amendment seeks to do. I will give way. I am very

:24:36. > :24:40.grateful to my honourable friend. My question to him about his sort of

:24:41. > :24:44.wide definition of the term journalist is where social media

:24:45. > :24:49.fits into this definition. Particularly with regards to

:24:50. > :24:52.Facebook and Twitter, because if he is basically saying that this is

:24:53. > :24:56.anybody who wants to publish anything on the internet then it

:24:57. > :24:59.seems to me that anybody anywhere publishes things on Twitter or on

:25:00. > :25:02.Facebook and whether that would follow in his definition of whether

:25:03. > :25:05.or not I would therefore mean that his definition of journalism would

:25:06. > :25:09.mean any member of the public, Wycherley brings us back to my

:25:10. > :25:14.honourable friend's amendment which is the lead amendment in this group.

:25:15. > :25:22.I am very grateful to my honourable friend for his intervention. He has

:25:23. > :25:29.actually touched on what I am going to deal with in the remaining part

:25:30. > :25:35.of my remarks on my own amendment. But I think there is a distinction

:25:36. > :25:43.to be drawn. Whilst I agree that my wide definition would, on the face

:25:44. > :25:46.of it, give a very wide number of people, a very large number of

:25:47. > :25:56.people the right to go and inspect the accounts, it does require some

:25:57. > :26:02.publication on the Internet. For example, if somebody wanted to go,

:26:03. > :26:08.for their own private interest, perhaps for academic research, and

:26:09. > :26:16.without a publication, they would not be included. So they would have

:26:17. > :26:22.to be some element of publication on the Internet. But I make no apology

:26:23. > :26:27.for that. I make no apology for the fact that there will be a very wide

:26:28. > :26:30.category of people. Because I want to make it as wide as possible. I

:26:31. > :26:35.will give way to the honourable member. Just to clarify, I am still

:26:36. > :26:39.not entirely clear. Does that mean publication on social media such as

:26:40. > :26:48.Twitter falls within his definition of journalism or not? I'm still not

:26:49. > :26:52.entirely clear. In short, yes. If I can be absolutely clear about that,

:26:53. > :26:56.yes, I think it would. And the reason why I think it would is

:26:57. > :27:04.because my definition refers to publication on a website. And it is

:27:05. > :27:11.possible to go on to the Twitter website, which has a web address,

:27:12. > :27:16.and to look at the person whose accounts this has been published on,

:27:17. > :27:22.whose Twitter account, and to scroll back through their messages and you

:27:23. > :27:26.can see what they said yesterday, one month ago, one year ago. So it

:27:27. > :27:32.is published for all time on the Internet. I am very grateful. I am

:27:33. > :27:37.not unsympathetic to the point he is making. The only issue that I would

:27:38. > :27:45.make which might be an added complexity is many Twitter profiles

:27:46. > :27:50.as we all know are anonymous. We really has -- have no idea who is

:27:51. > :27:55.behind the publications and I wonder if in your amendment there is any

:27:56. > :27:58.implication that when we are defining a journalist of the Public

:27:59. > :28:06.ought to have the right to know who it is that is publishing the

:28:07. > :28:09.material? My honourable friend, I accept, has made a good point and it

:28:10. > :28:15.is not one I had previously considered. I agree with him that I

:28:16. > :28:21.think it is important that individuals should know who it is

:28:22. > :28:29.that has put this information out there. On the other hand, one could

:28:30. > :28:37.argue if it is an anonymous Twitter account or one where the identity

:28:38. > :28:43.has been protected for some reason, then personally I would be inclined

:28:44. > :28:47.to trust the public to treat any information on such a Twitter

:28:48. > :28:56.account with a very high degree of caution. Because they would not be

:28:57. > :29:01.able to know the source. And whilst I would defend the right of anybody

:29:02. > :29:08.to publish it, and this comes back to the question of fake news, which

:29:09. > :29:13.my honourable member for Christchurch mentioned in his

:29:14. > :29:18.submission, that I think the problem with those sorts of accounts is

:29:19. > :29:25.because they are not accredited to any recognised journalistic output,

:29:26. > :29:30.then members of the public should be very cautious about what they read

:29:31. > :29:40.on them. But it does not detract from my fundamental point that the

:29:41. > :29:44.mere fact that it is on something that we often refer to as social

:29:45. > :29:52.media should stop it being regarded as being published. And can I just

:29:53. > :29:57.say this, if one looks back at when things were published in a daily

:29:58. > :30:02.paper, that was it. It was published in a daily paper and there was the

:30:03. > :30:07.old saying, what is in today's paper will be tomorrow's fish and chip

:30:08. > :30:11.paper. I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember when that was

:30:12. > :30:15.the case and people did chop up yesterday's paper and turn it

:30:16. > :30:22.into... I will give way to the honourable member. I thank him for

:30:23. > :30:26.giving way. Does he accept that even in newspapers some items are

:30:27. > :30:30.anonymous? For many years there was a column in the daily express called

:30:31. > :30:38.William Hickey and there is no such person. I am very grateful to my

:30:39. > :30:44.honourable friend for that comment. I think it does support the answer I

:30:45. > :30:51.gave to my honourable friend, the member for Shipley, that the mere

:30:52. > :30:57.fact of anonymity should not preclude application. But it should

:30:58. > :31:04.then be up to the individual to decide what weight they give to that

:31:05. > :31:12.particular information or news item contained within the column. And of

:31:13. > :31:17.course, the law would equally apply to printing material under this act.

:31:18. > :31:22.So it could be the case that it could be printed. I say this in

:31:23. > :31:25.response to my honourable friend the member for Shipley, with his

:31:26. > :31:32.intervention, that you could have the same as has been said. In a

:31:33. > :31:36.newspaper. It need not be on the Internet that it is anonymous. It

:31:37. > :31:42.could be published and we often see letters in the newspapers where it

:31:43. > :31:46.says name and address withheld. Information can be put out into the

:31:47. > :31:55.public domain without any indication as to who it is who has put it

:31:56. > :32:01.there. So my amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about broadening the

:32:02. > :32:06.scope of what is termed journalistic material to make sure that news

:32:07. > :32:13.websites in all media formats are now included. The world of

:32:14. > :32:17.journalism is changing and evolving. And in a free society it is

:32:18. > :32:22.important different viewpoints can freely be expressed and that

:32:23. > :32:33.journalists should have the freedom to go about their work. The public

:32:34. > :32:37.affairs and software company listed the top ten political blogs in the

:32:38. > :32:43.UK has of June 2000 16. In third place was Guido Fawkes. Followed by

:32:44. > :32:51.several other political websites of all persuasions. Wing zone for

:32:52. > :32:55.Scotland, I have said that for the benefit of members from Scotland and

:32:56. > :32:59.the honourable lady has left her place. Labour left and left foot

:33:00. > :33:06.forward, political scrapbook, political betting, Conservative

:33:07. > :33:11.home, Liberal Democrat and labour uncut. All aspects of the political

:33:12. > :33:17.spectrum are covered in the political blogs. And a whole number

:33:18. > :33:24.cover the spectrum. And I don't think the number of viewers to a

:33:25. > :33:32.programme or the number of readers of a newspaper or the number of

:33:33. > :33:37.visitors to a website should in itself be the criteria with which we

:33:38. > :33:45.determine whether or not something is valuable or not. For example,

:33:46. > :33:50.very interesting comments were made by the member for Christchurch, that

:33:51. > :33:56.if they were published on a website that only had a readership within

:33:57. > :34:01.the area of Christchurch and Bournemouth, it would be very

:34:02. > :34:04.sufficient to meeting the definition of publication as far as I was

:34:05. > :34:11.concerned. It would not necessarily have to be something of a national

:34:12. > :34:15.publication, because by definition we are talking here about local

:34:16. > :34:24.bodies. And therefore if you have a local council, to me it seems more

:34:25. > :34:33.important to look at the quality of the readership rather than the

:34:34. > :34:38.number. And the location. And whether it is communicating

:34:39. > :34:42.something to 100 people and if that is more relevant if they live in the

:34:43. > :34:47.locality rather than 10,000 to live somewhere else in the country. I

:34:48. > :34:55.don't think we can purely look at the numbers when deciding this. It

:34:56. > :35:07.is also worth bearing in mind of course that as well as written

:35:08. > :35:12.publications and as well as communications via social media and

:35:13. > :35:23.on the Internet, we are now moving to an age of video bloggers.

:35:24. > :35:29.Vloggers. I make this point to reinforce that I have not tried to

:35:30. > :35:36.be too prescriptive in my amendment about what constitutes a news

:35:37. > :35:45.outlet. I simply said it has to be on a website. Nowadays it is very

:35:46. > :35:50.easy with modern technology for anybody to be able to produce their

:35:51. > :35:56.own news reports and put them on the Internet for others to view. Last

:35:57. > :36:01.year the Reuters Institute for the study of journalism research

:36:02. > :36:05.suggested 51% of people with online access usage, social media as a news

:36:06. > :36:15.source. That is a very high proportion of

:36:16. > :36:20.18-24 year olds, the younger generation, who we want to get

:36:21. > :36:26.involved in the political process, 28% cited social media as their main

:36:27. > :36:29.news source. This is nowadays where people are getting their news

:36:30. > :36:35.source. In fact more people were sited on social media as their main

:36:36. > :36:40.news source in this age group and television, which was only 24%. With

:36:41. > :36:45.this changing landscape it is important that this legislation

:36:46. > :36:51.reflects the changes which are taking place in journalism. We had

:36:52. > :37:00.to accept in an evolving social media world, the definition of what

:37:01. > :37:06.constitutes a journalist will inevitably change as time passes. My

:37:07. > :37:11.amendment is intended if you like to future proof this Bill, which is why

:37:12. > :37:16.I stressed in the drafting of the words "Any website on the Internet".

:37:17. > :37:23.I will give way to the honourable member. Can he clarify something? I

:37:24. > :37:27.am a little concerned about his amendment because I think that it is

:37:28. > :37:32.rather restrictive in terms of hard copy publications. It refers to a

:37:33. > :37:39.magazine or newspaper only. Would this not exclude a Parliamentary

:37:40. > :37:49.candidate who was seeking to root out local corruption and wanted to

:37:50. > :37:52.publish it in an election leaflet? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm

:37:53. > :37:58.grateful my honourable friend for that intervention. I fear that it

:37:59. > :38:05.would on the definition I have included. And therefore it may be

:38:06. > :38:11.one of my honourable friend for Christchurch proposed for including

:38:12. > :38:14.the word "Politician" in the definition. That might be something

:38:15. > :38:22.he had in his mind when he put forward the amendment. Of course it

:38:23. > :38:26.would be possible. And I hope any would-be politician and any

:38:27. > :38:33.candidate in an election nowadays would have access to social media in

:38:34. > :38:37.their own website and would therefore be able to use that as

:38:38. > :38:46.reason for inspecting the document, the fact they were going to publish

:38:47. > :38:54.on their own website. If I may pre-empt, Madam Deputy Speaker, what

:38:55. > :39:02.I suspect might be some further criticism of my claws, my proposed

:39:03. > :39:10.amendment, that is the definition of what constitutes Internet and what

:39:11. > :39:17.constitutes a website. The definition of Internet as far as I

:39:18. > :39:21.can ascertain is a global computer network, providing a variety of

:39:22. > :39:25.information and communication facilities, consisting of

:39:26. > :39:31.interconnected networks, using standardised communication protocol,

:39:32. > :39:36.or the net, as the Internet is often referred to, a worldwide system of

:39:37. > :39:41.computer networks, a network of networks were anyone, with

:39:42. > :39:47.permission, you can get information from any other computer. -- whereby

:39:48. > :39:54.anyone. I would define a website as a set of pages of information on the

:39:55. > :40:00.Internet about a particular subject. I would challenge anybody to

:40:01. > :40:07.actually look at my proposed amendment. And to say to themselves,

:40:08. > :40:10.if any member of the public was reading this, would it be clear what

:40:11. > :40:20.was intended? And I would submit that it is

:40:21. > :40:24.perfectly clear what was intended. It is perfectly clear that the

:40:25. > :40:29.intention is to expand the definition of journalist and to go

:40:30. > :40:34.some way towards, as I set out earlier, what the proposers of the

:40:35. > :40:41.bill claim they are doing with this amendment. And I don't think that

:40:42. > :40:51.there is any ambiguity whatsoever. I have also made it clear... Yes? My

:40:52. > :40:57.honourable friend says there is no ambiguity but we have reference to

:40:58. > :41:05.citizen journalists in the first line of clause one and yet the

:41:06. > :41:11.section itself, the contents of that clause, only refers to journalists.

:41:12. > :41:15.It doesn't refer to citizen journalists. To that in itself

:41:16. > :41:20.creates confusion, doesn't it? Why are we not just talking about

:41:21. > :41:27.journalists and then defining journalists in soap clause three?

:41:28. > :41:33.Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think to be fair to the honourable member

:41:34. > :41:38.for Christchurch, that my amendment doesn't refer to citizen

:41:39. > :41:42.journalists. It is already heading that refers to citizen journalists,

:41:43. > :41:49.and as we have seen, so do the notes and debriefings. I think, with

:41:50. > :41:53.hindsight, the heading should be amended and the words and citizen

:41:54. > :41:59.journalists deleted because they really do lead people down a

:42:00. > :42:05.cul-de-sac. Because the people will be looking at this bill and they

:42:06. > :42:10.will be thinking to themselves, well, there is a bit missing. Where

:42:11. > :42:16.is the definition of citizen journalists? I explained in my

:42:17. > :42:21.earlier comment that I decided that rather than try and define citizen

:42:22. > :42:29.journalists, it would be better to extend the existing definition of

:42:30. > :42:34.what constituted a journalist, perhaps with hindsight it might have

:42:35. > :42:38.been better to try and somehow define what a citizen journalist is

:42:39. > :42:45.but I was conscious perhaps of the comments which were made on second

:42:46. > :42:53.reading by a number of honourable friends that they took objection to

:42:54. > :42:58.the reference to being citizen 's because we are all subjects of Her

:42:59. > :43:05.Majesty and I think for that reason I felt that it was perhaps not

:43:06. > :43:09.sensible to incorporate the term citizen journalist in legislation.

:43:10. > :43:16.And personally I would prefer therefore if those words could be

:43:17. > :43:24.struck from the bill. The other aspect of the amendment that I have

:43:25. > :43:31.tabled is the reference to whether or not payment is made for a

:43:32. > :43:40.particular magazine or newspaper, or whether one has two paid to access a

:43:41. > :43:44.website should affect the situation. I have been very explicit and made

:43:45. > :43:50.it clear that in my view, whether or not one house to pay for a

:43:51. > :43:57.subscription or paid to access a website or whether the newspaper is

:43:58. > :44:03.distributed free of charge should have no bearing at all on whether or

:44:04. > :44:14.not somebody, a citizen journalist or not, should have the right to go

:44:15. > :44:19.and access the accounts of their local council or body covered by

:44:20. > :44:26.this act. We already know from the face of the bill as being presented

:44:27. > :44:30.that it matters not whether the journalist is paid or unpaid, but I

:44:31. > :44:38.thought it was equally important to clarify as to whether or not one

:44:39. > :44:47.house to pay to access the site itself. I am grateful to him for

:44:48. > :44:51.giving way. The more I reflect on his amendment, the more

:44:52. > :44:54.unsatisfactory I think it is. Why is he apparently discriminating against

:44:55. > :44:58.television journalists? There may be many journalists out there like

:44:59. > :45:01.Michael Crick who want to prepare a news piece for broadcast in a

:45:02. > :45:05.television programme, not to go out in a magazine, not to go out in a

:45:06. > :45:09.newspaper, not to go on the internet, why would they be

:45:10. > :45:17.excluded, why are the excluded from his amendment? Well, I don't intend

:45:18. > :45:26.to exclude anybody. I rather feel that nowadays all the broadcasters

:45:27. > :45:34.have websites and of course they wouldn't necessarily need to publish

:45:35. > :45:40.or to broadcast online, but I am not aware actually of any broadcasters

:45:41. > :45:43.nowadays that don't have websites and perhaps my honourable friend may

:45:44. > :45:50.be aware of some that don't but I would have thought that it would be

:45:51. > :46:00.very simple for any broadcaster who, faced with that defends by a council

:46:01. > :46:07.who wanted to try to shield behind the argument, for that broadcaster

:46:08. > :46:18.to say, well, in any event we will be publishing it on our website.

:46:19. > :46:24.Well, all TV channels these days can be accessed via the internet, so

:46:25. > :46:28.they are all really published on the internet as well, but if I read his

:46:29. > :46:35.amendment correctly, his amendment talks about what it also includes

:46:36. > :46:38.and it doesn't necessarily refer to all the things being excluded, it is

:46:39. > :46:41.really an enabling amendment as I read it which I hope will give some

:46:42. > :46:46.comfort to my Right Honourable friend. I am grateful to my

:46:47. > :46:53.honourable friend for that intervention because it is important

:46:54. > :46:59.to know that I have said includes. I have not tried to exclude any other

:47:00. > :47:04.option, merely to clarify. I hope that this will have been noted by

:47:05. > :47:10.the proposer of the bill and the Government minister who may have

:47:11. > :47:17.some reservations I feel about my amendment and I hope that they will

:47:18. > :47:22.concentrate and reflect on that intervention from my honourable

:47:23. > :47:28.friend. I am very conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the fact that

:47:29. > :47:33.there are a number of other amendments which I'd just really

:47:34. > :47:39.want to comment on, but I am understandably concerned that I

:47:40. > :47:47.advanced the best possible case for my own amendment and I do hope that

:47:48. > :47:54.I have been able to answer to the satisfaction of all those who have

:47:55. > :47:59.concerns about my amendment and set their minds at ease. I have noted

:48:00. > :48:03.that the proposer of the bill hasn't sought to contest my amendment in

:48:04. > :48:10.anyway during my remarks and I sincerely hope that when we come to

:48:11. > :48:19.hear from my honourable friend, that she will indicate a willingness to

:48:20. > :48:25.accept my amendment in the spirit that I have put it forward. It is

:48:26. > :48:32.not a wrecking amendment, it is merely one that seeks to achieve

:48:33. > :48:37.what are all notes to the bill say and extend the cover to citizen

:48:38. > :48:42.journalists and bloggers, enabling them to inspect the accounts of

:48:43. > :48:48.local authorities. I now wish to just deal with the amendments which

:48:49. > :48:54.have been proposed by my honourable friend the member for Christchurch.

:48:55. > :49:04.And make it clear as to which ones I support and don't support. His first

:49:05. > :49:13.amendment, amendment to, which is to leave out the words "From after" and

:49:14. > :49:17.insert "Any members of the public who are registered to vote in

:49:18. > :49:21.elections in the United Kingdom" would have the effect is essentially

:49:22. > :49:27.of meaning that virtually anybody would be able to make use of the

:49:28. > :49:32.powers contained within the bill. I am happy to support that. I am happy

:49:33. > :49:36.to support that, to be perfectly honest with my honourable friend. I

:49:37. > :49:45.do think it is perhaps a touch ambitious, given the nature of the

:49:46. > :49:51.views of the proposer of the bill and the Minister from what we have

:49:52. > :49:59.seen so far, but I would be happy to support him on this amendment. He

:50:00. > :50:06.then put forward a number of other options for the house to consider,

:50:07. > :50:11.including for example, extending the access to politicians, and as I made

:50:12. > :50:16.clear in my early intervention, I have some concerns about the fact

:50:17. > :50:24.that the word politician is not defined anywhere in the bill, but as

:50:25. > :50:27.a general proposition about extending the scope from journalists

:50:28. > :50:36.to politicians, I have no objections at all with it. Amendment for deals

:50:37. > :50:43.with the position of nondomestic rate payers. I think this is

:50:44. > :50:48.particularly important as we move into an era where we are moving back

:50:49. > :50:57.towards the localisation of business rates. And I think that this will

:50:58. > :51:02.inevitably lead businesses within an area to take more interest in what

:51:03. > :51:13.is going on in their local authority, and so I wholeheartedly

:51:14. > :51:21.support and amendment format. -- four. The other amendments, up to

:51:22. > :51:23.number seven, deal with giving the opportunity to journalists who are

:51:24. > :51:27.accredited or professional journalists or qualified journalists

:51:28. > :51:32.and we heard from my honourable friend earlier that his preferred

:51:33. > :51:36.option if you had one would be amendment five, accredited, and I

:51:37. > :51:39.would be happy to go along with my honourable friend for the reasons

:51:40. > :51:51.which she set out in his submission to the house. Amendment eight would

:51:52. > :51:57.remove the definition of journalist entirely, but of course that would

:51:58. > :52:04.be in direct contravention to my own amendment so I would oppose that

:52:05. > :52:10.amendment and press my own amendment instead. I will certainly give way.

:52:11. > :52:14.I thank my honourable friend for giving way. He is galloping on at

:52:15. > :52:18.such a speed, if I may say so, he rather skimped over amendment three.

:52:19. > :52:23.Does he share my concern that amendment we may be defective in

:52:24. > :52:26.that it refers to politician, the definition of which is someone who

:52:27. > :52:33.is professionally involved in politics, especially holding elected

:52:34. > :52:37.office? This may, therefore, rule out someone who is an aspiring

:52:38. > :52:44.politician, who is a candidate and who is yet to be elected. Well,

:52:45. > :52:49.Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful to my Right Honourable

:52:50. > :52:56.friend for his intervention. It was a point I made myself earlier in the

:52:57. > :52:58.debate and my Right Honourable friend might have missed it, but I

:52:59. > :53:05.made that intervention and I entirely agree that I think there is

:53:06. > :53:12.a difficulty with not defining the phrase politician to make it clear

:53:13. > :53:15.that someone who is aspiring to elected office should be included

:53:16. > :53:21.because they are the ones who are more likely perhaps or as likely as

:53:22. > :53:29.anyone, I should say, to want to carry out that sort of investigative

:53:30. > :53:34.work to get to the bottom of these accounts and to go and study them

:53:35. > :53:36.and to see what was in them, whether there is anything which they need to

:53:37. > :53:48.bring to the attention of the public. We then move to amendment

:53:49. > :53:53.nine, which is to insert at the end of clause one, page one, at line

:53:54. > :53:59.eight, "The relevant authority must ensure that any person interested in

:54:00. > :54:06.making inspection within subsection one may do so at all reasonable

:54:07. > :54:11.times and without payment" and this amendment would extend to section 26

:54:12. > :54:18.of the 2014 act, the same conditions as set out in section 20 five.

:54:19. > :54:22.Again, I think my honourable friend has struck on something which is

:54:23. > :54:29.worthy of consideration. I am not sure whether he would choose to push

:54:30. > :54:36.this particular amendment to the boat, but I will certainly consider

:54:37. > :54:48.supporting it. -- vote. His most controversial amendment is amendment

:54:49. > :54:54.ten. Amendment ten deals with the inclusion of help service bodies. By

:54:55. > :54:57.leaving out the words which are included in line one, "Leave out

:54:58. > :55:03.other than an audit of account to the health service" but it is worth

:55:04. > :55:09.noting that the House of Commons reformers that actually refers to

:55:10. > :55:13.the fact that the body is covered by the 2014 act include clinical

:55:14. > :55:24.commissioning groups within the NHS. That is only one small part of the

:55:25. > :55:29.NHS and like right honourable friend I see no reason why the Bill should

:55:30. > :55:35.not be amended so as to make it clear that the whole plethora of

:55:36. > :55:45.different health service bodies should be covered by this Bill. I

:55:46. > :55:49.will give way. Just to reinforce that point in reference to clinical

:55:50. > :55:55.commissioning groups, they basically have a veto over the use of

:55:56. > :56:00.particular procedure is for people living within their area. It is

:56:01. > :56:06.often quite controversial. It is justified on the basis of costs, but

:56:07. > :56:12.if people can't examine the cost base than it is difficult for them

:56:13. > :56:16.account. I entirely agree with me honourable friend about that -- to

:56:17. > :56:22.hold them to account. I think they would be considerable interest to

:56:23. > :56:27.the court residence in being able to access all the accounts of all

:56:28. > :56:31.health service bodies. Amendment 11 that is being put forward by my

:56:32. > :56:34.honourable friend deals with extending the period in which

:56:35. > :56:42.inspections can be carried out beyond 30 days. I have heard no

:56:43. > :56:47.explanation as to why the period is 30 days. Why it is not 6425 or some

:56:48. > :56:54.other number and therefore I entirely agree that there seems to

:56:55. > :56:58.me to be there is no logical reason as their way should there should be

:56:59. > :57:09.a 30 day limit but I would support my honourable friend in amendment

:57:10. > :57:15.11. Amendment 12, 13 and 14 are more technical amendments dealing with

:57:16. > :57:24.the issue of commercial confidentiality. And I think that

:57:25. > :57:31.amendment 30 is the one that I particularly would recommend to the

:57:32. > :57:38.House. The fact that something might have been commercially sensitive in

:57:39. > :57:42.the past should not prevent the accounts and all the associated

:57:43. > :57:50.paperwork relating to it from being inspected now. And so of those

:57:51. > :57:58.amendments I would particularly welcome number 14. Madam Deputy

:57:59. > :58:03.Speaker, those are my reviews on my honourable friend 's amendments but

:58:04. > :58:12.I just would reiterate and commend my own amendment, amendment one to

:58:13. > :58:17.the House. I just say in conclusion is that if, and I hope it isn't the

:58:18. > :58:23.case, but if that amendment is opposed I am afraid to say that it

:58:24. > :58:30.does draw into question everything which is said about this Bill. And a

:58:31. > :58:38.battered wanting to extend access to a wider number -- about it extending

:58:39. > :58:42.access to a number of people and giving that information to the

:58:43. > :58:46.public. All I have sought to do is to put onto the face of the Bill

:58:47. > :58:54.what the explanatory notes say the Bill is all about, and at the very

:58:55. > :59:02.least, if my amendment for whatever reason does not find favour with the

:59:03. > :59:09.proposer of the Bill, then I would be interested to know firstly why

:59:10. > :59:13.and secondly I think the public would be suspicious of the Bill as a

:59:14. > :59:19.whole. And let's not forget that the whole reason why this Bill has been

:59:20. > :59:27.brought before the House is because the initial bills were defective,

:59:28. > :59:34.the initial acts were defective, and therefore I would be wary, I would

:59:35. > :59:39.advise the House to be wary of any arguments which are advanced by the

:59:40. > :59:46.Government against my amendment when it was the Government 's of various

:59:47. > :59:52.views down the years that have led us to this position we are in this

:59:53. > :59:56.morning. And so I have attempted to be quite clear and open and one

:59:57. > :00:02.could argue over individual words, but I would submit to the House that

:00:03. > :00:08.my amendment is perfectly clear about what it seeks to do. It seeks

:00:09. > :00:11.to give clarity to this phrase, citizen journalist, which whether we

:00:12. > :00:17.like it or not appears in the heading to Clause one of this Bill

:00:18. > :00:23.and I commend my amendment and move it to the House. Philip Davies.

:00:24. > :00:27.Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to my

:00:28. > :00:31.honourable friend is from Christchurch and Bury North who have

:00:32. > :00:37.given a very compelling and competence of account of the

:00:38. > :00:44.amendments. And I raced to try and perhaps adjudicate between them, not

:00:45. > :00:48.the deep -- Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is a rare occurrence

:00:49. > :00:52.when my two honourable friend 's other things from a slightly

:00:53. > :00:57.different perspective but I sense on this they have their differences and

:00:58. > :01:03.so I will try and do my best to be fair to their amendments to

:01:04. > :01:06.adjudicate, along with my honourable friend from Bury North I would like

:01:07. > :01:12.to think on Julie -- congratulate honourable friend forgetting the

:01:13. > :01:20.Bill to the stage and if I might say so, I think her Bill is a good Bill,

:01:21. > :01:24.but I think, if it was to incorporate some of the points made

:01:25. > :01:30.by my honourable friend so it would be a better Bill and it seems to me

:01:31. > :01:34.the whole purpose of a Report Stage of a Bill is to try and improve a

:01:35. > :01:44.Bill and so I hope that the minister who is an excellent Minister, I hope

:01:45. > :01:47.he and the proposer of the Bill would have listened carefully to my

:01:48. > :01:53.honourable friends and appreciate that actually on reflection perhaps

:01:54. > :01:56.the Bill could be better and I will try and set out which of these

:01:57. > :02:03.amendments I hope that they will be minded to accept. I have to say, if

:02:04. > :02:08.they are minded not to accept them, I would encourage my honourable

:02:09. > :02:11.friends to consider pushing them to a division to test the will of the

:02:12. > :02:17.House because I think they made very compelling cases for some of their

:02:18. > :02:24.amendments, but not all, and that is where they want to focus my

:02:25. > :02:27.attention now. -- I want to focus my attention now. I will start with my

:02:28. > :02:32.honourable friend's amendment number two which is the lead amendment in

:02:33. > :02:38.this group and in many respects rightly so, because it is my

:02:39. > :02:44.contention that amendment two is the most powerful of all the amendments

:02:45. > :02:47.in this group. And so to set out my position from the outset I hope that

:02:48. > :02:53.my honourable friend for Christchurch, if he is tempted to

:02:54. > :03:00.put any of these amendments forward to a division, I hope he will focus

:03:01. > :03:08.its attention on amendment two. This one is Clause one, page one, line

:03:09. > :03:12.five, to leave out from after to the end of the subsection and insert,

:03:13. > :03:15.any members of the public are registered to vote in local

:03:16. > :03:18.elections in the United Kingdom. I think what my honourable friend is

:03:19. > :03:21.doing in simple terms is basically saying that everyone in the country

:03:22. > :03:27.should have a right to know what is going on in these authorities. I

:03:28. > :03:31.think the compelling case he made, if I might say so, was in relation

:03:32. > :03:36.to what is happening in this local authority at the moment in

:03:37. > :03:41.Christchurch in relation to his neighbouring local authority in

:03:42. > :03:48.Bournemouth. And quite clearly it seems to me to be obvious that if

:03:49. > :03:55.the court authorities are potentially going to be merging,

:03:56. > :03:58.then the local authorities. Then they member public in one local

:03:59. > :04:01.authority should have the absolute right to have full access to all

:04:02. > :04:05.information about what is happening in the other local authority to be

:04:06. > :04:08.able to assess whether or not it is in their best interest for that

:04:09. > :04:15.merger to go ahead. Without access to the information at the moment,

:04:16. > :04:19.how on earth can they be in a position to make that judgment, but

:04:20. > :04:24.completely flies in the face of democracy and it would be perverse

:04:25. > :04:31.in many respects if, for example, as was mentioned earlier, in his local

:04:32. > :04:35.authority area it would be perverse of the editor of the Evening

:04:36. > :04:43.Standard, who was mentioned during the course of this debate, was able

:04:44. > :04:51.to access the documents relating to his neighbouring council by virtue

:04:52. > :04:56.of being a journalist and eight find one -- a fine one, as the editor of

:04:57. > :04:58.a prestigious newspaper, the local residents in his area weren't able

:04:59. > :05:04.to get the same information. That surely would be a perverse outcome

:05:05. > :05:11.and it can't really be the one that was envisaged when this Bill was in

:05:12. > :05:19.its infancy. And I don't really see what possible argument that could be

:05:20. > :05:23.against my honourable friend 's amendment, if we believe in

:05:24. > :05:27.extending transparency, then local authorities can rightly be held to

:05:28. > :05:32.account and the public have greater awareness of what is going on, why

:05:33. > :05:35.don't we give them all the opportunity to see the information

:05:36. > :05:43.for themselves rather than relying on journalists to do that job for

:05:44. > :05:51.them? I agree with extending the principal of Bic stenting the people

:05:52. > :05:55.-- extending, the people who have access to these documents, but the

:05:56. > :05:58.problem is it is not sufficient. It is a step in the right direction but

:05:59. > :06:04.it clearly isn't sufficient. The reason for this is as we all know

:06:05. > :06:10.local newspapers in particular are going through a pretty torrid time

:06:11. > :06:12.financially, and I don't think it is any secret the whole newspaper

:06:13. > :06:20.industry in particular is going through a bit of a torrid time at

:06:21. > :06:24.the moment. Obviously things moving on to the internet they found it

:06:25. > :06:32.very difficult to adjust to monetise their content. So what we tend to

:06:33. > :06:36.find in many local areas is that unfortunately despite the best

:06:37. > :06:39.efforts of many local newspaper groups they are not increasing the

:06:40. > :06:43.number of journalists they had to have access to all of these

:06:44. > :06:48.documents and to go through them with a fine tooth, and all the rest

:06:49. > :06:54.of it, they are actually shedding journalists -- fine tooth comb. They

:06:55. > :06:56.are spread more thinly. And it seems to me that just giving local

:06:57. > :07:00.journalists they access to the information and then hoping that all

:07:01. > :07:03.of this stuff will be in the public domain all of a sudden is slightly

:07:04. > :07:10.naive because I'm not entirely sure that the journalistic trade have the

:07:11. > :07:14.capacity in order to do that. And so I think that we will be in

:07:15. > :07:19.neighbouring something which is very worthwhile but may not actually

:07:20. > :07:22.happen in practice. -- enabling. And so it seems to me if we won this

:07:23. > :07:28.information in the public domain and for the people to hold local

:07:29. > :07:31.authorities to account, but can't just rely on journalists being able

:07:32. > :07:35.to do this because it difficult to see how they have the capacity to do

:07:36. > :07:43.so. I have to allow the public to do this for themselves. I don't see why

:07:44. > :07:50.anybody who shouldn't be able to have access to this information.

:07:51. > :07:52.They can practice the chances of somebody in Shipley just

:07:53. > :07:57.gratuitously showing an interest in the local authority in Christchurch

:07:58. > :07:59.is very remote. I don't really think that anybody is going to be

:08:00. > :08:05.inundated with that kind of scrutiny. But what may happen is

:08:06. > :08:10.that residents in Christchurch might want to know what is happening in

:08:11. > :08:13.Bournemouth just down the road and they should have absolutely the

:08:14. > :08:19.right to go and inspect what is going on and the council is behaving

:08:20. > :08:22.in the way it should, and I was rather shocked if I might say so to

:08:23. > :08:27.hear the allegations made by my honourable friend about the conflict

:08:28. > :08:30.of interest of the leader of Bournemouth Council without going

:08:31. > :08:36.into detail myself, it certainly didn't sound very good to me, and it

:08:37. > :08:39.is absolutely right that local residents in adjoining authorities

:08:40. > :08:43.are able to know what is going on. I genuinely don't see why my

:08:44. > :08:48.honourable friend the member for Aldridge Brown or the Minister would

:08:49. > :08:51.want to resist this greater transparency and scrutiny, it is

:08:52. > :08:56.surely that is the whole purpose of the Bill. My honourable friend is

:08:57. > :08:59.ticking the Bill to its logical conclusion. I'm pretty sure they

:09:00. > :09:08.don't do this now at some point will be another private Bill further down

:09:09. > :09:11.the road actually introducing the measures proposed today because

:09:12. > :09:18.there is a clear logic to what he is trying to achieve. And so I both

:09:19. > :09:23.believe in transparency. I think it is very difficult to argue against

:09:24. > :09:26.transparency. And so if we go down the road transparency have full

:09:27. > :09:32.transparency will stop it seems to me then nobody can claim they didn't

:09:33. > :09:40.have the opportunity to access any particular detailed information that

:09:41. > :09:44.they wanted to. I will give way. He makes the point about the shortage

:09:45. > :09:51.of local reporters and the pressures upon a local newspaper, does he

:09:52. > :09:57.recalled that it was only last month that the BBC said that it was

:09:58. > :10:01.setting aside ?8 billion a year to pay for 150 reporters to work for a

:10:02. > :10:04.local newspaper organisations across the country. Isn't that stark

:10:05. > :10:09.evidence of the plight of many of our local newspapers?

:10:10. > :10:16.My honourable friend is absolutely right and I do not want to get to

:10:17. > :10:22.structure at this moment, but I think it is fair to say that the BBC

:10:23. > :10:27.doesn't help in these matters because they pinch local content and

:10:28. > :10:30.show it on their website is free of charge and it makes it difficult for

:10:31. > :10:35.local newspapers to monetise their work and so this was in response to

:10:36. > :10:39.that and I hope it will help and I very much welcome what the BBC are

:10:40. > :10:42.saying about this, but whether or not it works in practice in the way

:10:43. > :10:47.that it is envisaged I don't know because what I see, Madam Deputy

:10:48. > :10:50.Speaker, and I do not know what is happening in Derbyshire or other

:10:51. > :10:54.parts of the country, but what I see is local paper still shedding staff

:10:55. > :10:59.rather than recruiting staff and I haven't noticed any difference since

:11:00. > :11:03.that announcement was made, but we will have to see what happens, but I

:11:04. > :11:09.don't think we can glide... I think the point my honourable friend makes

:11:10. > :11:18.is that we can't rely on local newspapers to be able to fill this

:11:19. > :11:22.particular void. So amendment two, I think my friend is onto something

:11:23. > :11:26.and I think this is the strongest of this group of amendments. Amendment

:11:27. > :11:31.three, I think that between my honourable friend for Bury North and

:11:32. > :11:36.my honourable for East Yorkshire rather torpedoed my honourable

:11:37. > :11:40.friend's amendment on including any politician or journalist and I got

:11:41. > :11:46.the sense from my honourable friend from Christchurch's remarks that he

:11:47. > :11:51.rather felt they had torpedoed his amendment with the definition of

:11:52. > :11:54.politician, which was quite clearly unsatisfactory, and as both my

:11:55. > :11:58.honourable friend and my Right Honourable friend said, doing good

:11:59. > :12:01.people who are elected and not exclude people who are standing for

:12:02. > :12:09.election would be unacceptable, really. I don't think everyone

:12:10. > :12:13.should be on a level playing field, really. And in many respects, I

:12:14. > :12:17.think the beam of my honourable friend from Christchurch's further

:12:18. > :12:21.amendment says that because amendment two is so good, he sought

:12:22. > :12:23.a rather exposes the weakness of his other amendments because really

:12:24. > :12:29.seems to me that he is trying to make the best of a bad job with

:12:30. > :12:32.other ones, working on the premise that if amendment two was not

:12:33. > :12:38.acceptable, let me see what else we can try to do to make the bill

:12:39. > :12:43.better. I think really he should be focusing his fire on amendment two

:12:44. > :12:52.and his other ones really don't really cut the mustard. Amendment

:12:53. > :12:57.four, though, he is onto something with his amendment four about where

:12:58. > :13:03.he wants to include nondomestic rate payers. And again, he is absolutely

:13:04. > :13:11.right about this. And yes, I suppose if he hadn't put down amendment

:13:12. > :13:14.number two, I would have supported amendment number four, but if we put

:13:15. > :13:18.through amendment number two, it seems to me that we don't really

:13:19. > :13:22.have to bother with amendment number four because he is rather weak and

:13:23. > :13:29.what he is trying to do with his lead amendment. Amendments five,

:13:30. > :13:33.six, and seven, again my honourable friend was again trying to make the

:13:34. > :13:37.best of a bad job with his accredited professional and

:13:38. > :13:42.qualified definitions of journalists. Again, I think my

:13:43. > :13:47.honourable friend from Bury North rather made the point that these

:13:48. > :13:51.were not really good enough and I accept that and I suspect my

:13:52. > :13:56.honourable friend from Christchurch is a rather unenthusiastic supporter

:13:57. > :14:04.of those three amendments that he tabled. I appreciate the point of

:14:05. > :14:07.them because they have brought in a debate on for us to consider whether

:14:08. > :14:10.or not there was any merit in them and I think we have generally

:14:11. > :14:13.concluded that there isn't, but I am grateful to him by putting them

:14:14. > :14:18.forward for us to have a look at them. And again, with amendment

:14:19. > :14:28.number eight, removing the definition of a journalist, from

:14:29. > :14:32.what I can see, then again that amendment has merit but I think

:14:33. > :14:36.amendment number two rather supersedes it. I just want to dodge

:14:37. > :14:41.on amendment number one from my honourable friend from Bury North

:14:42. > :14:46.because I thought that the amendment is a very interesting one and I was

:14:47. > :14:51.interested in his defence of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. He made some

:14:52. > :15:00.very good points and I sort of moved from being between supporting it and

:15:01. > :15:05.opposing it and supporting it again as he was making his remarks and he

:15:06. > :15:12.certainly made a very good defence of his amendment. And I certainly

:15:13. > :15:17.agree with the thrust of what he is trying to achieve because what my

:15:18. > :15:20.honourable friend is clearly trying to achieve is to extend the

:15:21. > :15:26.definition of journalists to try to get as many people involved as

:15:27. > :15:29.possible and I think that is really what is the common theme of what we

:15:30. > :15:32.are all trying to achieve, those of us who have spoken so far, that we

:15:33. > :15:36.are all trying to get as many people as possible to have access to this

:15:37. > :15:40.information. That is really the common theme in this. The question

:15:41. > :15:45.is how do we best achieve that, and I thought my honourable friend's in

:15:46. > :15:51.men -- amendment was rather imaginative to try doing good

:15:52. > :15:55.virtually everybody in this. In some respects, it makes everybody a

:15:56. > :16:00.journalist in some regards if we are including Twitter and Facebook. I am

:16:01. > :16:06.not entirely sure of the numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker, of people who

:16:07. > :16:11.are not on Twitter or Facebook. They are the sensible ones, it seems to

:16:12. > :16:16.me. But I don't think there are that many. I am not on Facebook but I am

:16:17. > :16:21.on Twitter and I probably regarded as one of the worst things I ever

:16:22. > :16:25.did in my life, going on Twitter. I have about 16,000 followers, all of

:16:26. > :16:31.whom hate me. And it is all very interesting what they have to say.

:16:32. > :16:34.It seems to me rather pointless, to be perfectly honest. They can hurl

:16:35. > :16:41.as much abuse as they like. It doesn't bother me. I'm not entirely

:16:42. > :16:44.sure it gets us anywhere. But my honourable friend wants to sort of

:16:45. > :16:50.include these in his definition of a journalist and as somebody who

:16:51. > :16:59.always wanted to be a journalist and actually did the NCTJ course to be a

:17:00. > :17:10.qualified journalist, I am not entirely convinced that any of ours

:17:11. > :17:13.on that course had any one on Twitter being able to describe

:17:14. > :17:16.themselves as a journalist, but still that is the age we are in, it

:17:17. > :17:19.seems to be, so I think there is a lot of merit in what he is saying

:17:20. > :17:23.and it would be in many respects in this day and age bizarre to exclude

:17:24. > :17:30.those people who are in effect published materials in those ways.

:17:31. > :17:36.That is the way of the world and we have to accept that, whether we like

:17:37. > :17:40.it or not. It seems to me he is working in the spirit of the bill,

:17:41. > :17:51.as I think he made clear during his remarks and I was reading the bill

:17:52. > :17:57.as he was speaking and in the bill it actually says that journalist

:17:58. > :18:00.means any person who produces for publication journalistic material,

:18:01. > :18:07.whether paid to do so or otherwise, and actually in the explanatory

:18:08. > :18:10.notes it actually says that it will include journalists including

:18:11. > :18:13.Citizen journalists, that is bloggers and others who scrutinise

:18:14. > :18:18.local authorities but you may not be accredited members of the press to

:18:19. > :18:21.enable them to access a wider range of material in order to report and

:18:22. > :18:26.publish on their findings, so that it is available to local voters in

:18:27. > :18:29.an area, thus provided with information that will enable them to

:18:30. > :18:33.better hold their local authority to account. So it seems to me in many

:18:34. > :18:36.respects that what the bill is seeking to do is really what my

:18:37. > :18:43.honourable friend's amendment states. And so I can't work out and

:18:44. > :18:50.I look forward to what the Minister and might honourable friend has to

:18:51. > :18:55.say in response because I can't work out whether or not there is no

:18:56. > :18:58.reason at all for my honourable friend not to accept it because it

:18:59. > :19:02.seems to be the thrust of what she is trying to achieve or whether

:19:03. > :19:05.there is no point to my honourable friend's amendment because it is

:19:06. > :19:09.already going to be covered by the bill. I can't really work out which

:19:10. > :19:14.of those two it is. It may well be an element of both. But I think what

:19:15. > :19:20.my honourable friend for Bury North is trying to achieve in his

:19:21. > :19:26.amendment is to actually make it clear what it is involved. It may be

:19:27. > :19:29.that these people are already involved but he is seeking to make

:19:30. > :19:32.it clear on the face of the bill, and if that is what is happening I

:19:33. > :19:35.don't see why anyone would want to oppose it because of all he is doing

:19:36. > :19:39.is actually clarifying what is intended anyway, it seems to me that

:19:40. > :19:42.we are all in agreement, so I look forward to what my honourable friend

:19:43. > :19:49.and be ministered as to say as to whether or not my honourable friend

:19:50. > :19:53.for Bury and North is agreeing with what the bill is doing anyway. In

:19:54. > :19:58.terms of the other amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, again I think my

:19:59. > :20:04.honourable friend for Christchurch meets a very good case for all of

:20:05. > :20:09.his amendments, but I just want to touch on amendment number ten as

:20:10. > :20:13.well. I think my honourable friend for Bury North said it was the most

:20:14. > :20:16.controversial one and I think my honourable friend for Christchurch

:20:17. > :20:21.said it was the most radical one and I think I would rather describe it

:20:22. > :20:25.as being radical rather than controversial because I am not

:20:26. > :20:33.entirely sure why it would be controversial, but I do accept that

:20:34. > :20:47.it is radical and this includes the health service bodies. And again, I

:20:48. > :20:50.would be very and very interested to know what the argument is against

:20:51. > :20:53.what my honourable friend is doing as to why there shouldn't be the

:20:54. > :20:59.full scrutiny of their accounts, why we would not just focus on local

:21:00. > :21:07.councils and why other local health authorities should not be subject to

:21:08. > :21:11.the same rigours. Surely nobody can be suggesting that it is absolutely

:21:12. > :21:17.terrible for a local authority to be wasting money or misappropriating

:21:18. > :21:21.money but it is absolutely fine for a local health authority to do so,

:21:22. > :21:25.so surely nobody can be making that point, so if we want to be sure in

:21:26. > :21:27.this way that local authorities are not doing things that they shouldn't

:21:28. > :21:31.and that there is full accountability for the people but

:21:32. > :21:35.they are supposed to seven for people who may take an interest in

:21:36. > :21:39.what they are doing, surely the same balls must apply to local health

:21:40. > :21:43.authorities. I can see why anybody would argue against that. -- the

:21:44. > :21:47.same rules must apply. I will be interested to hear what the Minister

:21:48. > :21:52.has to say as to why they think that one is more important than the

:21:53. > :21:55.other. In fact, in many respects you could argue that from the public's

:21:56. > :22:01.perspective, they might have more concern for what is happening in the

:22:02. > :22:04.local health authority in their area rather than what is happening in the

:22:05. > :22:09.local authority, because it may well be more important to their day to

:22:10. > :22:12.day life, so again I think my honourable friend's amendment is

:22:13. > :22:17.certainly radical but I don't really see why it should be controversial

:22:18. > :22:21.and again many people would be astonished that it is not actually

:22:22. > :22:29.already included, to be perfectly honest. And I praise my honourable

:22:30. > :22:31.friend for Christchurch. He is absolutely forensic when

:22:32. > :22:38.scrutinising legislation and this house will be much poorer without

:22:39. > :22:42.doing so. And it goes to show, if I might say so, white bills should not

:22:43. > :22:45.go through displays on the nod and why we should actually have some

:22:46. > :22:48.proper scrutiny because there are some things that come up in the

:22:49. > :22:53.course of that scrutiny that people had not considered a note don't

:22:54. > :22:58.blame my honourable friend. That is why we have a debate and why we have

:22:59. > :23:00.amendments because the wisdom of 650 is quite clearly better than the

:23:01. > :23:04.wisdom of just one and other people think of things that we would never

:23:05. > :23:06.have thought of ourselves and my honourable friend for Christchurch

:23:07. > :23:10.does that on a regular basis and I commend him for doing so so in

:23:11. > :23:14.summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that my honourable friend for

:23:15. > :23:17.Christchurch and my honourable friend for Bury North have done the

:23:18. > :23:20.house a great service and actually seeking to improve this bill and

:23:21. > :23:24.anybody can see that they are not trying to ruin the bill, they are

:23:25. > :23:28.trying to make the bill a better deal. It is a good bill so far, but

:23:29. > :23:37.it certainly will be improved by these amendments and so my final

:23:38. > :23:43.analysis is that if my honourable friend 's art to push any of their

:23:44. > :23:47.amendments and obviously with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I

:23:48. > :23:51.think that amendments two is one that they absolutely should seek to

:23:52. > :23:55.push but also amendment number ten. They are the two that I think are

:23:56. > :23:59.the most powerful ones in this group of amendments and I think that both

:24:00. > :24:04.of those amendments would turn this bill from being an improvement into

:24:05. > :24:07.actually something very, very good. For the public, which will actually

:24:08. > :24:13.stand the test of time for many, many years to come. And so I wish

:24:14. > :24:24.the bill well but I hope that it will pass with those amendments

:24:25. > :24:27.added to it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the

:24:28. > :24:31.honourable member for all the rich brown hills for bringing the bill,

:24:32. > :24:35.as someone who has brought a Private member's bill to the house, I know

:24:36. > :24:40.the hard work that goes into it and the honourable lady's bill has got

:24:41. > :24:44.far further than my build it and I wish every success in taking it

:24:45. > :24:50.further. I don't intend to speak for too long on the amendments before is

:24:51. > :24:53.here. This is a bill which makes a relatively small change to existing

:24:54. > :24:56.legislation, but it is a small change that would increase

:24:57. > :25:01.transparency and improve openness and I think I hope it would increase

:25:02. > :25:05.public engagement in decision-making.

:25:06. > :25:12.There are 14 amendments before us. In the names of the honourable

:25:13. > :25:16.member per Christchurch and Bury North. I will briefly talk about

:25:17. > :25:20.them. Amendment two would extend the provision in the Bill to provide for

:25:21. > :25:26.public access to local audit documents. The register to vote in

:25:27. > :25:29.local elections in the UK. We would support measures to extend

:25:30. > :25:33.transparency and openness and this amendment would undoubtedly help to

:25:34. > :25:39.achieve that. Amendments three and four adjust the Bill to include

:25:40. > :25:43.politicians and ratepayers of business to enable them to

:25:44. > :25:46.scrutinise local audit ducklings. As with amendment two which would

:25:47. > :25:50.largely cover these we support amendments which would extend

:25:51. > :25:55.transparency and openness. Amendments five, six and seven

:25:56. > :25:59.adjust the title of journalists to to be accredited, professional or

:26:00. > :26:03.qualified. Amendment eight removes the definition of a journalist. I

:26:04. > :26:07.believe the honourable member has tabled these to ensure the issues

:26:08. > :26:11.around defining a journalist are debated today but I'm hesitant. It

:26:12. > :26:16.seeks to extend the ability to fuse these documents and ensure that we

:26:17. > :26:19.wouldn't want to ensure that no journalist is unable to scrutinise

:26:20. > :26:25.it admits. And one provides clarity to be legislation to ensure that the

:26:26. > :26:29.section covered all journalists from the humble local blogger to our own

:26:30. > :26:33.house Gallery in Parliament. Regardless of whether payment or

:26:34. > :26:35.subscription is needed. If the House which is to make these provisions

:26:36. > :26:39.applicable per just journalists we would have no objections to this

:26:40. > :26:42.becoming part of the Bill. Amendment nine extends the assurance that

:26:43. > :26:47.anyone able to view the documents can do so at all reasonable times

:26:48. > :26:50.and without payment. So long as the Minister can assure that this

:26:51. > :26:54.amendment would not impose a burden on local authorities we would

:26:55. > :26:58.welcome this amendment. Amendments ten and 11 extend these provisions

:26:59. > :27:01.to help service bodies and allows for inspections to be carried out

:27:02. > :27:07.beyond 30 days which we would support. Amendment 13 would allow

:27:08. > :27:10.the previous contracts to be inspected, which is welcome and the

:27:11. > :27:13.scrutiny of those powers contracts will no doubt ensure that future

:27:14. > :27:18.contracts are done in a way which secures the best possible service

:27:19. > :27:22.and value for money. Amendment 12 would remove the restriction on

:27:23. > :27:26.inspecting parts of the accounts with regard to commercial

:27:27. > :27:31.confidentiality, but would retain the restriction on copying.

:27:32. > :27:33.Amendment 14 would remove the definition in the act of when

:27:34. > :27:38.information is protected on the grounds of commercial

:27:39. > :27:41.confidentiality. But I would be hesitant to move these protections

:27:42. > :27:45.without further detail and consultation with local authorities.

:27:46. > :27:47.What I do look forward to hearing the Minister and other honourable

:27:48. > :27:59.members' responses to these amendments. Andrew Percy. Thank you,

:28:00. > :28:02.Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of

:28:03. > :28:06.the Government on this Bill. In place of I am afraid to say my

:28:07. > :28:12.honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Rhino would be

:28:13. > :28:18.delighted to be here were he not otherwise engaged. I too would be

:28:19. > :28:22.delighted if he were here today. LAUGHTER

:28:23. > :28:27.Knowing as I do of his passion for this particular piece of

:28:28. > :28:32.legislation. I also welcome, I will of course give way to my fellow East

:28:33. > :28:37.Yorkshire colleague. I am grateful, as he information to relate to the

:28:38. > :28:44.House as to why not one single Liberal Democrat is here? I am

:28:45. > :28:50.afraid sadly not, other than the information that the public seem to

:28:51. > :28:54.diminish their numbers somewhat at the last General Election proving

:28:55. > :28:59.once again that the public are very sensible individuals on the whole.

:29:00. > :29:03.But do welcome the opportunity to briefly on the amendments put

:29:04. > :29:07.forward by my honourable friend is the member for Bury North and the

:29:08. > :29:10.member for Christchurch and the important points made thus far in

:29:11. > :29:14.the day's debate. I did have the privilege also of stepping into the

:29:15. > :29:22.local government minister during the Committee Stage of this legislation

:29:23. > :29:27.and of this Bill, sorry, and did offer government support for the

:29:28. > :29:31.principles behind it which I do think are important ones. Whilst the

:29:32. > :29:35.amendments I know have been made with the best of intentions and my

:29:36. > :29:39.honourable friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills will deal with

:29:40. > :29:43.them in more detail, I understand, as the promoter of this Bill, but I

:29:44. > :29:47.do want to set up the Government's view as to why we don't think

:29:48. > :29:55.agreeing to them would be a good idea. The virtue of this Bill is its

:29:56. > :30:01.simplicity. By seeking to clarify what is meant in the legislation as

:30:02. > :30:05.to where material may be published, the honourable member for Bury North

:30:06. > :30:08.with amendment one may unintentionally, and it is

:30:09. > :30:13.unintentionally from the speech, have narrowed the places where such

:30:14. > :30:19.articles may be published. Sometimes a less precise phrase in law permits

:30:20. > :30:24.a helpfully wider interpretation and I believe that this is the case

:30:25. > :30:30.here. I would be delighted to give way. I have no doubt that a similar

:30:31. > :30:35.argument would have been advanced when the original Bill was going

:30:36. > :30:41.through this House that led to the 1998 that then led to the court case

:30:42. > :30:45.that this present Bill arises out of, so actually I think there is a

:30:46. > :30:47.strong argument for trying to be as clear as possible on the face of the

:30:48. > :30:57.Bill about what is actually intended. I don't agree. I do think

:30:58. > :31:03.particularly with regards to his reference to the internet of the

:31:04. > :31:10.websites, the nature of the proposed amendment could unintentionally be

:31:11. > :31:17.too unhelpfully narrowed the interpretation. You may be

:31:18. > :31:21.interested to know that both the concept of journalistic material and

:31:22. > :31:28.publication already appear in legislation many times, although to

:31:29. > :31:32.my mind in particular it is a simple plain English definition needing no

:31:33. > :31:39.further clarification. For example, journalistic material appears in

:31:40. > :31:43.section 264, two, of the investigatory Powers act 2016 as

:31:44. > :31:50.well as in section 13 of the criminal evidence act from 1984 and

:31:51. > :31:55.publication has similar antecedents. However I think it is fair to say

:31:56. > :31:58.that everybody who will seek to use this Bill will necessarily be

:31:59. > :32:03.familiar with the concepts of interpretation of these terms as

:32:04. > :32:06.they are used here and I have heard what my honourable friends have said

:32:07. > :32:11.on the subject and they will therefore committed to ensuring that

:32:12. > :32:16.any accompanying explanatory notes are amended if this Bill passes to

:32:17. > :32:20.the other place to clarify these points. My honourable friend the

:32:21. > :32:25.member for Bury North also made references with regards to

:32:26. > :32:30.journalists versus Citizen journalists and I can obviously say

:32:31. > :32:33.to him, the definition of a journalist does include citizen

:32:34. > :32:39.journalism and that is why a separate definition has not been

:32:40. > :32:46.required. I know the honourable lady for Aldridge-Brownhills keen to get

:32:47. > :32:49.to her feet and respond in detail to the amendments of my honourable

:32:50. > :32:53.friend for Christchurch, so in the interest of brevity I want to

:32:54. > :32:58.concentrate on two issues he has raised. Actually maybe three, on

:32:59. > :33:03.reflection. In particular the honourable member for Christchurch

:33:04. > :33:06.amendment number two would be likely to impose a new burden on local

:33:07. > :33:09.authorities. Could we have been asked them to make the records

:33:10. > :33:12.available to everyone which is something that they have not

:33:13. > :33:18.previously been required to do as part of the 2014 legislation. This

:33:19. > :33:23.would therefore need to be funded by government whereas what we are

:33:24. > :33:26.seeking to do is extend the existing right to a defined group of people,

:33:27. > :33:32.which would not be considered in the same light. In reference to

:33:33. > :33:37.amendment ten on health bodies I heard what he had to say and I can

:33:38. > :33:41.speak obviously on behalf of of the departments, but as a member of

:33:42. > :33:45.Parliament we are all concerned with transparency of course within the

:33:46. > :33:52.health system as well. Wally would just say is that the State intention

:33:53. > :33:55.of the original 2014, the consultation response on that

:33:56. > :33:58.legislation did not include health bodies and it would therefore be

:33:59. > :34:02.wrong to include those and bring those within the scope of this Bill

:34:03. > :34:09.today. I will give way. My honourable friend was pretty

:34:10. > :34:13.succinct in projecting amendment two. Has he got any evidence as to

:34:14. > :34:19.how much he thinks it would cost local authorities if amendment two

:34:20. > :34:23.became part of the law and would he seek to make a comparison between

:34:24. > :34:29.that cost and the payoff for the Chief Executive of Bournemouth?

:34:30. > :34:32.After Mike -- LAUGHTER .

:34:33. > :34:34.I listened with interest to the comments as regards to the Chief

:34:35. > :34:42.Executive of Bournemouth and perhaps the debate of officials I will not

:34:43. > :34:47.say anything with regards to that particular decision particularly in

:34:48. > :34:55.light of other issues affecting potential reorganisation at this

:34:56. > :34:59.moment in time. Needless to say, extending this right more generally

:35:00. > :35:03.to any electorate across the United Kingdom could have a substantial

:35:04. > :35:05.impact and it is likely the local authorities bodies would ask for

:35:06. > :35:09.additional resources for that. I can't give the figure on that. I

:35:10. > :35:16.want to be honest with him from the dispatch box. But there is no doubt

:35:17. > :35:20.it is extending the right in such a way would come with additional

:35:21. > :35:27.burdens. In addition and further to the comments made by my honourable

:35:28. > :35:32.friend for Christchurch on amendments 12-14, paragraph 31 and

:35:33. > :35:36.32 of the local authority transparency code do of course

:35:37. > :35:40.already require councils to publish quarterly spending and procurement

:35:41. > :35:48.information. There was reference made to tender documents and that is

:35:49. > :35:53.that code, it of course requires the details of every invitation to

:35:54. > :35:57.tender for contracts to provide goods and services of the value that

:35:58. > :36:02.exceeds ?5,000 to be published as well as any details for any

:36:03. > :36:05.contract, commission activity, purchase order, framework agreement

:36:06. > :36:09.and any other legally enforceable in agreement that has a value of over

:36:10. > :36:17.?5,000. That is available for anybody. Furthermore, last May the

:36:18. > :36:21.Government consulted on updating but cold to provide the opportunity for

:36:22. > :36:24.greater Townhall transparency and that is something we all want to see

:36:25. > :36:29.I think across the House and certainly on the side of the House,

:36:30. > :36:34.that greater transparency. We want to see enhanced scrutiny of the use

:36:35. > :36:40.of public assets and resources including through better comparison

:36:41. > :36:43.of data. In respect of contractual information, the consultation on

:36:44. > :36:48.proposed to standardise this data and make comparisons easier through

:36:49. > :36:51.publication to a central source of course is important. We hope to be

:36:52. > :36:57.publishing our response to that consultation shortly and I hope that

:36:58. > :37:02.will about some of the concerns my honourable friend for Christchurch

:37:03. > :37:05.as in regards of local transparency. I want to just deal very quickly

:37:06. > :37:10.with an intervention from a honourable friend the member for

:37:11. > :37:15.Gainsborough who was not in this place now, he is on his way back to

:37:16. > :37:16.his constituency, in which he referenced local government

:37:17. > :37:22.reorganisation in Lincolnshire and stated that one council was trying

:37:23. > :37:27.to dig over another. I want to make it clear for the record that water

:37:28. > :37:32.can sure council is not propose to take over any other neighbouring

:37:33. > :37:35.authority. The Department -- Lincolnshire Council. It has

:37:36. > :37:42.received no proposals of that nature and all there is is a cross

:37:43. > :37:46.Lincolnshire in the broadest sense including the county and unitary

:37:47. > :37:51.areas, a conversation going on between all council leaders as to

:37:52. > :37:56.the future. I figured it is important to clarify that as it was

:37:57. > :38:02.raised in response to this debate. I'm hoping that both my honourable

:38:03. > :38:05.friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills will address

:38:06. > :38:10.some of these amendments herself in a moment and I am confident that the

:38:11. > :38:19.honourable members for Bury North and Christchurch will respond to

:38:20. > :38:23.those in their usual way, with reasonableness and understanding

:38:24. > :38:27.that I think that what is, which I think I got from there speeches,

:38:28. > :38:31.what is behind this Bill is a good thing, to extend a right to

:38:32. > :38:34.increased transparency. And that is why I would urge them to withdraw

:38:35. > :38:43.their amendments and enabled this Bill to pass to the other place. And

:38:44. > :38:46.on that basis, I look forward to this will's further progress.

:38:47. > :38:59.Learning. -- built. Thank you. I am very pleased to be

:39:00. > :39:06.able to speak again on my Private members Bill, local or that public

:39:07. > :39:09.access to documents Bill and as honourable friend have already

:39:10. > :39:13.explained today, there were no amendments being committed on the

:39:14. > :39:18.7th of February and the passage of my Bill was quite swift through

:39:19. > :39:23.Committee. And so the Bill was reported to the House unamended.

:39:24. > :39:27.However my honourable friend for Bury North and my honourable friend

:39:28. > :39:31.for Christchurch's proposed amendments proposed amendments, they

:39:32. > :39:34.are late entries to the debate but I have been very keen to listen to

:39:35. > :39:41.those amendments and to listen to the arguments and I think they have

:39:42. > :39:48.provided us with some additional scrutiny and some additional debate

:39:49. > :39:52.here in the chamber this morning. I have to say, when I looked at the

:39:53. > :39:55.number of amendments I think there was 13 or 14 and having already

:39:56. > :40:01.brought a Private members Bill to the House last year I was quite

:40:02. > :40:04.surprised by the number of amendments and they did wonder

:40:05. > :40:07.whether that was a record in terms of a Private members Bill. I was

:40:08. > :40:12.assured by the honourable member for Christchurch that was not the case.

:40:13. > :40:17.I accept as a new member I have probably still got a lot to learn

:40:18. > :40:20.here in the chamber. However I am none the less grateful to them for

:40:21. > :40:25.those amendments and for their contributions.

:40:26. > :40:31.As my honourable friend the member for Bury North sorts of simply put

:40:32. > :40:38.it, they were succinct contributions this morning. However, having

:40:39. > :40:42.listened to them and I have listened to them carefully and I considered

:40:43. > :40:46.them when I saw them tables, I am not convinced, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:40:47. > :40:52.that they are helpful changes to what I believe at heart is a very

:40:53. > :40:59.simple bill. It has one purpose alone. And that is to extend the

:41:00. > :41:02.definition of interested person to include journalists, which includes

:41:03. > :41:07.citizen journalists, so that they may have access to a wider range of

:41:08. > :41:12.local audit documents to assist with their investigations and publicise

:41:13. > :41:16.their findings so that local electors and -- are made more aware

:41:17. > :41:20.and are better able to hold their council to account for their actions

:41:21. > :41:26.to questioning the auditor or making an objection. We have said much

:41:27. > :41:32.about openness and transparency, and I think this bill will make a

:41:33. > :41:38.valuable contribution in doing that. But let me respond, Madam Deputy

:41:39. > :41:41.Speaker, first of all to amendment two, and hopefully I can add my

:41:42. > :41:46.thoughts to those that were aired a few minutes ago by the Minister.

:41:47. > :41:52.Amendment two, Madam Deputy Speaker, was tabled by my honourable friend

:41:53. > :41:56.the member for Christchurch and seeks to expand inspection rights

:41:57. > :42:00.under 26 to all UK registered local electors. This would essentially

:42:01. > :42:04.give the public at large the right to inspect accounting documents of

:42:05. > :42:09.any local authority in England. The local audit framework already

:42:10. > :42:14.introduces migratory transparency codes for the very smallest and the

:42:15. > :42:19.largest public bodies which requires the electronic publication of key

:42:20. > :42:24.financial and other data, available for all to view free of charge. And

:42:25. > :42:29.whilst ministers clearly flagged their intention to extend this

:42:30. > :42:31.specific inspection from accounting information to journalists in order

:42:32. > :42:36.to insist them in their investigations to extend these

:42:37. > :42:39.rights to everyone with vastly expand the potential for mischief

:42:40. > :42:45.making without any wider public benefit. Madam Deputy Speaker, in

:42:46. > :42:50.addition to this, to permit anyone to inspect this wider range of

:42:51. > :42:53.accounting information would, I fear, potentially results in a

:42:54. > :42:59.greater cost burden on local authorities, as they might well in

:43:00. > :43:03.order to prevent numerous requests to inspect decide to scan and pulled

:43:04. > :43:07.a large amount of information every year with the unintended consequence

:43:08. > :43:13.of making it harder for the man in the street to find useful, basic

:43:14. > :43:18.data. This would also be a burden on local authorities, it which I have

:43:19. > :43:22.been very mindful of in bringing forward this bill and making sure

:43:23. > :43:26.that we do get the right balance. Turning now to amendments three and

:43:27. > :43:33.four, they seek also to amend the persons who at the right to expect

:43:34. > :43:37.-- inspect the accounting documents of all to a lesser degree. I do not

:43:38. > :43:41.consider that these amendments to the bill are desirable. For

:43:42. > :43:45.instance, the term politician is a loosely defined term that could

:43:46. > :43:50.potentially open inspection rights to people outside the UK. I am

:43:51. > :43:54.afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have visions of the president of the

:43:55. > :44:03.United States asking to see the accounts of maybe my old local

:44:04. > :44:06.authority, Walsall, or Christchurch. Plus, Madam Deputy Speaker, unlike

:44:07. > :44:09.journalists, whose role is to disseminate information more

:44:10. > :44:14.publicly, this would not necessarily be part of a politician's remit,

:44:15. > :44:16.unless it was in their interest, and removing the definition of

:44:17. > :44:21.journalist from the bill would undermine its whole purpose in

:44:22. > :44:24.relation to citizen journalists, specifically in relation to

:44:25. > :44:27.amendment four. The courts have already clarified that a

:44:28. > :44:34.non-domestic rate payer would be considered a person interested and

:44:35. > :44:40.so this amendment is unnecessary. Broadly speaking, Madam Deputy

:44:41. > :44:43.Speaker, amendments five through 28, also tabled by my honourable friend

:44:44. > :44:48.the member for Christchurch, seek to refine the definition of journalists

:44:49. > :44:52.and remove the rights of citizen journalists and bloggers for

:44:53. > :44:56.inclusion in the bill. And although I recognise that there is

:44:57. > :45:02.amendments, my honourable friend is trying to defend the ideal of the

:45:03. > :45:06.fourth estate, that is that the press is defined by Scottish

:45:07. > :45:09.philosopher Edmund Burke in the 18th-century. I do feel that he

:45:10. > :45:13.needs to recognise that there is now a fifth estate of networked

:45:14. > :45:17.individuals with the ability to share information, to create

:45:18. > :45:21.communities and to organise social movements online. It is not possible

:45:22. > :45:26.to turn back the clock. We need to accept that many people today get

:45:27. > :45:31.their information from nontraditional sources, which is

:45:32. > :45:37.precisely why the bill includes the concept of a citizen journalist. The

:45:38. > :45:39.use of this term also includes bloggers and others who scrutinise

:45:40. > :45:43.local authorities, but you may not be accredited members of the press,

:45:44. > :45:46.and we have had debate in the chamber this morning about this.

:45:47. > :45:51.However, this doesn't mean that it would cover anyone with social media

:45:52. > :45:56.access. By referring to journalistic material in the bill, the focus is

:45:57. > :46:00.on what the person does and would suggest that such a person would be

:46:01. > :46:04.able to provide details of other blogs or tweets that they had

:46:05. > :46:09.offered and the forums in which they had been published in order to gain

:46:10. > :46:14.the ability to inspect the accounting documents requested. In

:46:15. > :46:19.addition to that, use of the term publication implies a public

:46:20. > :46:25.element, so whilst it might include journalistic material tweeted on

:46:26. > :46:30.Twitter, it may not include material circulated to a small, invite only

:46:31. > :46:35.Facebook group. Will my honourable friend give way? I am grateful to my

:46:36. > :46:38.honourable friend for giving way because I perhaps should have

:46:39. > :46:44.covered this in my earlier comments. I apologise to the house that I

:46:45. > :46:51.didn't. But I do think that one shouldn't just solely go by that

:46:52. > :46:58.parameter because what if a local Facebook group has got 5000 locally

:46:59. > :47:05.interested residents on it. Surely that is publication to interested

:47:06. > :47:10.people and that is just as valid as publishing in a newspaper that no

:47:11. > :47:15.one reads? Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend for his

:47:16. > :47:19.intervention. He makes a fair point, but what I am driving at here is the

:47:20. > :47:25.difference between a small, invite only Facebook group, which the bill

:47:26. > :47:31.won't cover, compared with a broader Facebook group, and open Facebook

:47:32. > :47:35.group, because of this bill is about transparency and openness, that is

:47:36. > :47:41.what this is about, not about invite only groups. It is also unlikely to

:47:42. > :47:45.include material sent as a direct message on either Twitter, Facebook

:47:46. > :47:50.or e-mail. So as an example, it might be expected to includes a

:47:51. > :47:56.bloggers such as Eve Fox, one of the bloggers that most others in this

:47:57. > :48:02.chamber I think know what, but not a campaign group like 38 Degrees. I

:48:03. > :48:06.now like to turn to amendment number one from my honourable friend for

:48:07. > :48:10.Bury North because this covers this point as well. I believe its aim is

:48:11. > :48:14.to clarify that the bill would cover all journalists who may wish to

:48:15. > :48:17.publish their articles in a newspaper or on the internet,

:48:18. > :48:21.irrespective of whether there are charges. And I would like to

:48:22. > :48:25.reassure my honourable friend that the bill, as drafted, would cover

:48:26. > :48:29.the inclusion of an article in a newspaper, magazine, or on the

:48:30. > :48:33.internet, either on a website or in a blog, whether paid for free. The

:48:34. > :48:39.use of the words journalistic material and for publication. In

:48:40. > :48:45.point of fact, by specifying were such material or articles are

:48:46. > :48:49.published, he may in fact be limiting the potential for where

:48:50. > :48:53.they are placed, as a blog or a tweet may not be part of a specific

:48:54. > :48:56.website. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is important because it is

:48:57. > :49:00.necessary to keep up with the times and use terminology that would

:49:01. > :49:05.incorporate the many and varied realms of the internet such as

:49:06. > :49:08.twitter and the blogosphere in its provisions. And for those who may be

:49:09. > :49:12.concerned that this may mean that anyone could say that they blog or

:49:13. > :49:17.tweets, the onus would be on them to show that their work has been made

:49:18. > :49:21.available in a sufficiently public forum in order to prove their

:49:22. > :49:26.credentials as a citizen journalist before access is given. Will my

:49:27. > :49:31.honourable friend give way? My honourable friend as referred to a

:49:32. > :49:39.sufficiently public forum. How many members of the public would be

:49:40. > :49:43.required to make that criteria? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

:49:44. > :49:50.What I am trying to set out here is the difference between information

:49:51. > :49:55.that is going on to a private forum and actually such as when I am

:49:56. > :50:02.referring to open Facebook sites and direct e-mails and compared with the

:50:03. > :50:05.more open social media that citizen bloggers would be proving that they

:50:06. > :50:11.are on because at the heart of this bill it is about giving citizen

:50:12. > :50:13.bloggers access to local Government accounts so that they can put

:50:14. > :50:24.information into the public domain so that the electors can do further

:50:25. > :50:28.scrutiny if they so wish. Will she give way? I am just a bit concerned

:50:29. > :50:31.that we may end up getting ourselves into a model because of course most

:50:32. > :50:40.journalistic publications are in effect private subscription, the

:50:41. > :50:43.Spectator, for example, you had to subscribe privately in order to get

:50:44. > :50:48.that information. It is not in that sense public so I am not entirely

:50:49. > :50:51.sure why we are distinction between a magazine publication which is a

:50:52. > :50:56.private subscription magazine, which would still be covered, it seems to

:50:57. > :51:02.me by the bill, but is all the private publications which he is

:51:03. > :51:08.seeking to exclude from the bill. Thank you. I think there are many

:51:09. > :51:12.sites out there that do not require its inscription and what I am

:51:13. > :51:19.endeavouring to do here is to explain the difference and about the

:51:20. > :51:22.need to ensure that the citizen blogger is that person who is

:51:23. > :51:31.getting the information for the greater use of the public rather

:51:32. > :51:35.than just for a private, social media group or for direct twitter.

:51:36. > :51:43.But I would now, Madam Deputy Speaker, like to move on and speak

:51:44. > :51:48.to a member -- amendments nine, ten and 11. In relation to amendment

:51:49. > :51:51.nine, I recognise that my honourable friend is seeking to achieve

:51:52. > :51:59.comparability with the rights held by electors under section 25. Whilst

:52:00. > :52:02.it is not explicitly included in section 26, because this is the

:52:03. > :52:07.right enshrined in law, my view is that the council would be on very

:52:08. > :52:10.questionable grounds if they tried to charge an interested person to

:52:11. > :52:15.inspect their accounting records as they would be in effect bettering

:52:16. > :52:19.that right. Furthermore, there are existing powers in the local

:52:20. > :52:26.Government act 2003 for an authority to charge for discretionary

:52:27. > :52:33.services, that is services that are not under a duty to provide. In

:52:34. > :52:35.facilitating an interested person's right to inspect documents, and

:52:36. > :52:41.authority would surely not be able to charge, as that person has a

:52:42. > :52:47.right to inspect. In addition, whilst section 26 also gives the

:52:48. > :52:50.right to interested persons to make copies, there is no equivalent

:52:51. > :52:55.provision requiring an authority to provide copies to them. This would

:52:56. > :52:59.be a discretionary service and saw the authority could be relying on

:53:00. > :53:06.its powers in the local Government act 2003 to charge for providing

:53:07. > :53:11.copies. In relation to amendment ten, Madam Deputy Speaker, sections

:53:12. > :53:16.25 and 26 of the 2014 act exclude health bodies because the inspection

:53:17. > :53:20.rights in relation to their accounts do not apply. Health bodies differ

:53:21. > :53:24.in several key respects to other relevant authorities covered by the

:53:25. > :53:30.2014 act. Not least of which is in the treatment of their accounts.

:53:31. > :53:35.Which include separate monitoring arrangements through the NHS and the

:53:36. > :53:38.Department of help. In addition to that, the Government's initial

:53:39. > :53:43.stated intent to act in this respect, in its 2014 response to

:53:44. > :53:49.consultation, did not include health bodies. It would therefore be wrong

:53:50. > :53:54.to extend these rights. So I hope that provides my Right Honourable

:53:55. > :53:59.friend with some reassurance in relation to amendment ten. Turning

:54:00. > :54:02.now to amendment 11, which as I understand it seeks to extend the

:54:03. > :54:07.right to inspect accounting documents beyond the current

:54:08. > :54:11.accounting year, the primary purpose of these particular right at present

:54:12. > :54:15.is to enable the interested persons which would including local

:54:16. > :54:18.Government Elector to inspect these additional documents, so that they

:54:19. > :54:22.have all the information they might need in order to question the

:54:23. > :54:27.auditor and potentially make an objection within the dirty working

:54:28. > :54:32.day periods, whilst the accounts for that you are still open. -- 30

:54:33. > :54:36.working day period. Whilst the accounts have been signed off, this

:54:37. > :54:39.right lapses because the auditor is unable to act and investigate the

:54:40. > :54:43.question raised or objection raised. Therefore being able to inspect past

:54:44. > :54:48.year 's accounting information becomes an academic exercise. I

:54:49. > :54:51.would also like to point out that the 30 day period is actually

:54:52. > :54:55.provided for in secondary legislation, which I believe makes

:54:56. > :54:57.this amendment inappropriate, but I do hope again I have been able to go

:54:58. > :55:08.some way in clarifying that. With regard to amendments 12, 13 and

:55:09. > :55:11.14, also tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch,

:55:12. > :55:14.I consider these amendments go beyond what my bill is trying to

:55:15. > :55:19.achieve in tampering with the ability of local authorities to

:55:20. > :55:20.restrict access to commercially sensitive information. It is

:55:21. > :55:49.important that some information, the disclosure of which

:55:50. > :55:51.would prejudice which -- prejudice commercial confidence charity,

:55:52. > :55:53.remained exempt from inspection. Similar exists in the Freedom of

:55:54. > :55:55.information Act 2000 and I don't think this bill is the right place

:55:56. > :55:58.to challenge those provisions which could easily be the subject of a

:55:59. > :56:00.separate debate of their own. Section 26 of the 2014 Act sensibly

:56:01. > :56:03.includes a provision that inspection would be permitted if there was an

:56:04. > :56:04.overriding public interest in favour of disclosure of information that

:56:05. > :56:07.might otherwise prejudice commercial confidentiality. It appears to me at

:56:08. > :56:09.least that as though the legislation strikes reasonable balance between

:56:10. > :56:11.allowing for the inspection of commercially confidential

:56:12. > :56:14.information that is in the public interest to disclose while

:56:15. > :56:19.protecting information that it would not be in the public interest to

:56:20. > :56:25.disclose. In coming to my conclusions, as I said earlier, this

:56:26. > :56:30.bill is very straightforward bill, and I believe it does exactly what

:56:31. > :56:37.is on the tin, exactly on the face of bill. Whilst I'm very grateful to

:56:38. > :56:41.my honourable Friends for their contributions this morning, for the

:56:42. > :56:46.amendments, and it has given us more things to think through in terms of

:56:47. > :56:53.the bill, I believe that one of the amendments proposed will add to that

:56:54. > :57:01.simplicity. I close in thanking both of my Honourable Friends for their

:57:02. > :57:04.amendments. May I begin by thanking my Honourable Friends the promoter

:57:05. > :57:08.of this bill because she has been assiduous in the way in which she

:57:09. > :57:14.has addressed the amendments that we have put forward, and would that

:57:15. > :57:17.that was always the case. She has also been a very charming and

:57:18. > :57:24.courteous in the way she has dealt with this throughout, and it is

:57:25. > :57:30.therefore with some dismay that I say I can't agree with everything

:57:31. > :57:34.that she's said. Before I get onto that in detail, can I say it is also

:57:35. > :57:40.very helpful that we have been able to hear the view from the shadow

:57:41. > :57:46.Minister, because the shadow ministers is supportive of some of

:57:47. > :57:50.these amendments, which gives me extra enthusiasm, really, and

:57:51. > :57:57.confidence that I am onto a good thing here. I've always been in

:57:58. > :58:02.favour, as you will know, of consensus, trying to find consensus

:58:03. > :58:07.across the House, cross-party support, and I think the honourable

:58:08. > :58:11.lady's support for amendment two and amendment ten, I'm not going to push

:58:12. > :58:15.amendment tend to vote, but I certainly hope to push an amendment

:58:16. > :58:19.to abode, amendment ten is something we will have to come back to because

:58:20. > :58:24.I think she accepts and the House seems to accept there is a strong

:58:25. > :58:33.case for extending these powers to health bodies. I then looked to see,

:58:34. > :58:38.well, what is the point my honourable friend the Minister makes

:58:39. > :58:41.as an objection to amendment two? He says it will be a new burden on

:58:42. > :58:45.local authorities which will have to be funded by the Government, but in

:58:46. > :58:49.fairness to him he makes no bones about it, he has no idea of the

:58:50. > :58:55.extent of that burden, he has made no estimate of it. In my submission

:58:56. > :58:59.it would be a relatively small burden and will actually only tend

:59:00. > :59:03.to be a burden for local authorities which are not already sufficiently

:59:04. > :59:09.transparent and accountable, because it is those authorities which would

:59:10. > :59:13.invite people by their secrecy to come along and want to try and

:59:14. > :59:21.inspect their books and their accounts. Would my honourable friend

:59:22. > :59:24.not agree that the scrutiny this will place upon local authorities

:59:25. > :59:28.would probably lead them to save more money in their everyday

:59:29. > :59:34.business than it would cost them to implement the provisions of this

:59:35. > :59:38.particular amendment? Absolutely, with all these things it is an issue

:59:39. > :59:41.of proportionality and there was a balance between the burden on local

:59:42. > :59:45.government and the benefit to the public interest, and I think in this

:59:46. > :59:50.case and the case of amendment two the benefit to the public interest

:59:51. > :59:54.far outweighs any minuscule burden to local authorities, even if the

:59:55. > :59:58.argument put forward by my honourable friend were not accepted

:59:59. > :00:05.by those authorities. The Member for Oldridge Brownhills says that the

:00:06. > :00:11.bill does what it says on the tin and she talks about wanting to

:00:12. > :00:17.confine the bill to extending rights to journalists, but I remind her of

:00:18. > :00:21.the long title to her own bill, which says extend public access,

:00:22. > :00:26.public access, to certain local audit documents under section 26 of

:00:27. > :00:31.the local ordered and accountability Act. It is not limited to

:00:32. > :00:35.journalists, if my honourable friend wanted to limit it to journalists

:00:36. > :00:39.then she could have done so when she put down the long title for her

:00:40. > :00:45.bill, so I think that it is sensible that we should take this opportunity

:00:46. > :00:47.to see if we can make this bill are bigger and more substantial piece of

:00:48. > :00:54.legislation banned it would otherwise have been, and I would

:00:55. > :01:00.like to put amendment two to the vote.

:01:01. > :01:03.In that case the question is that amendment two be made. As many as

:01:04. > :01:08.are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division, clear

:01:09. > :02:09.the lobby. The question is that amendment two

:02:10. > :02:11.be made. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the

:02:12. > :02:15.contrary, "no". Tellers for the eyes, David Nuttall and Philip

:02:16. > :02:16.Davies. Tellers for the nose Rebecca Powell and Kevin Hollin rate. Thank

:02:17. > :11:40.you. -- tellers for the noes. The ayes to write, 15, the noes to

:11:41. > :11:48.the left, 41. -- the ayes to the right. Thank you. The ayes to the

:11:49. > :12:00.right, 15. The noes to the left, 41. The noes have it, the noes have it.

:12:01. > :12:08.Unlock. Does the honourable member for Baru

:12:09. > :12:16.North wish to push amendment one? I will withdraw amendment two...

:12:17. > :12:24.Amendment one. Amendment one is withdrawn. Consideration completed,

:12:25. > :12:29.third reading, what date? Now. Wendy Morton. I beg to move that the bill

:12:30. > :12:33.now be read a third time. Despite having had some previous success

:12:34. > :12:40.with a private members bill in this place, it is always special to be

:12:41. > :12:46.back at third reading having brought a bill this far. And particularly

:12:47. > :12:51.pleased to be able to bring this bill forward because it is short and

:12:52. > :12:55.simple, as I set out earlier, yet I believe it will have an impact

:12:56. > :13:00.nationally and potentially improving the transparency of local councils,

:13:01. > :13:05.and I hope it will have an impact within my own council area of

:13:06. > :13:12.Walsall as well, and help local journalists in my area, too. We have

:13:13. > :13:17.some excellent local newspapers, The Walsall Advertiser, The Express And

:13:18. > :13:23.Star, The Chronicle, The Sudden Observer. I am behind this bill, it

:13:24. > :13:26.is an intention to improve transparency and accountable in both

:13:27. > :13:31.central and local glove, something this Government has done much to

:13:32. > :13:37.improve since coming into power. I am pleased to play my part, although

:13:38. > :13:43.very small, in furthering that agenda. Will be honourable friend

:13:44. > :13:46.give way? Of course. Can I congratulate my honourable friend

:13:47. > :13:51.for piloting this bill through the House of Commons and its many

:13:52. > :13:55.stages? She is fast becoming a master of these Fridays, private

:13:56. > :14:04.members bills, she is too bashful to say that herself but I think it will

:14:05. > :14:09.be a worthy bill. I'm very grateful for his kind words, he contributed

:14:10. > :14:15.at second reading. I am grateful to all the honourable members who have

:14:16. > :14:20.played a part in this bill. If even one journalist, one citizen

:14:21. > :14:24.journalist, uses this power to bring poor spending decisions or untoward

:14:25. > :14:29.expenditure to the attention of local electors so they can ask

:14:30. > :14:33.questions of the auditor or object to their council accounts, thus

:14:34. > :14:36.forcing them to publicly account for their spending decisions, then I

:14:37. > :14:43.believe that this bill would have done its part. In closing, I would

:14:44. > :14:49.like to thank all those who have enabled me to reach this stage today

:14:50. > :14:53.with my bill at third reading. To those who initially supported it, to

:14:54. > :14:58.those who contributed at second reading and to those who came along

:14:59. > :15:04.and supported me at committee stage as well. And to everyone here for

:15:05. > :15:07.giving up yet another very precious constituency Friday on a week which

:15:08. > :15:13.has not been the easiest in this place all this country. I conclude

:15:14. > :15:18.by saying I hope this continues to have a smooth and speedy passage

:15:19. > :15:25.through this place and into the other and becomes law. Thank you.

:15:26. > :15:32.Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also congratulate my honourable friend on

:15:33. > :15:37.having taken this bill so far? As I said in a speech earlier, this bill

:15:38. > :15:41.is not one that I oppose, but I think it could have been so much

:15:42. > :15:46.more strong and worthwhile, but that is how it is. As we know, Madam

:15:47. > :15:49.Deputy Speaker, Friday business is of iron is tradition nature and

:15:50. > :15:55.wants an issue has been ventilated on a Friday, as sure as eggs are

:15:56. > :16:00.exit will probably come back on another Friday, so I think the

:16:01. > :16:06.issues about extending these rights to the health bodies and beyond

:16:07. > :16:11.journalists are likely to find favour, ultimately, with other

:16:12. > :16:16.members of this house. As my honourable friend said, this bill is

:16:17. > :16:27.limited at the moment to extending the powers under section 20 62

:16:28. > :16:31.journalists, -- under section 26 two journalists, we do that in a climate

:16:32. > :16:38.under which journalists are under a lot of pressure. This very week

:16:39. > :16:44.there is a new local newspaper in Christchurch, they have revived the

:16:45. > :16:47.title The Christchurch Times. Additional one is this week and I

:16:48. > :16:54.look forward to reading the copy when I get back to the constituency

:16:55. > :16:59.later today. That just shows that local newspapers are not dying or

:17:00. > :17:04.dead. I am grateful to him for giving way.

:17:05. > :17:07.Can he tell the House whether he has any intention of becoming the editor

:17:08. > :17:14.of this publication? LAUGHTER

:17:15. > :17:19.I am afraid I had to tell my right honourable friend that that is

:17:20. > :17:27.commercial and confidential. You need to make a better offer! My

:17:28. > :17:31.honourable friend -- as my honourable friend says, I am waiting

:17:32. > :17:34.for a better offer. I think it is really good news... Would my

:17:35. > :17:42.honourable friend give way? I agree it is good news, the new

:17:43. > :17:45.arrival to the newspapers seen in his constituency, but I wonder

:17:46. > :17:50.whether my honourable friend knows whether or not the newspaper in

:17:51. > :17:55.question, being a new arrival, is making use of the new breed of

:17:56. > :17:58.citizen journalists we have talked about?

:17:59. > :18:03.I suspect it is probably going to rely upon citizen journalists to

:18:04. > :18:05.send letters and to report to real journalists information which they

:18:06. > :18:14.think the newspaper should investigate. I think this newspaper

:18:15. > :18:18.will have a very responsible attitudes towards ensuring that the

:18:19. > :18:22.news that it prints is properly authenticated and cannot be put in

:18:23. > :18:29.the category of being fake news or news which has not been properly

:18:30. > :18:35.checked out in the sources from which it has come. I regard it as an

:18:36. > :18:40.example of highly responsible journalism as, indeed, I think they

:18:41. > :18:44.will find from the additional reporters that will be recruited

:18:45. > :18:50.across the United Kingdom as a result of the requirement on the BBC

:18:51. > :18:56.to set aside money to pay for those reporters. As I said earlier, we

:18:57. > :19:01.know now that the BBC have set aside ?8 million each year to pay for 150

:19:02. > :19:07.reporters who will work for local news organisations, rather than the

:19:08. > :19:11.BBC, across the country. I am sure that those reporters, likewise, will

:19:12. > :19:18.be professional or accredited journalists, responsible as well,

:19:19. > :19:23.and they will add to the scrutiny of local democracy across our country.

:19:24. > :19:27.Unfortunately I know from other reports that not all parts of the

:19:28. > :19:34.country are as well served by their local newspapers as we are in

:19:35. > :19:39.Dorset, and there are parts of the country, constituencies, whole local

:19:40. > :19:42.authority areas where there is no proper newspaper operating,

:19:43. > :19:47.certainly not a daily newspaper and often not even a weekly newspaper.

:19:48. > :19:54.That means it is very difficult to hold local authorities properly to

:19:55. > :20:01.account. I have referred already to some of the local stories that have

:20:02. > :20:08.out. How about this come one, Mr Deputy Speaker? Poole council revamp

:20:09. > :20:16.waste of money before merger, recurrence of the fact that they are

:20:17. > :20:18.proposing to spend quarter of ?1 million revamping the Civic Centre

:20:19. > :20:23.at a time when they also propose they should be abolished in favour

:20:24. > :20:27.of the Council merger. Another from Bournemouth, Council shuts ?15

:20:28. > :20:34.million bank of Bournemouth after issuing just 22 loans. That is 18

:20:35. > :20:40.months after it was created, another completely haywire scheme which has

:20:41. > :20:47.cost local taxpayers a lot of money and nobody has really been properly

:20:48. > :20:53.held to account. We could go on. I will not go on. But just to say that

:20:54. > :21:01.I think this bill could have been so much better than it is, it is better

:21:02. > :21:06.than nothing and, for that, I think my honourable friend, whether or not

:21:07. > :21:11.it will find favour in the other place in the short space in which

:21:12. > :21:14.the other place will have to consider it, I don't know. One of my

:21:15. > :21:19.concerns about bills going through at this late stage in the session is

:21:20. > :21:23.that if the other place is minded to amend the bill, which I hope it will

:21:24. > :21:27.be in the light of following some of the debates we have had today, they

:21:28. > :21:31.are often inhibited from doing that because they are told, if you

:21:32. > :21:35.amended, the bill will not be able to come back before the Commons

:21:36. > :21:42.before we end this session of Parliament. I hope the Macon text

:21:43. > :21:45.that the Minister perhaps in responding to this debate will be

:21:46. > :21:49.able to give an assurance that were their Lordships minded to amend this

:21:50. > :21:52.bill in any way, the Government would provide time to ensure that

:21:53. > :21:59.the bill in its amended state would still be able to be dealt with by

:22:00. > :22:06.this House before the end of this session so that it cannot be -- so

:22:07. > :22:10.the pistol cannot be held to the head of anyone who tries to amend

:22:11. > :22:14.this bill and threatened that if they try to it would be the death of

:22:15. > :22:21.the bill. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that I

:22:22. > :22:29.am going to support this bill today should there be a division on it.

:22:30. > :22:34.Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to

:22:35. > :22:42.address the house in this short third Reading debate. I also welcome

:22:43. > :22:49.this bill in the spirit with which it has been brought forward. Despite

:22:50. > :22:54.the fact that my attempt to amend it which was not, as I said at the

:22:55. > :22:58.time, wrecking amendments, it was a genuine amendment to try to improve

:22:59. > :23:04.the bill despite the that it was not met with approval by the proposal of

:23:05. > :23:11.the bill, I listened carefully to what my honourable friend said about

:23:12. > :23:20.that. I didn't wholly agree with it and I think that when one looks at

:23:21. > :23:35.the explanatory notes to the bill and the fact that the heading of

:23:36. > :23:39.clause one of the bill states... It says the words, and citizen

:23:40. > :23:44.journalists. My honourable friend, the proposer of the bill's

:23:45. > :23:48.explanation was that journalists include citizen journalists. Well,

:23:49. > :23:54.if that is the case, why is it that it was thought to be necessary to go

:23:55. > :23:58.on to say and citizen journalists in the title of the clause if it

:23:59. > :24:05.already includes them? I do think that there needs to be looking at it

:24:06. > :24:09.again, but I'm conscience of the very important point that my

:24:10. > :24:11.honourable friend, the member for Christchurch, has just made. I

:24:12. > :24:17.appreciate that if this bill was to be amended in the other place,

:24:18. > :24:22.unless the Government make time for this House to be able to consider

:24:23. > :24:28.any amendments, it would spell the death of this bill in this

:24:29. > :24:33.particular session. It is a question of what is more important, is it

:24:34. > :24:36.more important that we get this legislation right or do we just let

:24:37. > :24:42.it go through in a form that we are not happy with? It is a fine

:24:43. > :24:48.balance. I hope that the answer lies in the Government saying if the

:24:49. > :24:54.other place feel that it is appropriate for this bill to be

:24:55. > :25:03.amended, that they will find time in Government time to consider those

:25:04. > :25:07.amendments if they are made in the other place on the grounds that the

:25:08. > :25:11.other place may read the debate that has gone on to date and seen the

:25:12. > :25:17.arguments and read the arguments that we have put forward this

:25:18. > :25:23.morning to why this bill would benefit from further clarification,

:25:24. > :25:28.and it may be that the lordships reach a different view to the view

:25:29. > :25:34.that this House has taken this morning.

:25:35. > :25:42.The reason I suggested would be appropriate for the Government to

:25:43. > :25:56.find time for any Lords amendments to be considered is that the Act

:25:57. > :26:04.which this bill seeks to amend, the local audit public access to

:26:05. > :26:08.documents bill, seeks to amend the 2014 local audit and accountability

:26:09. > :26:13.Act, and after that Act had been passed it was put out to

:26:14. > :26:17.consultation by the Department for Communities and local government,

:26:18. > :26:23.and in December 20 14th they published their response and in a

:26:24. > :26:28.paragraph 411 of that response they said, furthermore, the Government

:26:29. > :26:32.believes that journalists should also be able to inspect accounts and

:26:33. > :26:38.information in the interests of local people, and therefore intends

:26:39. > :26:43.to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the

:26:44. > :26:50.definition of persons interested as defined in section six of the 26 --

:26:51. > :26:54.section 26 of the local accountability Act, is wide enough

:26:55. > :26:58.to enable this. There was a clear commitment given

:26:59. > :27:08.in the Government's responds on page ten of that response document, the

:27:09. > :27:13.future of local audit, to making the amendment which is contained in this

:27:14. > :27:16.bill, albeit it has been brought forward now as a Private members

:27:17. > :27:21.Bill, and therefore I think there is a sound argument for why the

:27:22. > :27:31.Government should make time available. I wholeheartedly support

:27:32. > :27:39.the general thrust of this bill, I think it is right that we should

:27:40. > :27:47.give as much access as possible to those who are interested, that was

:27:48. > :27:51.the initial phraseology used in the legislation, and I extend that to

:27:52. > :27:56.include journalists. I'm sorry the amendment we have just voted on does

:27:57. > :28:03.not include it to all electors who have the vote in local elections,

:28:04. > :28:10.but nevertheless it is a step in the right direction. And I think it is

:28:11. > :28:14.right that we try and extend the right to inspect local government

:28:15. > :28:22.accounts and all the other bodies that are listed in schedule two of

:28:23. > :28:29.the 2014 Act as well to give journalists and citizen journalists

:28:30. > :28:39.the right to inspect those accounts. I do accept that there is a concern

:28:40. > :28:45.that this might result in those bodies being inundated with

:28:46. > :28:52.requests, as has been noted earlier in the debate. There is no evidence

:28:53. > :28:59.to suggest this is the case. And I suspect the answer lies in the

:29:00. > :29:06.legislation, actually, because the legislation does provide for the

:29:07. > :29:13.bodies to be able to charge for copies of documents that are taken

:29:14. > :29:20.away, but I do think that despite that we are weighing up two

:29:21. > :29:27.competing interests, I think the overriding interest is the interest

:29:28. > :29:33.of the public to know what is going on and the alternative is to say,

:29:34. > :29:39.well, look, once the accounts are published there should be no right

:29:40. > :29:43.for anyone to go in and inspect the underlying documents and the books

:29:44. > :29:49.of accounts and so forth. I don't think any of us would want to go

:29:50. > :29:57.down that road, and I suspect that what we have stumbled upon here is

:29:58. > :30:07.probably the best of the options available to us. I would like to

:30:08. > :30:11.have gone further, but nevertheless extending the right to journalists

:30:12. > :30:22.is better than nothing, and it is now up to journalists to make use of

:30:23. > :30:31.the new power that will be given to them once this bill becomes law. It

:30:32. > :30:39.will be interesting to see whether or not anybody covered by this bill

:30:40. > :30:48.actually seeks to do what Bristol council did in respect of the

:30:49. > :30:53.earlier bill and exclude journalists because they are not specifically

:30:54. > :30:59.mentioned on the face of the bill, other than in the title to the

:31:00. > :31:09.clause. I would hope that doesn't happen, and if they do I would refer

:31:10. > :31:12.them to the explanatory notes that were published alongside this bill,

:31:13. > :31:21.where it makes very clear in deed that the intention of the bill was

:31:22. > :31:26.that the term citizen journalists should include bloggers and others

:31:27. > :31:33.who scrutinise local authorities but who may not be accredited members of

:31:34. > :31:37.the press, and in clause seven of the notes it saves as well as

:31:38. > :31:41.accredited members of the press is the term journalist would be

:31:42. > :31:44.extended to cover citizen journalists such as bloggers,

:31:45. > :31:47.enabling them to inspect the accounts of a local authority where

:31:48. > :31:51.they are not a local collector so that in publishing their findings

:31:52. > :31:55.they can help to enable the public to hold their local authority to

:31:56. > :32:01.account, and I think that is really the key to this whole bill, isn't

:32:02. > :32:08.it? It is about being able to uphold elected politicians to account. And

:32:09. > :32:14.I trust that when this bill is considered in the other place they

:32:15. > :32:22.will look carefully at the arguments that have been made here this

:32:23. > :32:27.morning and consider whether or not it is worthy of further amendment,

:32:28. > :32:32.but I would hope that the bill is not amended in the other place

:32:33. > :32:39.unless they can be assured that the Government provides time within

:32:40. > :32:42.Government time, as there are no more Private Members days allocated

:32:43. > :32:50.for those amendments to be considered, and in concluding, Mr

:32:51. > :32:56.Deputy Speaker, could I thank my honourable friend the Member for

:32:57. > :33:04.Aldridge-Brownhills for her work in ensuring the bill has reached this

:33:05. > :33:08.stage and for her efficient and courteous way she has handled

:33:09. > :33:17.proceedings, and I wish the bill well.

:33:18. > :33:20.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I don't intend to make more than a few

:33:21. > :33:25.remarks on this bill for third weeding because this is a bill that

:33:26. > :33:28.has the support of these benches, the Government and local government

:33:29. > :33:33.Association. A short piece of legislation and a welcome one which

:33:34. > :33:36.aims to improve transparency and accountability of local public

:33:37. > :33:41.bodies and in an era where local newspapers are in many places

:33:42. > :33:45.diminishing and in some places don't exist at all, extending transparency

:33:46. > :33:47.of public bodies benefits all of our local democracy. Indeed, as we

:33:48. > :34:01.devolve more powers and sometimes even

:34:02. > :34:04.funding down to local authorities, there is an ever increasing need for

:34:05. > :34:07.greater transparency, but I know there are many other important bills

:34:08. > :34:13.to be debated today so I will draw my comments to a close.

:34:14. > :34:17.It is a pleasure... Mr Deputy Speaker, I am still recovering from

:34:18. > :34:21.the excitement of the report stage, which I was delighted to speak at,

:34:22. > :34:25.as I was at the committee stage as well. But it is a pleasure to speak

:34:26. > :34:31.at third weeding our behalf of the Government to once again offer our

:34:32. > :34:37.support for my honourable friend for Aldridge-Brownhills's bill and I pay

:34:38. > :34:42.tribute to her for the way in which she has got this bill to the stage

:34:43. > :34:46.it is at today and also to those of us who have also sponsored and

:34:47. > :34:51.supported this, but I also associate myself with her comments on how

:34:52. > :34:55.important it is to be here after a difficult week for Parliament, how

:34:56. > :35:00.important it is to be looking at the detail of legislation, doing the job

:35:01. > :35:03.we are elected to do and the job others would have liked to prevent

:35:04. > :35:08.myself with her comment on that. myself with her comment on that.

:35:09. > :35:21.This is a bill the Government has supported from the beginning and I

:35:22. > :35:22.note the support of the opposition note the support of the opposition

:35:23. > :35:26.as well. It is important because it furthers our

:35:27. > :35:26.accountability by extending this global

:35:27. > :35:33.accountability by extending this important right to journalists, and

:35:34. > :35:36.I also pay tribute to the other people who have spoken this

:35:37. > :35:38.afternoon, particularly the Member afternoon, particularly the Member

:35:39. > :35:44.for Christchurch about the plight of local newspapers -- the importance

:35:45. > :35:48.of local newspapers to local accountability, and it would be

:35:49. > :35:50.wrong not to mention the excellent work that one of my local papers

:35:51. > :35:56.does, ensuring my place in it next does, ensuring my place in it next

:35:57. > :35:59.week. They are so important to the local democracy and to local

:36:00. > :36:03.accountability and I associate myself with everything my honourable

:36:04. > :36:08.little more than that, there is little more than that, there is

:36:09. > :36:12.other business to be conducted, other than just to again thank my

:36:13. > :36:27.this bill forward and congratulate Aldridge-Brownhills for bringing

:36:28. > :36:29.this bill forward and congratulate her on its unamended passage through

:36:30. > :36:30.the other place, I understand she the other place, I understand she

:36:31. > :36:39.has secured the support of the noble Baroness Eton and without jinxing it

:36:40. > :36:42.I hope it passes, and I will say that I am not in a position at this

:36:43. > :36:51.time to make any guarantees about time to make any guarantees about

:36:52. > :36:52.future time, should this bill be future time, should this bill be

:36:53. > :36:57.amended in the other place. I hope and wish the Government will see it

:36:58. > :37:01.unamended through the other place, thank you.

:37:02. > :37:04.The question is that the bill now be read a third time. As many as are of

:37:05. > :37:11.the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it,

:37:12. > :37:22.the ayes habit. The merchant shipping homosexual

:37:23. > :37:27.conduct bill, to be considered. Amendment one is the only amendment

:37:28. > :37:33.on the paper, Mr Christopher choke. I beg to move amendment one, clause

:37:34. > :37:37.one, page one, line four, end insert two, subsection one shall have

:37:38. > :37:43.effect and be taken to have had effect from November the 3rd 1994,

:37:44. > :37:46.and the explanatory statement in support of that amendment is, this

:37:47. > :37:55.amendment would make the repeal of sections 100 and 43 and 173 of the

:37:56. > :38:01.criminal disorder Act retrospective to the date that they came into

:38:02. > :38:08.operation. And I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this amendment will

:38:09. > :38:11.find favour with the House and with the sponsor of the bill, whom I

:38:12. > :38:20.congratulate on having taken the bill so far.

:38:21. > :38:26.I'm grateful to him for giving way. He is a passionate Democrat. Does he

:38:27. > :38:31.not agree with me there is something profoundly undemocratic about

:38:32. > :38:36.seeking to make a retrospective -- retrospective law change? I don't

:38:37. > :38:44.think it would be undemocratic because of course it is democracy,

:38:45. > :39:04.it would be an Act of democracy. But it would be an Act of democracy. But

:39:05. > :39:05.I agree with Mike right honourable I agree with Mike right honourable

:39:06. > :39:05.friend that it... I will spell out friend that it... I will

:39:06. > :39:09.why this is a special situation. We why this is a special situation. We

:39:10. > :39:13.know that there was a bill to pardon Alan Sutton, although he had

:39:14. > :39:20.actually been convicted of a criminal offence, that was a

:39:21. > :39:23.retrospective Act and we have since had legislation to enable other

:39:24. > :39:29.people who were similarly so convicted to apply for their

:39:30. > :39:34.convictions to be effectively quashed. There are other examples of

:39:35. > :39:41.retrospective legislation, but the interesting thing about this bill is

:39:42. > :39:46.that it is dealing with a situation which is almost new good Tory

:39:47. > :39:52.anyway, as it says in the overview of the bill, set out in the

:39:53. > :39:57.explanatory notes, whilst the sections to which we refer are no

:39:58. > :40:01.longer of any legal effect, due to other legislation, primarily the

:40:02. > :40:05.equality Act 2010 and regulations made under it, repealing them would

:40:06. > :40:10.be both symbolic and will prevent any misunderstanding as to their

:40:11. > :40:14.current effect. It seems to me that that in itself puts this into a

:40:15. > :40:19.completely different category from the norm of bills which one would be

:40:20. > :40:26.seeking to have retrospective effect, this has no longer got any

:40:27. > :40:31.illegal effect because of other legislation, and if it is going to

:40:32. > :40:36.be, if it is accepted that it is symbolic, I think what better symbol

:40:37. > :40:42.could there be than to say that at all material times this provision

:40:43. > :40:49.which was incorporated into the original 1994 Act by a backbench

:40:50. > :40:52.amendment to be able to say that at all material times that backbench

:40:53. > :41:02.amendment will be deemed to have had no effect? So it seems to me that

:41:03. > :41:04.this meets that test of special circumstances which I'm the first to

:41:05. > :41:10.accept is one which we should always apply when we are considering

:41:11. > :41:15.whether or not we should countenance a retrospective legislation.

:41:16. > :41:24.I have, unfortunately -- that have, unfortunately, been a number of

:41:25. > :41:28.recent examples where retrospective legislation has been a necessity,

:41:29. > :41:35.normally because of what can only be put down as cross errors, I think,

:41:36. > :41:42.by the Government at the time. The mental health approval functions act

:41:43. > :41:47.2012, for example was rushed through parliament because it became

:41:48. > :41:52.apparent that approximately 2000 doctors who were dealing with mental

:41:53. > :41:58.health issues had not been properly approved, and they had participated

:41:59. > :42:02.in the detention of between 4000 and 5000 patients within institutions in

:42:03. > :42:12.the NHS and independent sectors without effectively legal authority.

:42:13. > :42:16.That was because of the mistake made in the primary legislation. There

:42:17. > :42:20.are a number of other examples, I am sure some of my honourable friends

:42:21. > :42:25.will refer to those during the course of this debate. I accept that

:42:26. > :42:32.it should only be in the most extreme circumstances that we do

:42:33. > :42:38.make legislation retrospective, but since this is essentially a gesture

:42:39. > :42:42.bill, a symbolic gesture, a gesture whereby this house can show

:42:43. > :42:50.solidarity to the people who would otherwise have been victims of this

:42:51. > :42:56.amendment which was passed in the 1994 act, it seems to me that both

:42:57. > :42:59.the policy background and the legal backgrounds make it perfectly

:43:00. > :43:11.reasonable to support this amendment. I think that the

:43:12. > :43:17.provisions... It says in the legal background, paragraph ten, sections

:43:18. > :43:22.1464 and 1473 were added chewing the passage of the bill following

:43:23. > :43:25.non-Government amendments. It was concerned that making homosexual

:43:26. > :43:29.conduct legal in the Armed Forces and the merchant Navy might mean

:43:30. > :43:34.that homosexuals could not be dismissed for in gauging and it nor

:43:35. > :43:41.such conduct used as the basis of a prosecution under military

:43:42. > :43:46.discipline. But those were saving conditions which meant they did not

:43:47. > :43:51.repeal or override other legislation which, of course, has come in to

:43:52. > :43:58.ensure that they have no applicability. This is quite a

:43:59. > :44:03.narrow point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that my honourable friend and

:44:04. > :44:08.the Government will accept the motivation behind it and the content

:44:09. > :44:13.of its and incorporate it into the bill, then that really will tidy up

:44:14. > :44:18.the statute. It will have the effect of this never having been

:44:19. > :44:25.legislation. Philip Davies. The question is that

:44:26. > :44:27.the amendment be made, Philip Davies?

:44:28. > :44:33.Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. My honourable friend's

:44:34. > :44:37.amendments, as my right honourable friend for East Yorkshire said, is

:44:38. > :44:43.trying to introduce retrospective legislation. Like my honourable

:44:44. > :44:46.friend I am not naturally in favour of retrospective legislation, it

:44:47. > :44:52.seems to be rather like the rewriting of history and something

:44:53. > :44:57.that I have been opposed to in the past. That said, I said chewing the

:44:58. > :45:03.second reading of the debate but I thought that the law was one that

:45:04. > :45:07.should never have been -- I said during the second reading of the

:45:08. > :45:12.debate. So I can absolutely understand my honourable friend's

:45:13. > :45:15.motivation for wanting to make the law retrospective, because I think

:45:16. > :45:22.many people in the House agree that this law should never have been

:45:23. > :45:28.place, so it would be, in effect, neatly correcting that situation.

:45:29. > :45:33.However, looking at the effect of his amendment, which I think is

:45:34. > :45:37.really where we should start with this, I asked the House of Commons

:45:38. > :45:42.library, who are always helpful, about what the effect of this

:45:43. > :45:46.amendment would be. And they said that the amendment would have

:45:47. > :45:50.retrospective effect going back to 1994. The bill is seeking to repeal

:45:51. > :45:54.a law which says it would not be unfair to dismiss as Seafarer for a

:45:55. > :46:00.homosexual act, the amendment would mean any dismissal on that basis

:46:01. > :46:04.since 1994 would not enjoy the statutory protection of being deemed

:46:05. > :46:10.an unfair dismissal. They then went on to say, so far as I can see, the

:46:11. > :46:14.amendment would have no practical effect. Any dismissal of the

:46:15. > :46:18.Seafarer for a reason relating to a homosexual act could already

:46:19. > :46:23.constitute sexual orientation discrimination, which has been

:46:24. > :46:27.unlawful in respect of seafarers since at least 2011. Claims in

:46:28. > :46:35.respect of the period before 2011 would be well out of time, among

:46:36. > :46:40.others, of iron Acton 's in 1987. Anyone dismissed would already have

:46:41. > :46:43.a claim or be at a time for making one. The amendment of the bill would

:46:44. > :46:47.not change those things and it would appear that the amendment is

:46:48. > :46:53.intended as a symbolic gesture. We are in a rather bizarre situation

:46:54. > :47:02.where, in effect, the bill itself has no real, practical change

:47:03. > :47:06.because of the quality laws already in place -- because of the equality

:47:07. > :47:12.laws. There would be no practical impact, either. It must be a first

:47:13. > :47:16.for a bill going through Parliament where the bill itself makes no real

:47:17. > :47:21.difference to the law but the amendment to it makes no difference

:47:22. > :47:25.to the law, either. Maybe there are some historical precedents for this

:47:26. > :47:29.procedure but I am not aware of wants in the small number of years I

:47:30. > :47:35.have been in here. In many respects I suspect that that is my honourable

:47:36. > :47:42.friend's case, as this bill is only symbolic in itself, there is no harm

:47:43. > :47:49.in his symbolic and retrospective legislation, even though we might in

:47:50. > :47:53.essence be against the principle of retrospective legislation. In that

:47:54. > :47:59.sense, it is not retrospective because it is not changing the

:48:00. > :48:04.impact of anything. I am not entirely sure where that leads us,

:48:05. > :48:10.if I am perfectly frank. It seems to me that it leaves us where you want

:48:11. > :48:14.to be left and you pays your money and takes your choice whether you

:48:15. > :48:18.want to be a purist like the right honourable friend for East Yorkshire

:48:19. > :48:22.and say I will vote against retrospective legislation, come what

:48:23. > :48:25.may, or whether you want to take the view of my honourable friend

:48:26. > :48:29.footrace -- Christchurch and say that as we are dealing with symbolic

:48:30. > :48:32.legislation there is nothing wrong with retrospective symbolism in the

:48:33. > :48:37.bill. I don't know. I asked the House of

:48:38. > :48:44.Commons library to help me with other examples of retrospective

:48:45. > :48:48.legislation. The library briefing under the heading of what is

:48:49. > :48:51.retrospective legislation said it is generally defined as legislation

:48:52. > :48:56.which takes away or impose any bested right acquired under existing

:48:57. > :49:01.laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new GT or attaches a new

:49:02. > :49:06.disability in respect to transactions or considerations

:49:07. > :49:14.already passed -- or imposes a new duty.

:49:15. > :49:19.Yes. Paul Azinger that point, if my honourable friend looks at it again,

:49:20. > :49:22.and that definition this amendment would not be retrospective

:49:23. > :49:27.legislation -- pausing at that point. It does not take away or

:49:28. > :49:31.impair any bested right acquired by existing rules or creating a new

:49:32. > :49:35.obligation or imposing a new GT or attaching a new disability in

:49:36. > :49:40.respect of transactions or considerations already passed? I

:49:41. > :49:51.think he is right. Unfortunately he is slightly arguing against himself

:49:52. > :49:55.in that sense, because... Is in his amendment that he has tabled he very

:49:56. > :49:58.helpfully as ever put in an explanatory statement to his

:49:59. > :50:03.amendment which actually says that it would make the repeal

:50:04. > :50:08.retrospective. Having explained to the house that he was making his

:50:09. > :50:18.amendment retrospective he appears to be arguing that he is not. So...

:50:19. > :50:24.Yes. I am not really sure where that takes us. Of course. I think the

:50:25. > :50:27.distinction is that it would be retrospective but not amount to

:50:28. > :50:32.retrospective legislation until it turns that the definition to which

:50:33. > :50:39.my honourable friend referred. I can tell why he was such a

:50:40. > :50:43.successful lawyer. He is getting into legalistic lawyer jargon which

:50:44. > :50:51.is well above my head as a poor former retailer, is goes way beyond

:50:52. > :50:57.my knowledge base. I am sure he has justified it to himself but I am not

:50:58. > :51:00.sure that I quite understood. The Oxford dictionary of law about

:51:01. > :51:05.retrospective legislation says that operates at is taking place before

:51:06. > :51:08.its enactment, eg by penalising conduct that was lawful when it

:51:09. > :51:13.occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to

:51:14. > :51:17.have retroactive effect unless they merely legal procedure. The last

:51:18. > :51:27.time I conceded that the Government set out its policy on retrospective

:51:28. > :51:32.legislation, somebody asked Parliamentary question that macro

:51:33. > :51:36.Parliamentary to the last Labour Government and what its opinion was,

:51:37. > :51:40.the then Solicitor General said Government policy before introducing

:51:41. > :51:44.legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance

:51:45. > :51:48.the conflicting public interest and consider whether the general public

:51:49. > :51:52.interest in the law not being change retrospectively might be outweighed

:51:53. > :51:56.by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the

:51:57. > :52:00.Government will have regard to the relevant international standards

:52:01. > :52:03.including those in the European Convention for the protection of

:52:04. > :52:09.human rights and public freedom is incorporated into UK law by the

:52:10. > :52:15.Human Rights Act of 1998. I mention that because in some respects it

:52:16. > :52:19.backs up my honourable friend's position, in effect they are saying

:52:20. > :52:24.that really the position on this is a matter of looking at the public

:52:25. > :52:31.interest. As my honourable friend has really quite rightly said that

:52:32. > :52:33.there is no public interest in not making the legislation

:52:34. > :52:43.retrospective, in some respects but adds lustre to his argument. There

:52:44. > :52:46.are examples of legislation applied retrospectively, for example the

:52:47. > :52:58.statutory instruments production and sale act of 1996 which amended the

:52:59. > :53:00.act 1946 to validate and authorise retrospectively the printing of

:53:01. > :53:07.instruments for contractors working for HMO, an active 1991 which

:53:08. > :53:12.excluded caravans from the definition of domestic subjects in

:53:13. > :53:18.the abolition of domestic rates etc. It deemed the amendment to have had

:53:19. > :53:24.effect since the 1st of April 19 90. There was the compensation act of

:53:25. > :53:27.2006 and The Scotland Act 20 Twell provided that the regulation of

:53:28. > :53:33.activities in Antarctica should have been treated as being reserved for

:53:34. > :53:39.the UK Government since the beginning of devolution, even though

:53:40. > :53:46.it was not reserved in The Scotland Act.

:53:47. > :53:51.He has moved to 2012, but in The Finance Act 2008, specifically

:53:52. > :53:57.section 58, legislation was trained retrospectively to frustrate a tax

:53:58. > :54:02.planning scheme which affected many constituents across the country,

:54:03. > :54:06.including some of my own. Touch legislation was changed. They were

:54:07. > :54:16.very badly affected by this retrospective change in legislation.

:54:17. > :54:23.He is absolutely right. Are quite interesting. It appears that the

:54:24. > :54:26.reason that I chose the ones that I did, and of course my honourable

:54:27. > :54:30.friend is on the ball and threw another one into the melting pot,

:54:31. > :54:36.which I would have been a slightly different category to these once, is

:54:37. > :54:40.that, in effect, these once were trying to correct things that should

:54:41. > :54:46.really have always been the case, really, as far as people could see.

:54:47. > :54:49.I think it was much more of an outrage, in many respects, than the

:54:50. > :54:55.one highlighted by my honourable friend. Whereas these were really,

:54:56. > :55:00.in effect, tidying up the law so that it was as it always should have

:55:01. > :55:04.been, really. And I think my honourable friend for Christchurch

:55:05. > :55:09.is onto something when he says this always should have been the case, it

:55:10. > :55:13.was a mistake in the first place that needs to be corrected, in

:55:14. > :55:19.effect, and we need to go back to the start of this to correct it. I

:55:20. > :55:23.was trying to use examples which would support my honourable friend's

:55:24. > :55:29.case, I think, and I felt the ones that I highlighted did. But he was

:55:30. > :55:37.right to highlight the ones that he did as well.

:55:38. > :55:42.There are other examples of retrospective legislation. I am not

:55:43. > :55:50.going to bore the House was going through all of them because there

:55:51. > :55:55.are quite a few. As we were asked by the Government the last time the

:55:56. > :55:59.answer does to look at the European Convention of human rights I looked

:56:00. > :56:04.at the European Convention of human rights about the rules on

:56:05. > :56:09.retrospective Betty on article seven and I am sure the member for

:56:10. > :56:15.Christchurch is an expert on this. He will know more about this as me.

:56:16. > :56:18.Article seven of the European Convention states, no one shall be

:56:19. > :56:25.held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act that did not

:56:26. > :56:28.come under international law when it was committed. This will not

:56:29. > :56:33.prejudice the trial went at the time it was committed was criminal

:56:34. > :56:40.according to general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

:56:41. > :56:43.It then says that criminal laws cannot have retrospective effect. It

:56:44. > :56:48.has been a long-standing rule of English law. Someone can only be

:56:49. > :56:52.guilty of crime if he commits an act which the law expressly forbids at

:56:53. > :56:56.the time he does it. Certain penal provisions of the immigration act

:56:57. > :57:08.1971 had retrospective effect, their conviction was quashed. Retroactive

:57:09. > :57:11.application of common law offences to cover conduct which would not

:57:12. > :57:18.previously have been regarded as a crime. In some respects this is

:57:19. > :57:24.where we get into a bit of an issue with this thing. Even though I

:57:25. > :57:32.absolutely sure my honourable friend's view, I think we are in

:57:33. > :57:36.danger... We are in danger of talking about criminal law which is

:57:37. > :57:42.not the case. I know you are good at the detail and you want to get back

:57:43. > :57:50.onto the detail, Mr Philip Davies. You are right, Madame, Mr Deputy

:57:51. > :57:54.Speaker. I was sidetracking myself. But on the principle of

:57:55. > :58:03.retrospective legislation, and I think this is a very similar case,

:58:04. > :58:12.we have the Alan Turing statutorily pardon Bill, it is from the same

:58:13. > :58:17.stable as this type of legislation, in the House of Lords, the very

:58:18. > :58:22.great Lord Tebbit made what might be a pertinent points to this, he said

:58:23. > :58:26.he had no intention of obstructing the Bill as it continues on its

:58:27. > :58:31.journey towards the statute book however, something must be said,

:58:32. > :58:35.Alan Turing committed and was convicted of an act which would not

:58:36. > :58:41.be a crime today, so have many others, many other crimes have been

:58:42. > :58:46.committed, I hope the Bill will not be a President, I hope we will not

:58:47. > :58:51.posthumously conflict men of tries for acts that were not criminal when

:58:52. > :58:54.committed, but would be if they were committed today, there is a

:58:55. > :58:58.dangerous precedent within this Bill. Lord Tebbit's warning at that

:58:59. > :59:04.time on that Bill is very relevant to this Bill today. That I think is

:59:05. > :59:13.the particular issue that I have with it. Both the court that he used

:59:14. > :59:16.which caused Mr Deputy Speaker to intervene and the court he has just

:59:17. > :59:23.used relate to criminal retrospection. This Bill is not

:59:24. > :59:30.about criminal retrospection. Will my honourable friend accept that? I

:59:31. > :59:34.do accept that, absolutely. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to

:59:35. > :59:43.defy you ruling, I would never do that. We do not want to be due off

:59:44. > :59:47.your objective. I suspect you are right about my honourable friend, Mr

:59:48. > :59:54.Deputy Speaker, he has been leading the street for many years. The point

:59:55. > :59:58.I want to meet, Mr Deputy Speaker, the serious point, the relevant

:59:59. > :00:04.point, the principles are the same. I except the difference with the

:00:05. > :00:09.criminal law that is a plain, the point I was trying to make, maybe

:00:10. > :00:13.even a ham-fisted way, the principles are similar in terms of

:00:14. > :00:18.retrospective legislation, and whether we should go down that

:00:19. > :00:22.situation. In conclusion, I support the Bill, I am all for changing the

:00:23. > :00:29.law, I still maintain today that this law that my honourable friend

:00:30. > :00:32.is dealing with, should never have been the law, this should never have

:00:33. > :00:38.been the law, it was an outrage that it ever was the law of the land, I

:00:39. > :00:43.am all for changing it, but I am concerned that there not necessarily

:00:44. > :00:45.unintended consequences but unintended precedents by trying to

:00:46. > :00:52.change it retrospectively. I give way. Is the essence that we should

:00:53. > :00:59.not be seeking to pass provisions that I retrospective unless there is

:01:00. > :01:03.a compelling reason to do so? Where are honourable friend for

:01:04. > :01:09.Christchurch has failed us to explain what is compelling about his

:01:10. > :01:13.Amendment? My right honourable friend sums it up perfectly. There

:01:14. > :01:16.are two ways of looking at this. One is the review looks of that, we

:01:17. > :01:19.should not pass retrospective legislation a mess that is a

:01:20. > :01:23.compelling reason. My honourable friend appears to be taking The View

:01:24. > :01:28.that we should not pass at a mess that is a good reason not to. We

:01:29. > :01:32.seem to be on two sides of that coin. I am with my right honourable

:01:33. > :01:35.friend for East Yorkshire, unless there is a cast iron reason why we

:01:36. > :01:39.should pass retrospective legislation then we should avoid

:01:40. > :01:43.doing so, in case it sets dangerous President is further down the line.

:01:44. > :01:47.Quite clearly my honourable friend has not met that test. Even though I

:01:48. > :01:53.have got sympathy of what he is trying to do and I agree the

:01:54. > :01:57.sentiments behind his Amendment, I would urge honourable members to

:01:58. > :02:06.resist it on this occasion and leave the Bill as it is. Thank you, Mr

:02:07. > :02:09.Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my honourable friend, the member for

:02:10. > :02:14.Christchurch, for tabling this Amendment. I understand his

:02:15. > :02:19.honourable intentions behind it and I have reflected very carefully on

:02:20. > :02:22.it over recent weeks as well. My honourable friend has put his case

:02:23. > :02:25.well and I acknowledge the attraction of the logic which says

:02:26. > :02:29.if we think this should not be on the statute books no, do we not

:02:30. > :02:34.think it should never have been there in the first place? I also

:02:35. > :02:39.acknowledge the deep injustice that an individual would feel into being

:02:40. > :02:43.dismissed under provisions which are later superseded. But injustice is

:02:44. > :02:49.something which has been tackled and the other cases of legislation

:02:50. > :02:52.penalising homosexual activity, for example in the policing and crime

:02:53. > :02:58.act, which allowed for the pardon of those convicted of sexual acts which

:02:59. > :03:02.are no longer illegal. Their may be a place for providing some level of

:03:03. > :03:10.the dress or apology to those who are dismissed from the merchant Navy

:03:11. > :03:14.on grounds of homosexual conduct -- providing redress. But a system of

:03:15. > :03:27.redress which needs to be calibrated in a similar way to the Turing

:03:28. > :03:31.provisions. Sadly the capacity for the scrutiny that such legislation

:03:32. > :03:35.would require does not exist within the private members Bill system and

:03:36. > :03:42.the tight timings that involves. However, in the absence of a system

:03:43. > :03:46.for investigation and redress, retrospective repeal creates

:03:47. > :03:50.unnecessarily ambiguity over dismissals which would have been

:03:51. > :03:55.clearly legal at the time, without creating a clear opportunity for

:03:56. > :03:59.redress or apology. As I have said previously the aim of this Bill is

:04:00. > :04:04.to create clarity and certainty going forward and that he would be

:04:05. > :04:09.frustrated if we were to create an ambiguity about the legality of some

:04:10. > :04:14.possible dismissals, until the provisions were legally superseded

:04:15. > :04:21.by the equality act 2010. I also have a deeper concern. The House, as

:04:22. > :04:25.has been discussed, has generally been extremely cautious about any

:04:26. > :04:30.form of retrospective legislation, and particularly so in the case of

:04:31. > :04:33.legislation which creates an offence or penalty where none existed at the

:04:34. > :04:40.time, something which is deeply inconsistent with the rule of law.

:04:41. > :04:45.The Amendment could potentially retrospectively render the actions

:04:46. > :04:51.of merchant Navy employers illegal, retrospective legislation has

:04:52. > :04:54.occasionally been used very sparingly to validate or authorise

:04:55. > :05:01.retrospective reactions that were illegal at the time. But the

:05:02. > :05:08.motivation for including sections 1464, because is repealed in the

:05:09. > :05:13.1994 act, was to enable merchant Navy employers to dismiss seafarers

:05:14. > :05:17.for homosexual conduct even though the 1994 act decriminalised such

:05:18. > :05:22.conduct, and we need to remember that the relevant sections apply to

:05:23. > :05:25.employers, not seafarers. The proposed Amendment does not

:05:26. > :05:29.authorise conduct found to be illegal at the time and so it does

:05:30. > :05:34.not fit to recent precedent of retrospective legislation. My

:05:35. > :05:40.honourable friend the member for Christchurch discussed with me

:05:41. > :05:43.privately earlier the one rare possible President where criminal

:05:44. > :05:47.liability was treated retrospectively, with the war crimes

:05:48. > :05:53.act 1991, and with respect to him I looked into this carefully, and that

:05:54. > :05:55.act allows domestic criminal proceedings to be brought against

:05:56. > :06:00.British citizens who had committed war crimes in Germany during World

:06:01. > :06:06.War II, this was because there was no provision for extradition, the

:06:07. > :06:08.act was a response to a practical problem of the operation of

:06:09. > :06:13.international law where an offence really existed. My honourable

:06:14. > :06:18.friend's Amendment does not go into that category and while he did not

:06:19. > :06:23.mention of this afternoon I wanted to be very respectful to his

:06:24. > :06:28.conversation on this matter. I would contend it is not covered by that

:06:29. > :06:33.precedent. I also mentioned to more practical concerns. First, the other

:06:34. > :06:35.place has possibly even more discomfort around retrospective

:06:36. > :06:40.legislation than the House and this was the case with that War crimes

:06:41. > :06:44.act 1991 which the then Government had to use the Parliament Acts to

:06:45. > :06:48.enact, and that this Amendment was carried, I worry that the Bill would

:06:49. > :06:54.be amended again in the Lords and then lost altogether as they would

:06:55. > :06:58.be no these is available. The second, is that during the passage

:06:59. > :07:05.of the book I enjoyed the warm support of the Government -- passage

:07:06. > :07:08.of the Bill, I understand the Government does not sponsor

:07:09. > :07:12.retrospective legislation unless a lengthy procedure is undertaken to

:07:13. > :07:16.examine all possible effects, I am told they will not do so in this

:07:17. > :07:21.case. I fear that again the Bill could be lost without the support of

:07:22. > :07:25.the Government. Can I conclude by thanking my honourable friend for

:07:26. > :07:30.his Amendment and the serious scrutiny that he has performed on