24/03/2017 House of Commons


24/03/2017

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

From after to the end of the subsection and insert, any members

:00:12.:00:18.

of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the

:00:19.:00:23.

United Kingdom. With this, Mr Speaker, I will also address

:00:24.:00:28.

Amendment three and four, extending the range of individuals able to

:00:29.:00:34.

benefit under section 26 of the act, 2014, which my honourable friend is

:00:35.:00:40.

seeking to achieve. I shall also look at Amendment five, six, seven

:00:41.:00:43.

and eight looking in detail at what we mean by the expression and

:00:44.:00:47.

journalist in clause one. My honourable friend from Bury North

:00:48.:00:50.

will deal with the definition of journalistic material and I shall

:00:51.:00:57.

leave him to address it. Amendment number nine deals with the

:00:58.:01:01.

arrangement for exercising the right to inspect and 11 extends the period

:01:02.:01:05.

within such rights can be exercised beyond 30 days. Amendment 12 would

:01:06.:01:11.

enable documents which are claimed to be commercially confidential to

:01:12.:01:14.

be inspected but not copied. Amendment 13 will extend the right

:01:15.:01:19.

to inspect past contracts and 14 will leave the definition of

:01:20.:01:23.

commercial confidentiality in common law, not altered. Amendment ten,

:01:24.:01:29.

arguably the most radical of these amendments, would extend the right

:01:30.:01:32.

to inspection beyond local government, to the audit of accounts

:01:33.:01:37.

of any health service body as defined in the 2014 act. It will be

:01:38.:01:45.

obvious from that brief summary of the amendment is that they are all

:01:46.:01:51.

faithful to the long title of the Bill, to extend local or garment --

:01:52.:01:59.

local documents under the act 2014. My amendments are also inspired by

:02:00.:02:03.

recent experiences of how secrecy in local government is undermining the

:02:04.:02:08.

ability of members of the public to is scrutinised properly what is

:02:09.:02:14.

happening and properly hold councils to account. They also seek to

:02:15.:02:17.

address some of the issues raised in the second reading debate on the

:02:18.:02:25.

25th of November. Turning to... I will give way to the honourable

:02:26.:02:29.

member. I am grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. He

:02:30.:02:33.

touches on the second reading debate. Which I hope to address in

:02:34.:02:38.

my remarks later today. Does my honourable friend share my concern

:02:39.:02:44.

that the matters which were raised in the second reading debate were

:02:45.:02:47.

not addressed when this was dealt with in committee? I think my

:02:48.:02:53.

honourable friend is on to a good point. In the second reading quite a

:02:54.:02:56.

lot of reference was made to the fact we will discuss this in

:02:57.:03:00.

committee. I know my honourable friend from Dorset North said if I

:03:01.:03:04.

am put on the committee I would like to raise this as an amendment. But

:03:05.:03:09.

he was never put on the committee. And I think the committee stage

:03:10.:03:15.

lasted for all of 21 minutes, Mr Speaker. If the records are correct.

:03:16.:03:19.

I did not think there could have been a proper scrutiny. Despite that

:03:20.:03:24.

there were some interesting remarks made at committee stage, some of

:03:25.:03:27.

which I will refer to shortly. I will give way to the honourable

:03:28.:03:32.

member. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make it very clear

:03:33.:03:38.

that we had at committee stage a debate, no member was precluded from

:03:39.:03:45.

putting down an amendment and we had a good turnout on the day that we

:03:46.:03:51.

took the debate through committee. But I will be responding to his

:03:52.:03:55.

points more in detail when I have the chance to speak. It was actually

:03:56.:04:03.

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

:04:04.:04:11.

friend will be able to explain further in due course. Currently, Mr

:04:12.:04:17.

Speaker, a person who is registered as an elector in a local authority

:04:18.:04:21.

area has the right to inspect and have copies of a wider range of

:04:22.:04:26.

accounts, related documentation, under section 25 of the act, and

:04:27.:04:31.

therefore has no additional benefit under section 20 six. This amendment

:04:32.:04:36.

addresses the issue of electors in other local authority areas. Unless

:04:37.:04:38.

they can show they are persons they can show they are persons

:04:39.:04:45.

interested within the meaning of section 26, they have no rights. But

:04:46.:04:49.

at no time in my submission has it been more important for such

:04:50.:04:52.

electors in other local authority areas to see what is going on

:04:53.:04:58.

elsewhere. With the abolition of the audit commission, which provided

:04:59.:05:00.

easily assessable comparative data for local authorities, it has become

:05:01.:05:06.

more difficult to make comparisons, despite comparative data being so

:05:07.:05:09.

important to issue accountability and policy-making. I will give way

:05:10.:05:15.

to the honourable member. I chair the public accounts commission. We

:05:16.:05:18.

have been looking at issues of accountability of local government.

:05:19.:05:22.

My honourable friend makes a good point. The National audit office

:05:23.:05:26.

audits all of central government departments, a massive task, and is

:05:27.:05:31.

now effectively the auditor of local government. Whilst I favour this

:05:32.:05:35.

reform there is much less detailed inspection of local government

:05:36.:05:39.

audits and finance. That is undoubtedly a fact and my honourable

:05:40.:05:45.

friend is right to raise this. I am grateful for that intervention. He

:05:46.:05:48.

speaks with great knowledge and experience on this matter. This

:05:49.:05:54.

amendment, Mr Speaker, in a sense is supported by my honourable friend

:05:55.:06:00.

for Calder Valley. Col 1211 in the second reading debate, he intervened

:06:01.:06:03.

and said might not the Government in the interests of honesty, openness

:06:04.:06:07.

and accountability consider opening things up completely well beyond the

:06:08.:06:12.

intention of the Bill so anybody can access this information? And the

:06:13.:06:19.

Minister, my honourable friend for Nuneaton said I shall come onto that

:06:20.:06:22.

a little later and explain why the balance is right. Unfortunately, Mr

:06:23.:06:28.

Speaker, apart from asserting the measures in the Bill are

:06:29.:06:31.

proportionately never got on to that particular important point. And I

:06:32.:06:35.

hope the Minister on the front bench today will be able to redress that

:06:36.:06:43.

shortcoming. I was also somewhat perplexed by the comments from my

:06:44.:06:45.

honourable friend on the front bench today, the Minister representing

:06:46.:06:54.

Britain cool, -- the Minister said he participated in the Bill on the

:06:55.:07:01.

7th of February and in congratulating our honourable

:07:02.:07:04.

friend, he said I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher, who in her maiden

:07:05.:07:07.

speech introduced the public bodies admission to meetings act 1960, in a

:07:08.:07:14.

similar vein. It was about opening up local government to journalists

:07:15.:07:18.

and other interested parties. With the greatest of respect to my

:07:19.:07:22.

honourable friend I think the core of Margaret Thatcher bottom-macro

:07:23.:07:24.

Bill was making sure our public access and that is what -- Margaret

:07:25.:07:30.

Thatcher's Bill was making sure our public access and I think we need

:07:31.:07:36.

more open public access in the same sense the late Baroness wanted

:07:37.:07:39.

public access to the actual meetings of local authorities. Her references

:07:40.:07:46.

in the public bodies admission to meetings act to journalists were

:07:47.:07:52.

talking about making sure that accredited newspaper representatives

:07:53.:07:58.

attending such council meetings should be provided with reasonable

:07:59.:08:00.

facilities for taking their report and so on. I do not think it is fair

:08:01.:08:10.

with the distinguished former Prime Minister in supporting the Bill and

:08:11.:08:15.

not supporting this amendment. I suspect the noble Baroness would

:08:16.:08:19.

have been a strong supporter of the moment number two, which am putting

:08:20.:08:25.

forward today. But this amendment is also highly relevant in the current

:08:26.:08:28.

climate where many councils are seeking to reorganise into new

:08:29.:08:34.

structures. As you know as well as anybody, Mr Speaker. Bucks, Dorset,

:08:35.:08:43.

Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Kent at district council level and no doubt

:08:44.:08:47.

a lot of others in future are toying with this idea of reorganising into

:08:48.:08:54.

new structures. And at present it is very difficult for local taxpayers

:08:55.:09:00.

to get hard access to information about what is happening in another

:09:01.:09:05.

council. Despite the fact that local council might be aspiring to take

:09:06.:09:11.

over the assets and income of the Council where the taxpayer is

:09:12.:09:14.

resident. I will illustrate this point with an example from

:09:15.:09:20.

Bournemouth. In speaking of Bournemouth, can I say how proud we

:09:21.:09:24.

all are, those who live near Bournemouth, at the way in which our

:09:25.:09:30.

honourable friend for Bournemouth East conducted himself on Wednesday.

:09:31.:09:38.

That is an example of public service at its best. And I fear what I am

:09:39.:09:44.

about to say compares unfavourably with the conduct of my honourable

:09:45.:09:51.

friend. On the 9th of February, Bournemouth and Poole Council made a

:09:52.:09:55.

submission to the secretary of state to incorporate Christ Church Council

:09:56.:09:58.

in a new unitary authority comprising of Bournemouth, Poole and

:09:59.:10:00.

Christchurch. They say they effectiveness cannot

:10:01.:10:16.

be achieved in anyway other way. Bournemouth has a replition of being

:10:17.:10:20.

profligate, spend thrift and secretive. The topical example is

:10:21.:10:25.

the decision announced earlier this week to make its Chief Executive

:10:26.:10:29.

redundant, it came out of the blue, the Chief Executive is to be made

:10:30.:10:34.

redundant and he is going to be given a ?394,000 pay-off. That is

:10:35.:10:43.

comprising ?85,000, six months' pay because aparentedly they don't want

:10:44.:10:49.

him to work any longer and he is to receive ?63,000 in statutory

:10:50.:10:53.

redundancy pay, although no reason has been given as to why the

:10:54.:10:58.

position is redundant. He is also going to receive ?246,000 in account

:10:59.:11:03.

of early release of pension funds. I have no criticism of the Chief

:11:04.:11:07.

Executive. I think he's on to a good thing. And I'm sure fifs made an

:11:08.:11:13.

offer like that, Mr Speaker, I would be sorely tempted by it. Somebody

:11:14.:11:20.

quick, make an offer. But Bournemouth proposal, currently

:11:21.:11:23.

before the Secretary of State, which is actually signed by Bournemouth

:11:24.:11:28.

Council leader, and five other council leaders in Dorset, be

:11:29.:11:33.

adviceages Christchurch tax payers having to subsidise Bournemouth

:11:34.:11:37.

residents for up to 20 years by paying higher council tax than the

:11:38.:11:41.

people in Bournemouth and Poole. So they will effectively have to meet

:11:42.:11:46.

the bill for the Bournemouth Chief Executive's redundancy. And the

:11:47.:11:51.

extraordinary thing about this, Mr Speaker, is that there was no

:11:52.:11:54.

meeting of the council to discuss whether or not they wanted to make

:11:55.:11:59.

the post of Chief Executive redundant. There was no even meeting

:12:00.:12:03.

of Bournemouth Cabinet to discuss this and there has been no

:12:04.:12:08.

discussification for the substantial pay-off, although I understand there

:12:09.:12:13.

is to be a meeting of the council later next week, where they will

:12:14.:12:19.

approve retrospectively or try to approve retrospectively the decision

:12:20.:12:23.

to which I have already referred. But fortunately, in our locality we

:12:24.:12:28.

have an excellent newspaper, the Daily Echo and they heard about this

:12:29.:12:33.

and told the world that there are all sorts of headlines. And talking

:12:34.:12:39.

about the ?390,000 pay-off, which as I said earlier is a slight

:12:40.:12:45.

underestimate, but, anyway, it gets the message across, and they do

:12:46.:12:50.

disclose, in I think Teed edition that the council is going -- noed's

:12:51.:12:59.

-- today's edition, that the council will now discuss this following the

:13:00.:13:01.

revelations by the newspaper earlier this week. But one is still left

:13:02.:13:14.

with the question as to how has this arisen and it goes to local

:13:15.:13:17.

accountability. It seems what happened is that the Chief Executive

:13:18.:13:22.

has fallen out of favour with the leader of the Bournemouth borough

:13:23.:13:25.

council because he sought to question the lead ears conflicts of

:13:26.:13:31.

interest with his businesses. And the leader of Bournemouth borough

:13:32.:13:37.

council runs a company, or an organisation called Hospitality

:13:38.:13:43.

Solutions and this morning I interrogated the website of

:13:44.:13:48.

Hospitality Solutions and it sets out all the things that Hospitality

:13:49.:13:51.

Solutions does but particularly it gives advice on town planning

:13:52.:13:56.

consultation for new build hotel and leisure development, planning

:13:57.:14:00.

support to maximise site potential, planning applications and report,

:14:01.:14:06.

project planning and management and building and refurbishing management

:14:07.:14:10.

and it says "To arrange an initial discussion without any obligation,

:14:11.:14:16.

the person to contact is none other than John Beesley, FIH, who is the

:14:17.:14:23.

leader of the council." And it was earlier last month - in fact an

:14:24.:14:28.

approval was given, I think actually it was in January, the 23rd January,

:14:29.:14:37.

I think. Yes, 23rd January. The Bournemouth planning board gave

:14:38.:14:45.

approval to a ?40 million hotel and apartment redevelopment in

:14:46.:14:52.

Bournemouth and on the site of the former Belvedere Hotel, to build a

:14:53.:14:59.

141-room hotel with leisure facilities, a sky bar and 66

:15:00.:15:03.

residential flats, a businessment car park and so on. -- a basement

:15:04.:15:11.

car park and so on. I understand that the developers of that site

:15:12.:15:16.

sought and obtained the advice of known other than the leader of the

:15:17.:15:21.

council when developing their ideas. And the leader of the council, not

:15:22.:15:25.

wearing his hat as ledder of the council, but wearing his hat as a

:15:26.:15:29.

planning consultant, gave them advice and encouraged them to go

:15:30.:15:35.

along and make their pitch to the planning department. The planning

:15:36.:15:40.

department knowing of his involvement as a consultant,

:15:41.:15:42.

although of course not being influenced by the fact that he was a

:15:43.:15:50.

leader of the council. I suspect what has happened is, Mr Speaker,

:15:51.:15:56.

that this and various other things that have been going on has raised

:15:57.:16:01.

an eyebrow on the part of the Chief Executive and he was about to start

:16:02.:16:06.

an investigation into the conduct and conflict of interest of the

:16:07.:16:13.

leader of the council and the leader of the council effectively has used

:16:14.:16:17.

public money in order to ensure that the Chief Executive's best interests

:16:18.:16:22.

are served by taking the money and not inquiring any further into these

:16:23.:16:30.

issues. I think, Mr Speaker, this is a current example of what is

:16:31.:16:35.

happening across the country in local Government. I don't know,

:16:36.:16:45.

whether, Mr Speaker, you read Roughman Burrows in the Private Eye.

:16:46.:16:49.

There was so much information, it is almost like that they have to have a

:16:50.:16:56.

second supplement on Rotten Boroughs. That there is so much

:16:57.:17:01.

material coming out that it is unable to get into the public dedo

:17:02.:17:06.

main, because of the pressure that is put upon local newspapers, if

:17:07.:17:10.

they cause trouble with their local council, then they may suffer

:17:11.:17:14.

discrimination, because there won't be any advertising for any local

:17:15.:17:17.

council jobs in their newspaper and so on and they won't get access to

:17:18.:17:25.

information. THE SPEAKER: Order, the reference by the honourable

:17:26.:17:30.

gentleman to the Rotten Boroughs Column is of itself orderly but it

:17:31.:17:34.

might help and inform the debate if that reference to be related more

:17:35.:17:41.

specifically to the terms of the important amendment to which the

:17:42.:17:45.

honourable gentleman is speaking, Mr Christopher Choke. I take that

:17:46.:17:50.

point, absolutely, Mr Speaker. Will my honourable friend allow me. I

:17:51.:17:54.

want to speak directly to his amendment in terms of understanding

:17:55.:17:57.

what other local authorities are doing. Now I see the minister is

:17:58.:18:05.

sitting in his place. We've had hugely controversial arguments about

:18:06.:18:08.

whether to have a mayor and I and others managed to defeat that but

:18:09.:18:13.

there is now a proposal,s this only a rumour that North Lincolnshire

:18:14.:18:17.

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

:18:18.:18:23.

I as an elector of West Lindsey, have absolutely no way of knowing

:18:24.:18:26.

what is going on in North Lincolnshire and I personally think

:18:27.:18:31.

- I personally think that if this is now being discussed in private, that

:18:32.:18:36.

electors in West Lindsey, who are crucially concerned with this,

:18:37.:18:41.

should have a right to know what is going on. My honourable friend makes

:18:42.:18:46.

a very good point and that is, in essence, what I have been saying

:18:47.:18:50.

about the position in Bournemouth. Because if Bournemouth is going to

:18:51.:18:54.

take over or merge with Christchurch in a unitary authority, then the

:18:55.:18:59.

people in Christchurch need to know the nature of the debts and

:19:00.:19:03.

liabilities of Bournemouth borough council, and the sort of way in

:19:04.:19:09.

which it conducts its proceedings. Particularly, on the issue of

:19:10.:19:14.

planning, because one of the key losses in such a merger would be the

:19:15.:19:19.

loss of cries church borough council's control over its --

:19:20.:19:23.

Christchurch borough council's control over oits engreen belt and

:19:24.:19:27.

planning property. And that I think is one of the biggest concerns that

:19:28.:19:31.

my local residents have got, that they fear that, effectively, they

:19:32.:19:36.

will lose control over the quality of their local environment which, at

:19:37.:19:41.

the moment they can control through local planning policy. So, Mr

:19:42.:19:47.

Speaker, the point of this amendment is to try and ensure that anybody

:19:48.:19:53.

can get access to this information, rather than just limiting it to

:19:54.:19:58.

journalists. Obviously the information to which I've been

:19:59.:20:03.

referring earlier will only become available after the - when the audit

:20:04.:20:08.

for this financial year is conducted. And that may be rather

:20:09.:20:13.

later in the day than most people would wish. Will my honourable

:20:14.:20:22.

friend give way? Of course I will As he will know, many local papers are

:20:23.:20:26.

stretched financially and many are deterred for publishing things

:20:27.:20:30.

perhaps about maybe, including the leader of Bournemouth council,

:20:31.:20:32.

because they feared being sued and they don't really have the resources

:20:33.:20:36.

to defend themselves. Yoo my honourable friend agree with me that

:20:37.:20:42.

why it is so important that not just journalists have access to this

:20:43.:20:45.

material, but the public do, so they can make their own minds up, and not

:20:46.:20:51.

being reliant on a newspaper which can afford to publish something

:20:52.:20:55.

which may end up with them being in court. Of my honourable friend is

:20:56.:20:59.

right. We in this place are trying to do a job to hold these councils

:21:00.:21:02.

to account. I put down a parliamentary question earlier this

:21:03.:21:10.

year trying to find out what the - How much arears and non-domsic rates

:21:11.:21:13.

there were in Bournemouth. I got the answer I think it is about ?10 and

:21:14.:21:19.

?12 million in uncollected, non-domsic rates, to the credit of

:21:20.:21:24.

the council, within weeks, they had issued summones against all the

:21:25.:21:29.

people who own arears. I like to think I might have had some

:21:30.:21:33.

influence in that but they are talking about ?10 or ?12 million

:21:34.:21:37.

worth of business, non-domsic arears at a time when they are saying it is

:21:38.:21:43.

absolutely essential that we save 1% of turnover by abolishing existing

:21:44.:21:49.

sovereign councils. It's farce K and trying to get these councils

:21:50.:22:02.

themselves it's farcical. Trying to get the councils to address the

:22:03.:22:07.

issues is difficult. And trying to get the scrutiny economies part of

:22:08.:22:14.

the localism act, in 2011, that hasn't worked because often the

:22:15.:22:17.

scrutiny committees are occupied by people who don't really understand

:22:18.:22:21.

or are not interested in genuinely holding the council to account and

:22:22.:22:26.

there is also the problem that the scrutiny committees are not entitled

:22:27.:22:29.

to look into issues relating to planning, which is often one of the

:22:30.:22:36.

most controversial local issues. And there are lots of other things I

:22:37.:22:39.

could say about neighbouring councils. But I won't trouble the

:22:40.:22:45.

House with all that now. I see that my honourable friend for Mid Dorset

:22:46.:22:50.

is here and North Poole. And I'm sure he may wish to add to this

:22:51.:22:54.

catalogue in due course, if he contributes to this debate.

:22:55.:23:01.

But the essence of this amendment is that everybody should be able to get

:23:02.:23:06.

access to this information, and it shouldn't just be limited to

:23:07.:23:10.

journalists. And other interested parties.

:23:11.:23:17.

Now, the idea ideas, as I think I said before, are very much supported

:23:18.:23:23.

Miyamoto honourable friend for Calder Valley who wanted to extend

:23:24.:23:31.

these rights to everybody and I anticipate, probably, the response

:23:32.:23:33.

Miyamoto honourable friend, the sponsor of the bill is going to make

:23:34.:23:40.

to this point because during the second reading of the -- the

:23:41.:23:45.

response from my honourable friend. . He said, if the frights extended

:23:46.:23:52.

to anyone there would be great potential to make mischief to

:23:53.:24:04.

multiple requests to ask for documents without an ability to

:24:05.:24:07.

make... I implore my honourable friend to

:24:08.:24:12.

reflect on what show said. It was a sweeping genisation and where is the

:24:13.:24:16.

evidence that the freedom to look at documents would be abused and if it

:24:17.:24:20.

was, there are already safeguards dealing with vexatious behaviour.

:24:21.:24:25.

So, that, in summary, is amendment number 2.

:24:26.:24:30.

Amendment 3, would not go so far as amendment 2, but would extend the

:24:31.:24:34.

limited extension to which the bill gives to journalists to politicians.

:24:35.:24:40.

The example I gave above is obviously relevant, earlieer, is

:24:41.:24:45.

obviously relevant to this but another example concerns the

:24:46.:24:50.

difficulties which councillors in one area have in obtaining

:24:51.:24:53.

information about has happened or is happening in other parts of the

:24:54.:24:57.

country. And something like, for example, fair funding for schools,

:24:58.:25:01.

there is a very lively local debate on about that but it is very

:25:02.:25:05.

difficult to drill down into the data in other council areas to find

:25:06.:25:10.

out exactly how well orred aboutly one's own schools in one's own area

:25:11.:25:13.

compare with others. I think there is a very good reason

:25:14.:25:22.

for saying politicians should be able to have equal access... I will

:25:23.:25:28.

give way to the honourable member. I am grateful to my honourable friend

:25:29.:25:32.

for giving way. This whole Bill before us this morning arises from

:25:33.:25:40.

the problem in defining terms. I wonder if my honourable friend has

:25:41.:25:45.

given any thought to exactly what constitutes a politician. For

:25:46.:25:50.

example, does it include somebody that is a candidate in an election,

:25:51.:25:55.

or only elected politicians? My honourable friend has tried, very

:25:56.:26:04.

successful, probably, to torpedo my amendment! I accept the implied, or

:26:05.:26:11.

even expressed criticism he is articulating. But I would fall back

:26:12.:26:18.

on the general common law, Mr Speaker. And rely upon the general

:26:19.:26:24.

common law interpretation of a politician and say that is probably

:26:25.:26:27.

the best way of dealing with it without having to define

:26:28.:26:33.

specifically in the terms of the Bill and amendment. Turning to

:26:34.:26:38.

amendment four, this clarifies the law by making it clear persons

:26:39.:26:43.

interested also includes nondomestic rate payers. The reason I raise this

:26:44.:26:49.

is this is an issue which was the focus of the court case on the

:26:50.:26:57.

application of HTV Ltd and Bristol city council, reported E W H C, 129.

:26:58.:27:04.

Paragraph 48 of the judgment of the justice on May the 14th in 2004

:27:05.:27:10.

said, I have reached the conclusion that the interest which the claimant

:27:11.:27:14.

has as a non-domestic rate payer is sufficient to bring it within the

:27:15.:27:20.

concept of persons interested. Mr Speaker, Bristol city council in

:27:21.:27:24.

that case argued to the contrary, citing insubordinate changes to the

:27:25.:27:28.

nondomestic rate legislation in the Finance act of 1988. With

:27:29.:27:35.

forthcoming further changes introducing 100% business rate

:27:36.:27:37.

retention and the pooling of business rates across local

:27:38.:27:41.

authorities, I think it is worth using the opportunity of the Bill to

:27:42.:27:48.

clarify and put on the record that the existing legislation does

:27:49.:27:51.

expressly incorporate the rights of non-domestic rate payers. That is

:27:52.:27:58.

the background to amendment four. Five, six and seven are alternative

:27:59.:28:04.

ways of limiting the term "Journalist" in this Bill to real

:28:05.:28:11.

journalists. It is noteworthy that in the public body admission to

:28:12.:28:20.

meetings act of 1960, section 14 C, Julie accredited representatives of

:28:21.:28:23.

newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting proceedings for those

:28:24.:28:25.

shall be afforded reasonable facilities. And the NUJ, National

:28:26.:28:32.

union of journalists website sets out what is needed to establish that

:28:33.:28:37.

you are indeed an accredited journalist. Says, an accredited

:28:38.:28:47.

journalist must have implied identification, a business card,

:28:48.:28:51.

implied ID badge and letter of signing on corporate letterhead

:28:52.:28:55.

which must identify the immediate outlet, name, address and phone and

:28:56.:28:59.

there must be proof of assignment sampled and published within the

:29:00.:29:04.

last six months or a current master including the reporter's name and

:29:05.:29:06.

title or official letter of assignment from a media outlet.

:29:07.:29:13.

These are necessary for a person to be admitted to four example a press

:29:14.:29:16.

conference as an accredited journalist. It seems to me, Mr

:29:17.:29:21.

Speaker, if we are going to extend these rights to journalists, we

:29:22.:29:26.

should being carried showing those journalists to be accredited rather

:29:27.:29:33.

than amateur. -- we should be encouraging these journalists. We

:29:34.:29:39.

are moving into a completely digital age. Where people can set up blogs,

:29:40.:29:50.

Facebook pages, this is inevitable bust up my honourable friend is

:29:51.:29:53.

slightly living in the past now, where we now talk about the NUJ and

:29:54.:29:59.

having to be accredited. He is trying to put his finger in the dam.

:30:00.:30:03.

It is not going to work. You need complete openness and transparency.

:30:04.:30:09.

It is not the first time anybody has suggested I'm living in the past!

:30:10.:30:17.

Taking my honourable friend's point, I think if you are going to give

:30:18.:30:24.

privileged access, which is what our honourable friend is seeking to do,

:30:25.:30:28.

intending privileged access over other members of the public to

:30:29.:30:35.

journalists, I think that with those we need to have as journalists

:30:36.:30:38.

people who are qualified in the sense they understand the law and

:30:39.:30:46.

they are not just people who are perhaps prejudiced and not objective

:30:47.:30:49.

and don't have the standards we normally expect of journalists. That

:30:50.:30:56.

is my feeling about it. But if we are going to give them special

:30:57.:31:03.

privileges, that they should be accredited. But I have expressed

:31:04.:31:08.

this in alternative ways so we could also refer to them as professional

:31:09.:31:14.

journalists. Various, Mr Speaker, as you may know a society called the

:31:15.:31:20.

Society of professional journalists. That society requires a professional

:31:21.:31:24.

journalist must adhere to a strict code of ethics to retain public

:31:25.:31:30.

trust, confidence and reliability. I'm sure my honourable friend would

:31:31.:31:34.

think it is important journalists should adhere to a strict code of

:31:35.:31:39.

ethics. And to make sure of this the process of gatekeeping is upheld

:31:40.:31:44.

within mainstream media. It relies on all experienced journalists and

:31:45.:31:47.

editors filtering nonfactual information from news reports before

:31:48.:31:54.

publication, or broadcast. I don't want to go into the issue of fake

:31:55.:32:00.

news, Mr Speaker. But I think that is probably more important now than

:32:01.:32:05.

ever, that we should make sure there is some basis for the reports which

:32:06.:32:09.

are put forward by journalists and how it is going to be policed if not

:32:10.:32:18.

by a body like the National union of journalists, and so on. Ordinarily I

:32:19.:32:26.

feel that I can follow and to some extent anticipates the honourable

:32:27.:32:28.

gentleman, such as the frequency with which I have heard his speeches

:32:29.:32:34.

over three decades. But on this occasion my senses have deserted me.

:32:35.:32:37.

I thought the honourable gentleman was going to tell as family members

:32:38.:32:41.

of society has. Mr Christopher choke. I was not going to go into

:32:42.:32:48.

that level of detail! -- Mr Christopher... There are quite a lot

:32:49.:32:55.

of points I seek to make. I am sure however many members of the society

:32:56.:33:00.

has, if this Bill is amended in the way I suggest it will have even

:33:01.:33:06.

more. I give way. My honourable friend is beginning to lose me. It

:33:07.:33:14.

seems to me he made a very good case for his earlier amendment, to

:33:15.:33:17.

provide access to as many people as possible, which I am with him on. He

:33:18.:33:21.

appears now to argue about restricting the number of people

:33:22.:33:25.

that have access to these things which seem supply in the face of his

:33:26.:33:30.

earlier amendment. Can I clarify that he supports his earlier

:33:31.:33:32.

amendment rather than this one, which might be seen as a prohibitive

:33:33.:33:39.

amendment? Absolutely. I support my earlier amendment... And the reason

:33:40.:33:45.

I put forward these alternatives was in the event of my earlier amendment

:33:46.:33:51.

is not being accepted by... That is very defeatist! It is, indeed! It is

:33:52.:33:57.

uncharacteristic of me to be defeatist. This is a belt and braces

:33:58.:34:07.

thing. If we are going to give access, privileged access, to a

:34:08.:34:11.

group of people, I think that group of people, if it is going to be

:34:12.:34:14.

journalists, as my honourable friend would want, I think rather than

:34:15.:34:18.

having anybody basically being able to call themselves a journalist,

:34:19.:34:24.

should in fact be an accredited professional, or indeed a qualified

:34:25.:34:29.

journalist. I will give way to the honourable member. I am very

:34:30.:34:35.

grateful for that. I hope you will not be defeated on his first

:34:36.:34:39.

amendment and I would encourage them to strive for it and I think he will

:34:40.:34:43.

get a lot of support. But if the first one fails, surely the next

:34:44.:34:47.

text option is for as many people in the terms of journalist to have

:34:48.:34:52.

access, surely that is a better fallback position than trying to

:34:53.:34:58.

restrict it even more? I understand my honourable friend's point. But my

:34:59.:35:04.

feeling is, why should we, in order to maximise access, why should we

:35:05.:35:10.

distort the meaning of journalist? By saying that any member of the

:35:11.:35:13.

public can describe themselves as a journalist and then come within the

:35:14.:35:17.

terms of this Bill rather than making it clear that really we want

:35:18.:35:23.

all members of the public? If we are talking about journalists, I think

:35:24.:35:28.

we owe it to them to make sure we retain a standard amongst

:35:29.:35:32.

journalists with accredited journalists... Has my honourable

:35:33.:35:38.

friend noticed that the title to clause one of this Bill, inspection

:35:39.:35:42.

of records by journalists and citizen journalists? I hope when I

:35:43.:35:48.

come to my amendment he will see that I have gone in exactly the

:35:49.:35:52.

opposite direction rather than trying to narrow the definition I

:35:53.:35:59.

have tried to widen it out. That is probably why I did not seek to

:36:00.:36:06.

address my honourable friend... Mr Speaker, I am sorry that we can't

:36:07.:36:11.

reach a consensus on this particular group of amendments. I think there

:36:12.:36:15.

is strong consensus regarding the earlier ones. And finally on this

:36:16.:36:21.

point, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact the N UJ does

:36:22.:36:29.

have a code of conduct... Of course. It will be an interesting point he's

:36:30.:36:34.

making about professional qualifications and accreditation of

:36:35.:36:36.

journalist and newspaper people. Would he agree that would also

:36:37.:36:40.

applied editors of newspapers and perhaps large publications

:36:41.:36:44.

representing London? Indeed, absolutely. And editors are included

:36:45.:36:52.

within the definition, the wider definition of journalists. I think

:36:53.:36:56.

the honourable lady makes a good point. As far as the NUJ code of

:36:57.:37:05.

conduct is concerned, it does set out a 12... Rules or principles

:37:06.:37:13.

which journalists who are members of the NUJ are expected to abide by. I

:37:14.:37:16.

will not tell the House about all of them. One for example, Mr Speaker,

:37:17.:37:27.

is to avoid plagiarism. Another is to resist threats or any inducements

:37:28.:37:32.

to influence, distort or suppress information. And not to produce any

:37:33.:37:38.

material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of

:37:39.:37:44.

age, gender, race, etc. And I think most important of all, to do his or

:37:45.:37:50.

her utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies and differentiate

:37:51.:37:55.

between fact and opinion. I think that is something that we don't

:37:56.:38:02.

always find in journalists. Those amendments... Before my honourable

:38:03.:38:10.

friend gives way, amendment five, six and seven are put on the audit

:38:11.:38:17.

paper as an alternative, really. I could not adopt all three. I wonder

:38:18.:38:20.

if he would let the House know which of the three alternatives he

:38:21.:38:26.

personally prefers? I think of those three I prefer the accredited one. I

:38:27.:38:29.

think the accredited journalist is a well understood expression. As I

:38:30.:38:36.

said earlier, it is even referred to in statute such as the 1960 access

:38:37.:38:44.

to meetings legislation. Mr Speaker, this takes me on to amendment

:38:45.:38:57.

burrow-macro -- to amendment eight, which talks about journalists and

:38:58.:39:03.

seeks to make sure we don't define journalist in this. The office of

:39:04.:39:09.

National 's to this list a series of roles are defined as journalists. --

:39:10.:39:16.

the office of National statistics has a series of roles defined as

:39:17.:39:21.

journalists. It includes such people as the editor of the London Evening

:39:22.:39:29.

Standard. Turning to amendment nine, this will make sure that any person

:39:30.:39:32.

making an inspection within subsection one of section 26 of the

:39:33.:39:38.

2014 hacked, can do so at all reasonable times and without

:39:39.:39:44.

payment. -- 2014 hacked. If section 26 achieves the Government's

:39:45.:39:48.

purpose, we need to make sure that it is included because otherwise it

:39:49.:39:51.

would be too easy for the objective of transparency and accountability

:39:52.:39:53.

to be frustrated. It it was said "Local elected

:39:54.:40:12.

exercise their rights over a total of 11,000 bodies only about 65 times

:40:13.:40:19.

in the whole year." Only 65 instances of the rights under

:40:20.:40:24.

section 25 being exercised by local electors in a whole year. And

:40:25.:40:28.

although that was, under section 25, it would be ridiculous, I think, to

:40:29.:40:36.

suggest that extending the same rights to section 26 applicants,

:40:37.:40:44.

would be burdened, unduly burdensome and would be too expensive.

:40:45.:40:50.

Amendment Number 11 would extend the period in which inspections can be

:40:51.:40:54.

carried out beyond the current 30-day limit. Again, the minister

:40:55.:41:00.

told us at second read that the ability to inspect and make copies

:41:01.:41:02.

of the most recent accounting of the most recent accounting

:41:03.:41:09.

information from a local authority during the specific period, could

:41:10.:41:12.

provide compelling and timely evidence of poor spending decisions

:41:13.:41:15.

in the last accounting period." Why is the period in which this can be

:41:16.:41:21.

done limited to 30 days, Mr Speaker? As I said in the context of the

:41:22.:41:26.

available statistics, on take-up of those powers, the time period seems

:41:27.:41:31.

to have had little impact but if, as the minister hopes, there is an

:41:32.:41:37.

expediential increase in take-up, following my amendments and this

:41:38.:41:41.

legislation, it would be desirable, wouldn't it, to spread the load of a

:41:42.:41:46.

longer period than 30 days so, that there wasn't this sort of great

:41:47.:41:50.

surge of activity over a specific 30-day period. I can't understand

:41:51.:41:54.

why it shouldn't be possible, once the accounts have been audited and

:41:55.:41:57.

are produced and available, why it shouldn't be possible to access

:41:58.:42:01.

those accounts, not just within that 30-day period and that's the purpose

:42:02.:42:08.

of amendment number 11. Will my honourable friend give way.

:42:09.:42:11.

Certainly Obviously my honourable friend speaks about knowledge and

:42:12.:42:14.

this is a general win request for information. We have the Freedom of

:42:15.:42:18.

Information Act, and what I would like to hear from him and I suspect

:42:19.:42:23.

the House would like to know is how the ability of a member of the

:42:24.:42:27.

public to get freedom of information about local authorities relates to

:42:28.:42:33.

his or her freedom of information about central government? I don't

:42:34.:42:37.

hold myself out as an expert on the free dom of information act but

:42:38.:42:43.

local authorities are subject to the freedom of information legislation,

:42:44.:42:48.

like any other public body but freedom of information depends upon

:42:49.:42:51.

being able to know what question to ask and quite often it is only when

:42:52.:42:53.

you have actually looked at the you have actually looked at the

:42:54.:42:55.

accounts or documents relating to the accounts that you know what

:42:56.:43:01.

question to ask, so I think that's really the importance of this. I

:43:02.:43:06.

will give way in a minute. In other ways, the free dom of information

:43:07.:43:10.

powers can be more potent because they can be exercised at any time

:43:11.:43:15.

and the local authority is under an obligation to respond I think within

:43:16.:43:19.

20 days or a reasonable period, so it can be more potent but opened,

:43:20.:43:24.

the base information that enables people who really understand what

:43:25.:43:28.

questions they want to ask, will probably only be ascertained by

:43:29.:43:34.

inspecting the documents. I thank my honourable friend for allow ming to

:43:35.:43:37.

intervene on this, I would think and I'm not an expert, that a freedom of

:43:38.:43:43.

information request is more costly to the council than what this bill

:43:44.:43:46.

is proposing and perhaps the balance between cost and effectiveness needs

:43:47.:43:49.

it be taken into consideration as well? My honourable friend may make

:43:50.:43:56.

a fair point but, of course, one of the problems is that some councils

:43:57.:44:00.

are really open and transparent and so they get very few freedom of

:44:01.:44:05.

information requests because they give out information, make it

:44:06.:44:09.

available and I'm going to come to an example later on, of an example

:44:10.:44:14.

where that's not been happening and so you then get even councillors

:44:15.:44:19.

saying - am I going to have a freedom of information request in

:44:20.:44:21.

order to get information from the Chief Executive of the council on

:44:22.:44:25.

which I serve, which is intolerable, actually. So, I think a will the

:44:26.:44:29.

depends on the culture of a council, and going back a long way, when I

:44:30.:44:35.

was first elected to Wandsworth council in 1964, it was in the --

:44:36.:44:43.

1974 it was in the aftermath of a big corruption scandal where the

:44:44.:44:49.

housing committee chairman of the Labour council, prior it 1974, was

:44:50.:44:56.

sentenced to a term of imprisonment for receiving payments from somebody

:44:57.:45:04.

called T Dan #13s Smith. But the culture was everything was open.

:45:05.:45:07.

Tender documents were open and everybody can see what is happening.

:45:08.:45:13.

And it's a pity that that transparency is not the norm in so

:45:14.:45:16.

many councils up and down the country. So, urning it now, Mr

:45:17.:45:31.

Speaker to amendment 12, this res moves the restriction in section 264

:45:32.:45:34.

A of the act on the entitlement of a person to inspect any part or record

:45:35.:45:38.

of a document containing information which is protected on the grounds of

:45:39.:45:43.

commercial confidentiality. Now this is an area where there is an

:45:44.:45:46.

interesting interaction between the rules under the freedom of

:45:47.:45:52.

information and the rules relating to council - getting access tok do

:45:53.:45:57.

uments under the powers in the 2014 act. This amendment doesn't go the

:45:58.:46:04.

whole way, because it would not remove the restriction on copying.

:46:05.:46:10.

But it is inspired by a recent set of events in Christchurch and when

:46:11.:46:15.

local people wanted to try to get to the truth of an extraordinary

:46:16.:46:19.

episode and you will remember, Mr Speaker, we had an adjournment

:46:20.:46:24.

debate about the issue of beech cuts in Christchurch, just before we rose

:46:25.:46:30.

for the summer recess and in that adjournment debate I was able to

:46:31.:46:36.

draw the attention of the House to an extraordinary state of affairs

:46:37.:46:41.

whereby Christchurch borough council had entered into an agreement with

:46:42.:46:46.

an organisation scald Plum Pictures develop overnight residential beech

:46:47.:46:50.

huts as part of a competition organised by the Channel 4 programme

:46:51.:46:54.

Amazing Spaces. They didn't need to get planning permission, there was a

:46:55.:46:58.

big stink about all this and I think, partly as a result of the

:46:59.:47:03.

adjournment debate, the contract was aborted, Mr Speaker. And the

:47:04.:47:13.

council's scrutiny committee then started an ininquiry and despite the

:47:14.:47:15.

recommendations of that scrutiny committee which reported two or

:47:16.:47:20.

three weeks ago the councillors have still not been shown a copy of the

:47:21.:47:26.

original contract, despite the fact that obviously that contract was

:47:27.:47:35.

negated and they are citing commercial confidentiality and so

:47:36.:47:42.

continue to do. I wrote to the Chief Executive asking to see a copy of

:47:43.:47:49.

the contract with Plum Pictures and I have not received an answer to

:47:50.:47:52.

that lemplt I was waiting, actually to see what the result from the

:47:53.:47:55.

scrutiny committee would be but the Chief Executive apparently doesn't

:47:56.:48:00.

have any obligation to even comply with the recommendations of the

:48:01.:48:07.

scrutiny committee. At second reading, our honourable friend said

:48:08.:48:13.

"Clearly the aim of the bill is to throw the light of Frans pansy on

:48:14.:48:19.

council proceedings where taxpayer's money is being spent. In that

:48:20.:48:26.

reality it is vital it is used as a tool to hide documents and

:48:27.:48:28.

proceedings should become more open." In moving this amendment, and

:48:29.:48:33.

speaking to this amendment, I know that I've got the support of other

:48:34.:48:39.

colleagues who participated in the second reading debate.

:48:40.:48:50.

And, so that takes us on to next amendment, which is amendment 13, Mr

:48:51.:48:55.

Speaker, which compliments amendment 12 by enabling past contracts to be

:48:56.:48:59.

looked at as well as current ones and amendment 14 goes into the

:49:00.:49:03.

definition of commercial confidentiality. That would remove

:49:04.:49:08.

the definition from this bill, and rely upon existing common law, and

:49:09.:49:17.

there's a mass of documentation about common law, commercial

:49:18.:49:21.

confidentiality, andlinged in with the rules relating to freedom of

:49:22.:49:24.

information. Bearing in mind the time, I'm in the going to go into

:49:25.:49:29.

the detail of that now. But it seems to me that if we're going to ensure

:49:30.:49:36.

that this bill actually achieves its objective, there's no point in

:49:37.:49:41.

maintaining the complete close down on being able to get information by

:49:42.:49:44.

asserting - because that's all that has to happen - the council says -

:49:45.:49:48.

this is commercially confidential, and you can't look behind that and

:49:49.:49:52.

these amendments will actually enable a member of the public to

:49:53.:49:57.

actually look at the documents, they wouldn't able to copy but look at

:49:58.:50:01.

the documents and make their own assess am as to whether it was

:50:02.:50:04.

commercially confidential and whether or not it was in or not in

:50:05.:50:10.

the public interest that it should be made more widely available.

:50:11.:50:14.

So, I think at the moment the very tight drafting and the restrictions

:50:15.:50:19.

on anything that is, or maybe commercially confidential, I think

:50:20.:50:25.

that that is a big weakness in this bill. And, Mr Speaker, amendment 10

:50:26.:50:31.

- I said at the very beginning of these remarks that I would keep the

:50:32.:50:37.

most radical until the last. Amendment 10 would extend the right

:50:38.:50:41.

to inspect documents relating to the accounts of a health service body. I

:50:42.:50:46.

can't understand why, at a time when there is so much public concern

:50:47.:50:50.

about what is happening in various branches of the NHS, whether it be

:50:51.:50:57.

trust, hospitals, or Clinical Commissioning Groups or other

:50:58.:51:02.

organisations, I can't understand why we are not allowing members of

:51:03.:51:07.

the public to get access to the relevant documents.

:51:08.:51:11.

We know, for example, that there have been massive pay-offs of some

:51:12.:51:16.

NHS Chief Executives and other staff and administrators and at the end of

:51:17.:51:22.

the day, all the costs are not just borne by the national taxpayer but

:51:23.:51:26.

are taken out of the budgets which are available to local areas because

:51:27.:51:30.

they are allocated to the clinical commissioning groups, for example,

:51:31.:51:36.

in the case of Dorset, to the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group. So the

:51:37.:51:40.

question I ask my honourable friend, why shouldn't local people and local

:51:41.:51:45.

journalists be given assistance by this bill, to, in the words of the

:51:46.:51:51.

minister, sending reading, where he said at coup 1210 "By giving

:51:52.:51:55.

journalists the right to access recent accounting information from a

:51:56.:52:00.

range of local public bodies, the bill ll assist them in their

:52:01.:52:03.

investigations." I think my honourable friend is on to a very

:52:04.:52:07.

good point and this is a very powerful issue and there isn't

:52:08.:52:10.

really time to discuss it today. What I would like to see in this

:52:11.:52:16.

bill -- and again I'm addressing the menster here and the Government

:52:17.:52:19.

needs to grip this - is we want to have a culture now that members of

:52:20.:52:23.

the public, not just in local Government, not in health services

:52:24.:52:26.

but also in these academies where people are often being paid huge

:52:27.:52:30.

salaries should absolutely, all members of the pub lick, not members

:52:31.:52:36.

of the NUJ, not any cliques, not just councillors but all members of

:52:37.:52:40.

the public in a modern age should have access to these accounts? I'm

:52:41.:52:44.

very grateful to my honourable friend for that contribution and I

:52:45.:52:47.

hope the minister will be able to respond to this. I know that health

:52:48.:52:53.

is not his direct responsibility but he I'm sure will have been briefed

:52:54.:53:02.

by his colleagues on this because he will obviously have noticed this

:53:03.:53:05.

amendment and it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the

:53:06.:53:10.

Government to be able to demonstrate again to the public of the United

:53:11.:53:14.

Kingdom, that they are on their side, and that they are going to do

:53:15.:53:18.

everything within their power to ensure that there is a proper

:53:19.:53:24.

scrutiny and accountability of all these bodies which consume so much

:53:25.:53:30.

public resource. And in my area, Mr Speaker, there's

:53:31.:53:36.

been - and continues to be - a big conflict about whether or not Poole

:53:37.:53:42.

hospitals should merge with the Royal Bournemouth and in the end,

:53:43.:53:46.

during the course of the last Parliament, I was able to persuade

:53:47.:53:50.

the Competition and Markets Authority that the merger, the

:53:51.:53:53.

proposed merger should not be allowed to go ahead but now I'm told

:53:54.:54:00.

that covertly discussions are going ahead and that the two hospitals are

:54:01.:54:06.

trying to approach the Competition and Markets Authority to get them to

:54:07.:54:11.

change their rule which is n relation to this particular merger,

:54:12.:54:15.

which is normally that within ten weeks, ten years, they can't

:54:16.:54:22.

actually proceed with a merger. But that's all happening under the

:54:23.:54:25.

radar. Joe public doesn't know about it and it seems to me that that is

:54:26.:54:31.

another example of the way - the sometimes cavalier way - in which

:54:32.:54:38.

some of our local health organisations are operating and

:54:39.:54:41.

actually, we've all been discussing. I think everybody in the house with

:54:42.:54:47.

an English constituency has been discussing these plans for long-term

:54:48.:54:51.

transformation plans in the health service but I have to say that some

:54:52.:54:56.

of the basic information seems to be incredibly hard to get. I asked my

:54:57.:55:01.

local Clinical Commissioning Group whether if the plans that they are

:55:02.:55:06.

proposing to put forward were implemented, whether there would be

:55:07.:55:10.

fewer or more Acute Hospital beds. And if so, how many Acute Hospital

:55:11.:55:14.

beds are there at the moment and how many would there be in the future?

:55:15.:55:21.

The chief officer did not know that basic data. He came back later with

:55:22.:55:29.

the data and surprise, surprise, the number of beds was going to be

:55:30.:55:35.

reduced. The number of acute beds is going to be reduced by more than 10%

:55:36.:55:38.

despite current occupancy rates in December and January being of the

:55:39.:55:44.

order of 95%, against a national best practice figure of 85. And so

:55:45.:55:50.

it goes on. Too much is being done in the name of the public but

:55:51.:55:55.

without the public being able to get down to the detail and find out who

:55:56.:56:03.

is benefiting and in whose interests some of these decisions are taken.

:56:04.:56:09.

As my honourable friend says, this amendment is the most radical and

:56:10.:56:15.

far reaching. I'm sure, because it will not have been clear across

:56:16.:56:21.

government, it will not be acceptable to my honourable friend.

:56:22.:56:26.

But I hope that when he does respond to this group of amendments he will

:56:27.:56:31.

give encouraging noises about this. And how the Government is really

:56:32.:56:39.

sympathetic to the case for bringing within the remit of local scrutiny

:56:40.:56:44.

more of these health public bodies. Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not want

:56:45.:56:50.

to speak for a whole hour and I have not. Because I know there are a lot

:56:51.:56:55.

of other people that wants to take part in this important debate. But I

:56:56.:57:01.

am grateful for the interest that has been shown by honourable members

:57:02.:57:08.

in the issues I have raised. I hope that in Ju course we will be able to

:57:09.:57:14.

get some acceptance by the promoter of the Bill that she is willing to

:57:15.:57:26.

adopt. -- in course. The question is the amendment be made. David

:57:27.:57:32.

Nuttall. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by paying

:57:33.:57:37.

tribute not only to the promoter of this Bill, my honourable friend, the

:57:38.:57:46.

member for old which, but my honourable friend the member for

:57:47.:57:51.

Christchurch. I think the whole house owes him a debt of gratitude

:57:52.:57:58.

for the forensic way in which he has analysed this Bill. And brought

:57:59.:58:04.

before the House such a wide array of amendments for the House to

:58:05.:58:10.

consider this morning. And I have to say that it seems to me that if this

:58:11.:58:14.

Bill had been subject to my honourable friend's level of

:58:15.:58:22.

scrutiny in its previous stages, and indeed if the initial legislation

:58:23.:58:26.

had been able to be examined by my had been able to be examined by my

:58:27.:58:31.

honourable friend in the detail with which he has demonstrated this

:58:32.:58:38.

morning, then perhaps we would not be in the position that we find

:58:39.:58:45.

ourselves in this morning. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot make any

:58:46.:58:49.

prediction as to the length of time I will need to address the House,

:58:50.:58:55.

other than to say that I will deal succinctly with the amendments

:58:56.:59:00.

before us. I wish to advance to the House of the reasons for my

:59:01.:59:06.

amendment and why I think it is important my amendment is accepted.

:59:07.:59:13.

I have adopted a slightly different approach to that adopted by the

:59:14.:59:19.

member for Christchurch, who has adopted if not a criticism -- it is

:59:20.:59:26.

not a criticism but maybe a more scatter-gun approach. I have

:59:27.:59:30.

concentrated my fire on just one amendment. And therefore I will

:59:31.:59:37.

guide the House through why I think it is absolutely critically

:59:38.:59:41.

important that my amendment to the Bill is accepted this morning.

:59:42.:59:48.

Before I do so, perhaps I could just pay tribute to the honourable lady,

:59:49.:59:57.

my honourable friend, the member for Brownhills. As the House will be

:59:58.:00:06.

aware, she has already achieved, quite rightly, a degree of expertise

:00:07.:00:14.

in private members bills. And steered through in what was her

:00:15.:00:20.

first session in the House a Private members Bill onto statute in dealing

:00:21.:00:27.

with Great Ormond Street Hospital. Everyone is grateful to her for

:00:28.:00:33.

that. She has demonstrated her expertise in the way that this Bill

:00:34.:00:41.

has been preceded so far. Piloting it through second reading in about

:00:42.:00:47.

80 minutes. As was mentioned earlier, through the committee in

:00:48.:01:01.

just 11 minutes will stop that. --. I am sure my honourable friend was

:01:02.:01:05.

pleased that wasn't the case, but I have to say that I think the speed

:01:06.:01:10.

with which it passed through the committee stage, I make the

:01:11.:01:16.

on the committee... -- was the case. on the committee... -- was the case.

:01:17.:01:25.

But in an intervention earlier, it is the case no amendments whatsoever

:01:26.:01:33.

were brought forward to the Bill during the committee stage. It is

:01:34.:01:42.

also worth placing on record, incidentally, that while in addition

:01:43.:01:49.

to my honourable friend the member, the promoter of the Bill, who was

:01:50.:01:54.

obviously present to present the Bill had committee and my honourable

:01:55.:01:59.

friend who was the Minister who dealt with the Bill, together with

:02:00.:02:08.

seven other honourable members, there were several members missing

:02:09.:02:17.

from the Bill committee. The members for Clapton, Swansea East, Oldham

:02:18.:02:20.

West and Royston South, Ealing North, Stoke-on-Trent, Liverpool and

:02:21.:02:30.

West Derby. It is particularly noteworthy that the member for

:02:31.:02:35.

Dorset North, who had quite a lot to say on this Bill in the second

:02:36.:02:43.

reading, missed the cut, as we say, when it came to selecting members

:02:44.:02:49.

for the committee stage. And perhaps had he made the cut and been

:02:50.:02:55.

selected to be a member of the committee, some of the matter is we

:02:56.:03:00.

would be touching on this morning may have been dealt with. But I do

:03:01.:03:07.

fear that the number and nature of the amendment along the audit paper

:03:08.:03:10.

today, it is proven evidence that we today, it is proven evidence that we

:03:11.:03:17.

have somewhat glossed over at committee stage and as evidence I

:03:18.:03:21.

cite the transcript of the second reading debate which took place on

:03:22.:03:28.

the 25th of November last year. That debate contained several references

:03:29.:03:32.

to things being ironed out in committee. My honourable friend

:03:33.:03:39.

herself said, I understand that honourable members have raised

:03:40.:03:42.

concerns today and they are exactly the kind of points I would be more

:03:43.:03:47.

than happy for us to consider in committee. My honourable friend the

:03:48.:03:53.

member for North Dorset said, there will be some issues to be teased out

:03:54.:03:58.

in committee. Which she then doubled up on in referring to what

:03:59.:04:02.

constitutes related documents when he said, I am absolutely certain

:04:03.:04:07.

that the issue will be ironed out in committee. Well, it was not, I am

:04:08.:04:15.

sorry to say. The purpose of my amendment is to clarify the

:04:16.:04:18.

terminology used in this Bill. And to avoid any possibility for

:04:19.:04:27.

confusion in the future. I hope that after I have spent a a few minutes

:04:28.:04:34.

advancing the arguments for why my moment is so important that it will

:04:35.:04:40.

be accepted as I believe that its inclusion will strengthen the Bill,

:04:41.:04:45.

and I have to say from the outset this is not what I would say is a

:04:46.:04:52.

wrecking amendment. I put it forward with the best possible spirit. This

:04:53.:05:02.

is a short... My amendment to clause one of the Bill simply seeks to put

:05:03.:05:12.

onto the face of the Bill what is in third in the explanatory notes and

:05:13.:05:19.

briefing papers about this Bill. And what I believe is the intention of

:05:20.:05:30.

my honourable friend's Bill. Section 26 of the local audit and

:05:31.:05:38.

accountability act says that subsection one that as each audit of

:05:39.:05:44.

account under this act, other than accounts of a health service body,

:05:45.:05:50.

any persons interested may inspect the accounting records for the

:05:51.:05:55.

financial year to which the audit relates and all books, contracts,

:05:56.:06:02.

bills, vouchers, receipts and other documents related to those records

:06:03.:06:07.

and make copies of all or any part of those records or documents.

:06:08.:06:13.

Subsection two says at the request of a local government Elector for

:06:14.:06:18.

any area to which the accounts relate, the local auditor must give

:06:19.:06:22.

the Elector or any representative of the Elector, opportunities to

:06:23.:06:26.

question the auditor about the accounting records and subsection

:06:27.:06:31.

three says, most importantly, the local auditor's reasonable costs of

:06:32.:06:36.

compliance with subsection two can be recovered from the relevant

:06:37.:06:40.

authority to which the accounts relate. That is the underlying

:06:41.:06:48.

provision in statute which my honourable friend's Bill looks to

:06:49.:06:56.

amend. But it is important to bear in mind that this act was itself a

:06:57.:07:07.

consolidation of a previous consolidation, namely the local

:07:08.:07:18.

government audit Bill of 1998. The exact name escapes me for the

:07:19.:07:22.

minute. It was a reference to a previous act and that is important

:07:23.:07:27.

as we will go on to see when we look at the leading case on this. So,

:07:28.:07:37.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can move on to the body -- bodies which are

:07:38.:07:49.

covered by the 2014 act, it covers a number of relevant authorities, set

:07:50.:07:55.

out in schedule two of the 2014 act. For example, county, district,

:07:56.:08:00.

borough and parish councils, combined authorities, police and

:08:01.:08:04.

Crime Commissioner 's, passenger transport executive, Park

:08:05.:08:10.

authorities and at that time it covered the Greater London

:08:11.:08:16.

authority. There are a number of bodies covered by this act. They

:08:17.:08:20.

will inevitably produce a wide variety of stories journalists may

:08:21.:08:34.

wish to pursue. Madam Deputy Speaker, the leading case on this

:08:35.:08:46.

matter is the case of HTV against Bristol city council. And the House

:08:47.:08:52.

of Commons library briefing on this particular Bill refers to this Bill

:08:53.:08:59.

and indeed the explanatory notes to the Bill make reference to the fact

:09:00.:09:06.

that it was this Bill which first identified the problem in the

:09:07.:09:16.

earlier legislation. It is important to bear in mind, as I have said,

:09:17.:09:24.

that although this case was in 2004 it refers to the previous act and

:09:25.:09:31.

not the current act which is being amended. In the case of letter are

:09:32.:09:38.

on the application of HTV against Bristol city council was heard in

:09:39.:09:43.

the administrative Court on the 14th of May in 2004. The case highlighted

:09:44.:09:50.

why it is important to these specific in legislation. And I

:09:51.:09:57.

believe the case highlights why there would be problems with my

:09:58.:10:02.

honourable friend's Bill if it passes without my amendment today.

:10:03.:10:11.

The claimant in this particular case was the television company HTV,

:10:12.:10:17.

which members will be aware will know it is ITV Wales. HTV was in the

:10:18.:10:26.

process of making an addition of its weekly current affairs show at the

:10:27.:10:31.

time called Bear Lake Serious, and the episode in question was about to

:10:32.:10:39.

cover accommodation and care service in the area. The producer of the

:10:40.:10:42.

television company approached the local authority to inspect the

:10:43.:10:48.

relevant records relating to the matter and specifically the producer

:10:49.:10:52.

wanted access to accounts that might shed light on the relationship

:10:53.:10:57.

between the council and the landlord, as there had been a number

:10:58.:11:00.

of complaints made by people about his conduct. Initially, a reporter

:11:01.:11:09.

from the programme attended the council offices and was given access

:11:10.:11:14.

to some material, but described the material as being in complete and

:11:15.:11:19.

indecipherable. And the producer then wrote to the manager of

:11:20.:11:24.

corporate communications at Bristol City Council, setting out a list of

:11:25.:11:30.

documents that she wanted access to. After taking advice, Bristol City

:11:31.:11:32.

Council refused access to the documents. On the grounds that the

:11:33.:11:41.

TV company was not a person interested under section 15 of the

:11:42.:11:48.

1998 audit commission act. That was the actor was referring to earlier.

:11:49.:11:54.

This is the very situation that this bill today would seek to clarify. In

:11:55.:12:00.

the HTV case, the TV company applied for judicial review following

:12:01.:12:05.

Bristol City Council Bosman decision not to grant access to the requested

:12:06.:12:11.

documents. HTV argued that anyone with a legitimate and genuine

:12:12.:12:18.

interest came within the scope of section 15 of what was then the 1998

:12:19.:12:24.

act. They contested the decision by Bristol City Council on two grounds.

:12:25.:12:30.

And it is the distinction between those two grounds identified in that

:12:31.:12:33.

case that ultimately has brought this bill before us today. And

:12:34.:12:41.

particularly why I have tabled my amendment. Firstly, HTV argues that

:12:42.:12:47.

as a local media organisation it had a legitimate interest in the

:12:48.:12:54.

information in order to fulfil its role of ensuring the accountability

:12:55.:12:59.

of the authority to the public. Secondly, and as an alternative

:13:00.:13:05.

argument, HTV submitted that as a non-domestic rate payer, or business

:13:06.:13:10.

rate payer, it had a financial interest in the account is

:13:11.:13:14.

sufficient to bringing it within section 15. Bristol City council

:13:15.:13:19.

accepted that when nondomestic rates had been determined locally, the

:13:20.:13:23.

claimant would have been a person interested under the legislation.

:13:24.:13:30.

However, it argued that the power to set nondomestic rates had been

:13:31.:13:34.

removed from local authorities and since money raised by an nondomestic

:13:35.:13:40.

rates was presently distributed from a central fund, the claimant was no

:13:41.:13:44.

longer a person concerned. The council also submitted that the

:13:45.:13:49.

information had to be sought for legitimate purposes concerning

:13:50.:13:53.

issues relating to the audit of the authority 's account. Mr Justice

:13:54.:14:00.

found in favour of the claimant and it turned out, but it is the grounds

:14:01.:14:08.

of the decision with which we are interested in which are very

:14:09.:14:13.

revealing. He determined in his judgment that HTV was a person

:14:14.:14:18.

interested under section 15, and for the purposes of the 1998 act, but

:14:19.:14:28.

this was solely on the grounds of being a nondomestic rate payer. The

:14:29.:14:31.

judge found that the defendants argument that HTV did not contribute

:14:32.:14:38.

directly to the council budget to business rates to be a purely

:14:39.:14:43.

artificial argument. The judge said, and I quote, I think it is somewhat

:14:44.:14:48.

artificial to say that nondomestic rate payers do not contribute to the

:14:49.:14:54.

local authority's budget. Older contributions are channelled through

:14:55.:14:58.

and will be subject to redistribution by central

:14:59.:15:02.

Government, the income will be received indirectly by the authority

:15:03.:15:06.

as a grant from central Government. Nevertheless, I think it gives them

:15:07.:15:11.

a sufficient interest in inspecting the account. This was the key points

:15:12.:15:18.

in the judgment was that being a media company was not sufficient to

:15:19.:15:24.

bring the claimant into the scope of the 1998 act. And they only

:15:25.:15:30.

succeeded on the alternative argument Mr Justice Alliance said,

:15:31.:15:33.

and again I quote his exact words, some of the ways the claimant puts

:15:34.:15:37.

its case cannot succeed. I reject the contention that it has a

:15:38.:15:42.

sufficient interest merely by virtue of being a media organisation. It

:15:43.:15:48.

seems to me that the use to which persons wish to push the information

:15:49.:15:55.

cannot of itself make them interested persons, and the judge

:15:56.:15:58.

also concluded that if they are right to inspect -- if their right

:15:59.:16:04.

to inspect documents existed at all, the motives for seeking to use that

:16:05.:16:08.

and for seeking access to the documents was not relevant. I think,

:16:09.:16:15.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that referring to that case and some of the detail

:16:16.:16:22.

of it explains and sets out very clearly why it is so important that

:16:23.:16:34.

this bill is clarified. Let us continue the example of a television

:16:35.:16:40.

company wanting access to documents from a local authority for the

:16:41.:16:46.

purposes of a documentary. What that HTV case demonstrated is that

:16:47.:16:50.

another company or journalist who lived and operated outside of the

:16:51.:16:55.

area would have no access simply by virtue of being a journalist. And

:16:56.:17:00.

they would neither have access as a domestic ratepayer as they would

:17:01.:17:03.

ultimately contribute to a different local authority. 13 years after the

:17:04.:17:12.

HTV judgment, we can see why this simple legislative change is now so

:17:13.:17:20.

important, and as I said, I do not seek in any way to wreck this bill.

:17:21.:17:24.

But I do think that it is important that we set out why it is that this

:17:25.:17:39.

amendment should be made today. My amendment is clarifying the

:17:40.:17:49.

definition of a journalist, which is set out in paragraph one a at the

:17:50.:17:56.

moment. Paragraph one a state that in subsection one, eight journalist

:17:57.:18:02.

means anyone who produces for publication a journalistic material,

:18:03.:18:12.

whether paid to do so or otherwise. I think the problem with that is

:18:13.:18:19.

that it is not clear exactly what constitutes a journalist. As I

:18:20.:18:26.

mentioned earlier in an intervention, the heading to the

:18:27.:18:39.

first clause of the bill states that its header, inspection of accounting

:18:40.:18:43.

records by journalists and citizen journalists, and although a

:18:44.:18:50.

journalist is attempted to be defined in subsection one A, there

:18:51.:18:55.

is actually no reference whatsoever anywhere in the bill to the phrase

:18:56.:19:06.

citizen journalist at all. And it was for that reason that I sought to

:19:07.:19:14.

bring forward my amendment one on the order paper today. Clause one,

:19:15.:19:21.

page one, I seek to insert at the end of line eight new clause !B --

:19:22.:19:36.

1B, which will mean the proposed inclusion in a newspaper or a

:19:37.:19:43.

magazine, whether paid for or distributed, including any article

:19:44.:19:48.

proposed to be published on any website on the internet, whether it

:19:49.:19:51.

can be accessed without payment or upon payment of a subscription.

:19:52.:20:00.

Members will have seen the explanatory note that I provided to

:20:01.:20:08.

the house just to give a flavour of the reason why I brought forward

:20:09.:20:13.

that amendment. The purpose of this amendment, I have stated, is to make

:20:14.:20:19.

clear that this section covers all the journalists who may wish to

:20:20.:20:22.

publish their articles in a newspaper or magazine or on the

:20:23.:20:27.

internet, irrespective of whether there are any charges for either. I

:20:28.:20:37.

suspect that there is not much controversy over the definition of a

:20:38.:20:46.

journalist, although, as we heard from Michael Fenn from Christchurch,

:20:47.:20:51.

the exact definition even of a journalist can be open to some

:20:52.:21:00.

dispute and I will come onto that with my honourable friend's

:21:01.:21:05.

amendments. But as far as my amendment is concerned, I see the

:21:06.:21:11.

real difficulty with the definition of what amounts to a citizen

:21:12.:21:20.

journalist, and rather than try and make the wording even more clumsy

:21:21.:21:24.

and complicated by trying to defer -- define the term citizen

:21:25.:21:30.

journalist, I have simply expounded -- expanded the term journalist to

:21:31.:21:34.

make it clear that of somebody wishes to publish their work on the

:21:35.:21:45.

internet, that should be covered by this bill. Will my friend Mike give

:21:46.:21:55.

way? -- will my honourable friend give way? I will give way to my

:21:56.:22:00.

honourable friend the learner to member from Christchurch. My

:22:01.:22:05.

honourable friend is making a fascinating contribution to this

:22:06.:22:09.

debate. Can he explain why he thinks that although citizen journalists is

:22:10.:22:18.

referred to in the rubric of clause one, there is no definition of

:22:19.:22:24.

citizen journalist but only a definition of journalist? Does he

:22:25.:22:27.

agree with me that that rather suggests that there was originally

:22:28.:22:33.

other material in clause one which was then cut out of the bill as a

:22:34.:22:37.

result of negotiations between our honourable friend and the

:22:38.:22:41.

Department, but the department have failed to observe that there was no

:22:42.:22:45.

longer any definition of citizen journalist and amended accordingly?

:22:46.:22:52.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, there may be some reason as to why within

:22:53.:22:58.

the bill there is no definition of citizen journalist, but I have to

:22:59.:23:01.

admit to the house I am not aware of what that reason might be. What I

:23:02.:23:07.

can say, before I give way to my honourable friend the member for

:23:08.:23:12.

Shipley, is that in the explanatory notes to the bill, it says quite

:23:13.:23:20.

clearly at paragraph four, accordingly we are seeking to extend

:23:21.:23:25.

the definition of any persons interested in section 26 of the act,

:23:26.:23:32.

the act being the local audit and accountability act 2014, to include

:23:33.:23:39.

journalists including citizen journalists, but crucially it goes

:23:40.:23:45.

on to say that bloggers and others who scrutinise local authorities but

:23:46.:23:51.

you may not be accredited members of the press, to enable them to access

:23:52.:23:56.

a wider range of accounting material in order to report and publish their

:23:57.:24:01.

findings so that it is available to local electorate in an area, thus

:24:02.:24:04.

providing them with information that will enable them to better hold

:24:05.:24:12.

their local council to account. Now, who can disagree with that? It seems

:24:13.:24:18.

to me to be an entirely laudable aim and it is rather disappointing that

:24:19.:24:23.

that laudable aim wasn't carried through onto the face of the bill

:24:24.:24:28.

and that is what my amendment seeks to do. I will give way. I am very

:24:29.:24:35.

grateful to my honourable friend. My question to him about his sort of

:24:36.:24:40.

wide definition of the term journalist is where social media

:24:41.:24:44.

fits into this definition. Particularly with regards to

:24:45.:24:49.

Facebook and Twitter, because if he is basically saying that this is

:24:50.:24:52.

anybody who wants to publish anything on the internet then it

:24:53.:24:56.

seems to me that anybody anywhere publishes things on Twitter or on

:24:57.:24:59.

Facebook and whether that would follow in his definition of whether

:25:00.:25:02.

or not I would therefore mean that his definition of journalism would

:25:03.:25:05.

mean any member of the public, Wycherley brings us back to my

:25:06.:25:09.

honourable friend's amendment which is the lead amendment in this group.

:25:10.:25:14.

I am very grateful to my honourable friend for his intervention. He has

:25:15.:25:22.

actually touched on what I am going to deal with in the remaining part

:25:23.:25:29.

of my remarks on my own amendment. But I think there is a distinction

:25:30.:25:35.

to be drawn. Whilst I agree that my wide definition would, on the face

:25:36.:25:43.

of it, give a very wide number of people, a very large number of

:25:44.:25:46.

people the right to go and inspect the accounts, it does require some

:25:47.:25:56.

publication on the Internet. For example, if somebody wanted to go,

:25:57.:26:02.

for their own private interest, perhaps for academic research, and

:26:03.:26:08.

without a publication, they would not be included. So they would have

:26:09.:26:16.

to be some element of publication on the Internet. But I make no apology

:26:17.:26:22.

for that. I make no apology for the fact that there will be a very wide

:26:23.:26:27.

category of people. Because I want to make it as wide as possible. I

:26:28.:26:30.

will give way to the honourable member. Just to clarify, I am still

:26:31.:26:35.

not entirely clear. Does that mean publication on social media such as

:26:36.:26:39.

Twitter falls within his definition of journalism or not? I'm still not

:26:40.:26:48.

entirely clear. In short, yes. If I can be absolutely clear about that,

:26:49.:26:52.

yes, I think it would. And the reason why I think it would is

:26:53.:26:56.

because my definition refers to publication on a website. And it is

:26:57.:27:04.

possible to go on to the Twitter website, which has a web address,

:27:05.:27:11.

and to look at the person whose accounts this has been published on,

:27:12.:27:16.

whose Twitter account, and to scroll back through their messages and you

:27:17.:27:22.

can see what they said yesterday, one month ago, one year ago. So it

:27:23.:27:26.

is published for all time on the Internet. I am very grateful. I am

:27:27.:27:32.

not unsympathetic to the point he is making. The only issue that I would

:27:33.:27:37.

make which might be an added complexity is many Twitter profiles

:27:38.:27:45.

as we all know are anonymous. We really has -- have no idea who is

:27:46.:27:50.

behind the publications and I wonder if in your amendment there is any

:27:51.:27:55.

implication that when we are defining a journalist of the Public

:27:56.:27:58.

ought to have the right to know who it is that is publishing the

:27:59.:28:06.

material? My honourable friend, I accept, has made a good point and it

:28:07.:28:09.

is not one I had previously considered. I agree with him that I

:28:10.:28:15.

think it is important that individuals should know who it is

:28:16.:28:21.

that has put this information out there. On the other hand, one could

:28:22.:28:29.

argue if it is an anonymous Twitter account or one where the identity

:28:30.:28:37.

has been protected for some reason, then personally I would be inclined

:28:38.:28:43.

to trust the public to treat any information on such a Twitter

:28:44.:28:47.

account with a very high degree of caution. Because they would not be

:28:48.:28:56.

able to know the source. And whilst I would defend the right of anybody

:28:57.:29:01.

to publish it, and this comes back to the question of fake news, which

:29:02.:29:08.

my honourable member for Christchurch mentioned in his

:29:09.:29:13.

submission, that I think the problem with those sorts of accounts is

:29:14.:29:18.

because they are not accredited to any recognised journalistic output,

:29:19.:29:25.

then members of the public should be very cautious about what they read

:29:26.:29:30.

on them. But it does not detract from my fundamental point that the

:29:31.:29:40.

mere fact that it is on something that we often refer to as social

:29:41.:29:44.

media should stop it being regarded as being published. And can I just

:29:45.:29:52.

say this, if one looks back at when things were published in a daily

:29:53.:29:57.

paper, that was it. It was published in a daily paper and there was the

:29:58.:30:02.

old saying, what is in today's paper will be tomorrow's fish and chip

:30:03.:30:07.

paper. I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember when that was

:30:08.:30:11.

the case and people did chop up yesterday's paper and turn it

:30:12.:30:15.

into... I will give way to the honourable member. I thank him for

:30:16.:30:22.

giving way. Does he accept that even in newspapers some items are

:30:23.:30:26.

anonymous? For many years there was a column in the daily express called

:30:27.:30:30.

William Hickey and there is no such person. I am very grateful to my

:30:31.:30:38.

honourable friend for that comment. I think it does support the answer I

:30:39.:30:44.

gave to my honourable friend, the member for Shipley, that the mere

:30:45.:30:51.

fact of anonymity should not preclude application. But it should

:30:52.:30:57.

then be up to the individual to decide what weight they give to that

:30:58.:31:04.

particular information or news item contained within the column. And of

:31:05.:31:12.

course, the law would equally apply to printing material under this act.

:31:13.:31:17.

So it could be the case that it could be printed. I say this in

:31:18.:31:22.

response to my honourable friend the member for Shipley, with his

:31:23.:31:25.

intervention, that you could have the same as has been said. In a

:31:26.:31:32.

newspaper. It need not be on the Internet that it is anonymous. It

:31:33.:31:36.

could be published and we often see letters in the newspapers where it

:31:37.:31:42.

says name and address withheld. Information can be put out into the

:31:43.:31:46.

public domain without any indication as to who it is who has put it

:31:47.:31:55.

there. So my amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, is about broadening the

:31:56.:32:01.

scope of what is termed journalistic material to make sure that news

:32:02.:32:06.

websites in all media formats are now included. The world of

:32:07.:32:13.

journalism is changing and evolving. And in a free society it is

:32:14.:32:17.

important different viewpoints can freely be expressed and that

:32:18.:32:22.

journalists should have the freedom to go about their work. The public

:32:23.:32:33.

affairs and software company listed the top ten political blogs in the

:32:34.:32:37.

UK has of June 2000 16. In third place was Guido Fawkes. Followed by

:32:38.:32:43.

several other political websites of all persuasions. Wing zone for

:32:44.:32:51.

Scotland, I have said that for the benefit of members from Scotland and

:32:52.:32:55.

the honourable lady has left her place. Labour left and left foot

:32:56.:32:59.

forward, political scrapbook, political betting, Conservative

:33:00.:33:06.

home, Liberal Democrat and labour uncut. All aspects of the political

:33:07.:33:11.

spectrum are covered in the political blogs. And a whole number

:33:12.:33:17.

cover the spectrum. And I don't think the number of viewers to a

:33:18.:33:24.

programme or the number of readers of a newspaper or the number of

:33:25.:33:32.

visitors to a website should in itself be the criteria with which we

:33:33.:33:37.

determine whether or not something is valuable or not. For example,

:33:38.:33:45.

very interesting comments were made by the member for Christchurch, that

:33:46.:33:50.

if they were published on a website that only had a readership within

:33:51.:33:56.

the area of Christchurch and Bournemouth, it would be very

:33:57.:34:01.

sufficient to meeting the definition of publication as far as I was

:34:02.:34:04.

concerned. It would not necessarily have to be something of a national

:34:05.:34:11.

publication, because by definition we are talking here about local

:34:12.:34:15.

bodies. And therefore if you have a local council, to me it seems more

:34:16.:34:24.

important to look at the quality of the readership rather than the

:34:25.:34:33.

number. And the location. And whether it is communicating

:34:34.:34:38.

something to 100 people and if that is more relevant if they live in the

:34:39.:34:42.

locality rather than 10,000 to live somewhere else in the country. I

:34:43.:34:47.

don't think we can purely look at the numbers when deciding this. It

:34:48.:34:55.

is also worth bearing in mind of course that as well as written

:34:56.:35:07.

publications and as well as communications via social media and

:35:08.:35:12.

on the Internet, we are now moving to an age of video bloggers.

:35:13.:35:23.

Vloggers. I make this point to reinforce that I have not tried to

:35:24.:35:29.

be too prescriptive in my amendment about what constitutes a news

:35:30.:35:36.

outlet. I simply said it has to be on a website. Nowadays it is very

:35:37.:35:45.

easy with modern technology for anybody to be able to produce their

:35:46.:35:50.

own news reports and put them on the Internet for others to view. Last

:35:51.:35:56.

year the Reuters Institute for the study of journalism research

:35:57.:36:01.

suggested 51% of people with online access usage, social media as a news

:36:02.:36:05.

source. That is a very high proportion of

:36:06.:36:15.

18-24 year olds, the younger generation, who we want to get

:36:16.:36:20.

involved in the political process, 28% cited social media as their main

:36:21.:36:26.

news source. This is nowadays where people are getting their news

:36:27.:36:29.

source. In fact more people were sited on social media as their main

:36:30.:36:35.

news source in this age group and television, which was only 24%. With

:36:36.:36:40.

this changing landscape it is important that this legislation

:36:41.:36:45.

reflects the changes which are taking place in journalism. We had

:36:46.:36:51.

to accept in an evolving social media world, the definition of what

:36:52.:37:00.

constitutes a journalist will inevitably change as time passes. My

:37:01.:37:06.

amendment is intended if you like to future proof this Bill, which is why

:37:07.:37:11.

I stressed in the drafting of the words "Any website on the Internet".

:37:12.:37:16.

I will give way to the honourable member. Can he clarify something? I

:37:17.:37:23.

am a little concerned about his amendment because I think that it is

:37:24.:37:27.

rather restrictive in terms of hard copy publications. It refers to a

:37:28.:37:32.

magazine or newspaper only. Would this not exclude a Parliamentary

:37:33.:37:39.

candidate who was seeking to root out local corruption and wanted to

:37:40.:37:49.

publish it in an election leaflet? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm

:37:50.:37:52.

grateful my honourable friend for that intervention. I fear that it

:37:53.:37:58.

would on the definition I have included. And therefore it may be

:37:59.:38:05.

one of my honourable friend for Christchurch proposed for including

:38:06.:38:11.

the word "Politician" in the definition. That might be something

:38:12.:38:14.

he had in his mind when he put forward the amendment. Of course it

:38:15.:38:22.

would be possible. And I hope any would-be politician and any

:38:23.:38:26.

candidate in an election nowadays would have access to social media in

:38:27.:38:33.

their own website and would therefore be able to use that as

:38:34.:38:37.

reason for inspecting the document, the fact they were going to publish

:38:38.:38:46.

on their own website. If I may pre-empt, Madam Deputy Speaker, what

:38:47.:38:54.

I suspect might be some further criticism of my claws, my proposed

:38:55.:39:02.

amendment, that is the definition of what constitutes Internet and what

:39:03.:39:10.

constitutes a website. The definition of Internet as far as I

:39:11.:39:17.

can ascertain is a global computer network, providing a variety of

:39:18.:39:21.

information and communication facilities, consisting of

:39:22.:39:25.

interconnected networks, using standardised communication protocol,

:39:26.:39:31.

or the net, as the Internet is often referred to, a worldwide system of

:39:32.:39:36.

computer networks, a network of networks were anyone, with

:39:37.:39:41.

permission, you can get information from any other computer. -- whereby

:39:42.:39:47.

anyone. I would define a website as a set of pages of information on the

:39:48.:39:54.

Internet about a particular subject. I would challenge anybody to

:39:55.:40:00.

actually look at my proposed amendment. And to say to themselves,

:40:01.:40:07.

if any member of the public was reading this, would it be clear what

:40:08.:40:10.

was intended? And I would submit that it is

:40:11.:40:20.

perfectly clear what was intended. It is perfectly clear that the

:40:21.:40:24.

intention is to expand the definition of journalist and to go

:40:25.:40:29.

some way towards, as I set out earlier, what the proposers of the

:40:30.:40:34.

bill claim they are doing with this amendment. And I don't think that

:40:35.:40:41.

there is any ambiguity whatsoever. I have also made it clear... Yes? My

:40:42.:40:51.

honourable friend says there is no ambiguity but we have reference to

:40:52.:40:57.

citizen journalists in the first line of clause one and yet the

:40:58.:41:05.

section itself, the contents of that clause, only refers to journalists.

:41:06.:41:11.

It doesn't refer to citizen journalists. To that in itself

:41:12.:41:15.

creates confusion, doesn't it? Why are we not just talking about

:41:16.:41:20.

journalists and then defining journalists in soap clause three?

:41:21.:41:27.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think to be fair to the honourable member

:41:28.:41:33.

for Christchurch, that my amendment doesn't refer to citizen

:41:34.:41:38.

journalists. It is already heading that refers to citizen journalists,

:41:39.:41:42.

and as we have seen, so do the notes and debriefings. I think, with

:41:43.:41:49.

hindsight, the heading should be amended and the words and citizen

:41:50.:41:53.

journalists deleted because they really do lead people down a

:41:54.:41:59.

cul-de-sac. Because the people will be looking at this bill and they

:42:00.:42:05.

will be thinking to themselves, well, there is a bit missing. Where

:42:06.:42:10.

is the definition of citizen journalists? I explained in my

:42:11.:42:16.

earlier comment that I decided that rather than try and define citizen

:42:17.:42:21.

journalists, it would be better to extend the existing definition of

:42:22.:42:29.

what constituted a journalist, perhaps with hindsight it might have

:42:30.:42:34.

been better to try and somehow define what a citizen journalist is

:42:35.:42:38.

but I was conscious perhaps of the comments which were made on second

:42:39.:42:45.

reading by a number of honourable friends that they took objection to

:42:46.:42:53.

the reference to being citizen 's because we are all subjects of Her

:42:54.:42:58.

Majesty and I think for that reason I felt that it was perhaps not

:42:59.:43:05.

sensible to incorporate the term citizen journalist in legislation.

:43:06.:43:09.

And personally I would prefer therefore if those words could be

:43:10.:43:16.

struck from the bill. The other aspect of the amendment that I have

:43:17.:43:24.

tabled is the reference to whether or not payment is made for a

:43:25.:43:31.

particular magazine or newspaper, or whether one has two paid to access a

:43:32.:43:40.

website should affect the situation. I have been very explicit and made

:43:41.:43:44.

it clear that in my view, whether or not one house to pay for a

:43:45.:43:50.

subscription or paid to access a website or whether the newspaper is

:43:51.:43:57.

distributed free of charge should have no bearing at all on whether or

:43:58.:44:03.

not somebody, a citizen journalist or not, should have the right to go

:44:04.:44:14.

and access the accounts of their local council or body covered by

:44:15.:44:19.

this act. We already know from the face of the bill as being presented

:44:20.:44:26.

that it matters not whether the journalist is paid or unpaid, but I

:44:27.:44:30.

thought it was equally important to clarify as to whether or not one

:44:31.:44:38.

house to pay to access the site itself. I am grateful to him for

:44:39.:44:47.

giving way. The more I reflect on his amendment, the more

:44:48.:44:51.

unsatisfactory I think it is. Why is he apparently discriminating against

:44:52.:44:54.

television journalists? There may be many journalists out there like

:44:55.:44:58.

Michael Crick who want to prepare a news piece for broadcast in a

:44:59.:45:01.

television programme, not to go out in a magazine, not to go out in a

:45:02.:45:05.

newspaper, not to go on the internet, why would they be

:45:06.:45:09.

excluded, why are the excluded from his amendment? Well, I don't intend

:45:10.:45:17.

to exclude anybody. I rather feel that nowadays all the broadcasters

:45:18.:45:26.

have websites and of course they wouldn't necessarily need to publish

:45:27.:45:34.

or to broadcast online, but I am not aware actually of any broadcasters

:45:35.:45:40.

nowadays that don't have websites and perhaps my honourable friend may

:45:41.:45:43.

be aware of some that don't but I would have thought that it would be

:45:44.:45:50.

very simple for any broadcaster who, faced with that defends by a council

:45:51.:46:00.

who wanted to try to shield behind the argument, for that broadcaster

:46:01.:46:07.

to say, well, in any event we will be publishing it on our website.

:46:08.:46:18.

Well, all TV channels these days can be accessed via the internet, so

:46:19.:46:24.

they are all really published on the internet as well, but if I read his

:46:25.:46:28.

amendment correctly, his amendment talks about what it also includes

:46:29.:46:35.

and it doesn't necessarily refer to all the things being excluded, it is

:46:36.:46:38.

really an enabling amendment as I read it which I hope will give some

:46:39.:46:41.

comfort to my Right Honourable friend. I am grateful to my

:46:42.:46:46.

honourable friend for that intervention because it is important

:46:47.:46:53.

to know that I have said includes. I have not tried to exclude any other

:46:54.:46:59.

option, merely to clarify. I hope that this will have been noted by

:47:00.:47:04.

the proposer of the bill and the Government minister who may have

:47:05.:47:10.

some reservations I feel about my amendment and I hope that they will

:47:11.:47:17.

concentrate and reflect on that intervention from my honourable

:47:18.:47:22.

friend. I am very conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, or the fact that

:47:23.:47:28.

there are a number of other amendments which I'd just really

:47:29.:47:33.

want to comment on, but I am understandably concerned that I

:47:34.:47:39.

advanced the best possible case for my own amendment and I do hope that

:47:40.:47:47.

I have been able to answer to the satisfaction of all those who have

:47:48.:47:54.

concerns about my amendment and set their minds at ease. I have noted

:47:55.:47:59.

that the proposer of the bill hasn't sought to contest my amendment in

:48:00.:48:03.

anyway during my remarks and I sincerely hope that when we come to

:48:04.:48:10.

hear from my honourable friend, that she will indicate a willingness to

:48:11.:48:19.

accept my amendment in the spirit that I have put it forward. It is

:48:20.:48:25.

not a wrecking amendment, it is merely one that seeks to achieve

:48:26.:48:32.

what are all notes to the bill say and extend the cover to citizen

:48:33.:48:37.

journalists and bloggers, enabling them to inspect the accounts of

:48:38.:48:42.

local authorities. I now wish to just deal with the amendments which

:48:43.:48:48.

have been proposed by my honourable friend the member for Christchurch.

:48:49.:48:54.

And make it clear as to which ones I support and don't support. His first

:48:55.:49:04.

amendment, amendment to, which is to leave out the words "From after" and

:49:05.:49:13.

insert "Any members of the public who are registered to vote in

:49:14.:49:17.

elections in the United Kingdom" would have the effect is essentially

:49:18.:49:21.

of meaning that virtually anybody would be able to make use of the

:49:22.:49:27.

powers contained within the bill. I am happy to support that. I am happy

:49:28.:49:32.

to support that, to be perfectly honest with my honourable friend. I

:49:33.:49:36.

do think it is perhaps a touch ambitious, given the nature of the

:49:37.:49:45.

views of the proposer of the bill and the Minister from what we have

:49:46.:49:51.

seen so far, but I would be happy to support him on this amendment. He

:49:52.:49:59.

then put forward a number of other options for the house to consider,

:50:00.:50:06.

including for example, extending the access to politicians, and as I made

:50:07.:50:11.

clear in my early intervention, I have some concerns about the fact

:50:12.:50:16.

that the word politician is not defined anywhere in the bill, but as

:50:17.:50:24.

a general proposition about extending the scope from journalists

:50:25.:50:27.

to politicians, I have no objections at all with it. Amendment for deals

:50:28.:50:36.

with the position of nondomestic rate payers. I think this is

:50:37.:50:43.

particularly important as we move into an era where we are moving back

:50:44.:50:48.

towards the localisation of business rates. And I think that this will

:50:49.:50:57.

inevitably lead businesses within an area to take more interest in what

:50:58.:51:02.

is going on in their local authority, and so I wholeheartedly

:51:03.:51:13.

support and amendment format. -- four. The other amendments, up to

:51:14.:51:21.

number seven, deal with giving the opportunity to journalists who are

:51:22.:51:23.

accredited or professional journalists or qualified journalists

:51:24.:51:27.

and we heard from my honourable friend earlier that his preferred

:51:28.:51:32.

option if you had one would be amendment five, accredited, and I

:51:33.:51:36.

would be happy to go along with my honourable friend for the reasons

:51:37.:51:39.

which she set out in his submission to the house. Amendment eight would

:51:40.:51:51.

remove the definition of journalist entirely, but of course that would

:51:52.:51:57.

be in direct contravention to my own amendment so I would oppose that

:51:58.:52:04.

amendment and press my own amendment instead. I will certainly give way.

:52:05.:52:10.

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. He is galloping on at

:52:11.:52:14.

such a speed, if I may say so, he rather skimped over amendment three.

:52:15.:52:18.

Does he share my concern that amendment we may be defective in

:52:19.:52:23.

that it refers to politician, the definition of which is someone who

:52:24.:52:26.

is professionally involved in politics, especially holding elected

:52:27.:52:33.

office? This may, therefore, rule out someone who is an aspiring

:52:34.:52:37.

politician, who is a candidate and who is yet to be elected. Well,

:52:38.:52:44.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful to my Right Honourable

:52:45.:52:49.

friend for his intervention. It was a point I made myself earlier in the

:52:50.:52:56.

debate and my Right Honourable friend might have missed it, but I

:52:57.:52:58.

made that intervention and I entirely agree that I think there is

:52:59.:53:05.

a difficulty with not defining the phrase politician to make it clear

:53:06.:53:12.

that someone who is aspiring to elected office should be included

:53:13.:53:15.

because they are the ones who are more likely perhaps or as likely as

:53:16.:53:21.

anyone, I should say, to want to carry out that sort of investigative

:53:22.:53:29.

work to get to the bottom of these accounts and to go and study them

:53:30.:53:34.

and to see what was in them, whether there is anything which they need to

:53:35.:53:36.

bring to the attention of the public. We then move to amendment

:53:37.:53:48.

nine, which is to insert at the end of clause one, page one, at line

:53:49.:53:53.

eight, "The relevant authority must ensure that any person interested in

:53:54.:53:59.

making inspection within subsection one may do so at all reasonable

:54:00.:54:06.

times and without payment" and this amendment would extend to section 26

:54:07.:54:11.

of the 2014 act, the same conditions as set out in section 20 five.

:54:12.:54:18.

Again, I think my honourable friend has struck on something which is

:54:19.:54:22.

worthy of consideration. I am not sure whether he would choose to push

:54:23.:54:29.

this particular amendment to the boat, but I will certainly consider

:54:30.:54:36.

supporting it. -- vote. His most controversial amendment is amendment

:54:37.:54:48.

ten. Amendment ten deals with the inclusion of help service bodies. By

:54:49.:54:54.

leaving out the words which are included in line one, "Leave out

:54:55.:54:57.

other than an audit of account to the health service" but it is worth

:54:58.:55:03.

noting that the House of Commons reformers that actually refers to

:55:04.:55:09.

the fact that the body is covered by the 2014 act include clinical

:55:10.:55:13.

commissioning groups within the NHS. That is only one small part of the

:55:14.:55:24.

NHS and like right honourable friend I see no reason why the Bill should

:55:25.:55:29.

not be amended so as to make it clear that the whole plethora of

:55:30.:55:35.

different health service bodies should be covered by this Bill. I

:55:36.:55:45.

will give way. Just to reinforce that point in reference to clinical

:55:46.:55:49.

commissioning groups, they basically have a veto over the use of

:55:50.:55:55.

particular procedure is for people living within their area. It is

:55:56.:56:00.

often quite controversial. It is justified on the basis of costs, but

:56:01.:56:06.

if people can't examine the cost base than it is difficult for them

:56:07.:56:12.

account. I entirely agree with me honourable friend about that -- to

:56:13.:56:16.

hold them to account. I think they would be considerable interest to

:56:17.:56:22.

the court residence in being able to access all the accounts of all

:56:23.:56:27.

health service bodies. Amendment 11 that is being put forward by my

:56:28.:56:31.

honourable friend deals with extending the period in which

:56:32.:56:34.

inspections can be carried out beyond 30 days. I have heard no

:56:35.:56:42.

explanation as to why the period is 30 days. Why it is not 6425 or some

:56:43.:56:47.

other number and therefore I entirely agree that there seems to

:56:48.:56:54.

me to be there is no logical reason as their way should there should be

:56:55.:56:58.

a 30 day limit but I would support my honourable friend in amendment

:56:59.:57:09.

11. Amendment 12, 13 and 14 are more technical amendments dealing with

:57:10.:57:15.

the issue of commercial confidentiality. And I think that

:57:16.:57:24.

amendment 30 is the one that I particularly would recommend to the

:57:25.:57:31.

House. The fact that something might have been commercially sensitive in

:57:32.:57:38.

the past should not prevent the accounts and all the associated

:57:39.:57:42.

paperwork relating to it from being inspected now. And so of those

:57:43.:57:50.

amendments I would particularly welcome number 14. Madam Deputy

:57:51.:57:58.

Speaker, those are my reviews on my honourable friend 's amendments but

:57:59.:58:03.

I just would reiterate and commend my own amendment, amendment one to

:58:04.:58:12.

the House. I just say in conclusion is that if, and I hope it isn't the

:58:13.:58:17.

case, but if that amendment is opposed I am afraid to say that it

:58:18.:58:23.

does draw into question everything which is said about this Bill. And a

:58:24.:58:30.

battered wanting to extend access to a wider number -- about it extending

:58:31.:58:38.

access to a number of people and giving that information to the

:58:39.:58:42.

public. All I have sought to do is to put onto the face of the Bill

:58:43.:58:46.

what the explanatory notes say the Bill is all about, and at the very

:58:47.:58:54.

least, if my amendment for whatever reason does not find favour with the

:58:55.:59:02.

proposer of the Bill, then I would be interested to know firstly why

:59:03.:59:09.

and secondly I think the public would be suspicious of the Bill as a

:59:10.:59:13.

whole. And let's not forget that the whole reason why this Bill has been

:59:14.:59:19.

brought before the House is because the initial bills were defective,

:59:20.:59:27.

the initial acts were defective, and therefore I would be wary, I would

:59:28.:59:34.

advise the House to be wary of any arguments which are advanced by the

:59:35.:59:39.

Government against my amendment when it was the Government 's of various

:59:40.:59:46.

views down the years that have led us to this position we are in this

:59:47.:59:52.

morning. And so I have attempted to be quite clear and open and one

:59:53.:59:56.

could argue over individual words, but I would submit to the House that

:59:57.:00:02.

my amendment is perfectly clear about what it seeks to do. It seeks

:00:03.:00:08.

to give clarity to this phrase, citizen journalist, which whether we

:00:09.:00:11.

like it or not appears in the heading to Clause one of this Bill

:00:12.:00:17.

and I commend my amendment and move it to the House. Philip Davies.

:00:18.:00:23.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to my

:00:24.:00:27.

honourable friend is from Christchurch and Bury North who have

:00:28.:00:31.

given a very compelling and competence of account of the

:00:32.:00:37.

amendments. And I raced to try and perhaps adjudicate between them, not

:00:38.:00:44.

the deep -- Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is a rare occurrence

:00:45.:00:48.

when my two honourable friend 's other things from a slightly

:00:49.:00:52.

different perspective but I sense on this they have their differences and

:00:53.:00:57.

so I will try and do my best to be fair to their amendments to

:00:58.:01:03.

adjudicate, along with my honourable friend from Bury North I would like

:01:04.:01:06.

to think on Julie -- congratulate honourable friend forgetting the

:01:07.:01:12.

Bill to the stage and if I might say so, I think her Bill is a good Bill,

:01:13.:01:20.

but I think, if it was to incorporate some of the points made

:01:21.:01:24.

by my honourable friend so it would be a better Bill and it seems to me

:01:25.:01:30.

the whole purpose of a Report Stage of a Bill is to try and improve a

:01:31.:01:34.

Bill and so I hope that the minister who is an excellent Minister, I hope

:01:35.:01:44.

he and the proposer of the Bill would have listened carefully to my

:01:45.:01:47.

honourable friends and appreciate that actually on reflection perhaps

:01:48.:01:53.

the Bill could be better and I will try and set out which of these

:01:54.:01:56.

amendments I hope that they will be minded to accept. I have to say, if

:01:57.:02:03.

they are minded not to accept them, I would encourage my honourable

:02:04.:02:08.

friends to consider pushing them to a division to test the will of the

:02:09.:02:11.

House because I think they made very compelling cases for some of their

:02:12.:02:17.

amendments, but not all, and that is where they want to focus my

:02:18.:02:24.

attention now. -- I want to focus my attention now. I will start with my

:02:25.:02:27.

honourable friend's amendment number two which is the lead amendment in

:02:28.:02:32.

this group and in many respects rightly so, because it is my

:02:33.:02:38.

contention that amendment two is the most powerful of all the amendments

:02:39.:02:44.

in this group. And so to set out my position from the outset I hope that

:02:45.:02:47.

my honourable friend for Christchurch, if he is tempted to

:02:48.:02:53.

put any of these amendments forward to a division, I hope he will focus

:02:54.:03:00.

its attention on amendment two. This one is Clause one, page one, line

:03:01.:03:08.

five, to leave out from after to the end of the subsection and insert,

:03:09.:03:12.

any members of the public are registered to vote in local

:03:13.:03:15.

elections in the United Kingdom. I think what my honourable friend is

:03:16.:03:18.

doing in simple terms is basically saying that everyone in the country

:03:19.:03:21.

should have a right to know what is going on in these authorities. I

:03:22.:03:27.

think the compelling case he made, if I might say so, was in relation

:03:28.:03:31.

to what is happening in this local authority at the moment in

:03:32.:03:36.

Christchurch in relation to his neighbouring local authority in

:03:37.:03:41.

Bournemouth. And quite clearly it seems to me to be obvious that if

:03:42.:03:48.

the court authorities are potentially going to be merging,

:03:49.:03:55.

then the local authorities. Then they member public in one local

:03:56.:03:58.

authority should have the absolute right to have full access to all

:03:59.:04:01.

information about what is happening in the other local authority to be

:04:02.:04:05.

able to assess whether or not it is in their best interest for that

:04:06.:04:08.

merger to go ahead. Without access to the information at the moment,

:04:09.:04:15.

how on earth can they be in a position to make that judgment, but

:04:16.:04:19.

completely flies in the face of democracy and it would be perverse

:04:20.:04:24.

in many respects if, for example, as was mentioned earlier, in his local

:04:25.:04:31.

authority area it would be perverse of the editor of the Evening

:04:32.:04:35.

Standard, who was mentioned during the course of this debate, was able

:04:36.:04:43.

to access the documents relating to his neighbouring council by virtue

:04:44.:04:51.

of being a journalist and eight find one -- a fine one, as the editor of

:04:52.:04:56.

a prestigious newspaper, the local residents in his area weren't able

:04:57.:04:58.

to get the same information. That surely would be a perverse outcome

:04:59.:05:04.

and it can't really be the one that was envisaged when this Bill was in

:05:05.:05:11.

its infancy. And I don't really see what possible argument that could be

:05:12.:05:19.

against my honourable friend 's amendment, if we believe in

:05:20.:05:23.

extending transparency, then local authorities can rightly be held to

:05:24.:05:27.

account and the public have greater awareness of what is going on, why

:05:28.:05:32.

don't we give them all the opportunity to see the information

:05:33.:05:35.

for themselves rather than relying on journalists to do that job for

:05:36.:05:43.

them? I agree with extending the principal of Bic stenting the people

:05:44.:05:51.

-- extending, the people who have access to these documents, but the

:05:52.:05:55.

problem is it is not sufficient. It is a step in the right direction but

:05:56.:05:58.

it clearly isn't sufficient. The reason for this is as we all know

:05:59.:06:04.

local newspapers in particular are going through a pretty torrid time

:06:05.:06:10.

financially, and I don't think it is any secret the whole newspaper

:06:11.:06:12.

industry in particular is going through a bit of a torrid time at

:06:13.:06:20.

the moment. Obviously things moving on to the internet they found it

:06:21.:06:24.

very difficult to adjust to monetise their content. So what we tend to

:06:25.:06:32.

find in many local areas is that unfortunately despite the best

:06:33.:06:36.

efforts of many local newspaper groups they are not increasing the

:06:37.:06:39.

number of journalists they had to have access to all of these

:06:40.:06:43.

documents and to go through them with a fine tooth, and all the rest

:06:44.:06:48.

of it, they are actually shedding journalists -- fine tooth comb. They

:06:49.:06:54.

are spread more thinly. And it seems to me that just giving local

:06:55.:06:56.

journalists they access to the information and then hoping that all

:06:57.:07:00.

of this stuff will be in the public domain all of a sudden is slightly

:07:01.:07:03.

naive because I'm not entirely sure that the journalistic trade have the

:07:04.:07:10.

capacity in order to do that. And so I think that we will be in

:07:11.:07:14.

neighbouring something which is very worthwhile but may not actually

:07:15.:07:19.

happen in practice. -- enabling. And so it seems to me if we won this

:07:20.:07:22.

information in the public domain and for the people to hold local

:07:23.:07:28.

authorities to account, but can't just rely on journalists being able

:07:29.:07:31.

to do this because it difficult to see how they have the capacity to do

:07:32.:07:35.

so. I have to allow the public to do this for themselves. I don't see why

:07:36.:07:43.

anybody who shouldn't be able to have access to this information.

:07:44.:07:50.

They can practice the chances of somebody in Shipley just

:07:51.:07:52.

gratuitously showing an interest in the local authority in Christchurch

:07:53.:07:57.

is very remote. I don't really think that anybody is going to be

:07:58.:07:59.

inundated with that kind of scrutiny. But what may happen is

:08:00.:08:05.

that residents in Christchurch might want to know what is happening in

:08:06.:08:10.

Bournemouth just down the road and they should have absolutely the

:08:11.:08:13.

right to go and inspect what is going on and the council is behaving

:08:14.:08:19.

in the way it should, and I was rather shocked if I might say so to

:08:20.:08:22.

hear the allegations made by my honourable friend about the conflict

:08:23.:08:27.

of interest of the leader of Bournemouth Council without going

:08:28.:08:30.

into detail myself, it certainly didn't sound very good to me, and it

:08:31.:08:36.

is absolutely right that local residents in adjoining authorities

:08:37.:08:39.

are able to know what is going on. I genuinely don't see why my

:08:40.:08:43.

honourable friend the member for Aldridge Brown or the Minister would

:08:44.:08:48.

want to resist this greater transparency and scrutiny, it is

:08:49.:08:51.

surely that is the whole purpose of the Bill. My honourable friend is

:08:52.:08:56.

ticking the Bill to its logical conclusion. I'm pretty sure they

:08:57.:08:59.

don't do this now at some point will be another private Bill further down

:09:00.:09:08.

the road actually introducing the measures proposed today because

:09:09.:09:11.

there is a clear logic to what he is trying to achieve. And so I both

:09:12.:09:18.

believe in transparency. I think it is very difficult to argue against

:09:19.:09:23.

transparency. And so if we go down the road transparency have full

:09:24.:09:26.

transparency will stop it seems to me then nobody can claim they didn't

:09:27.:09:32.

have the opportunity to access any particular detailed information that

:09:33.:09:40.

they wanted to. I will give way. He makes the point about the shortage

:09:41.:09:44.

of local reporters and the pressures upon a local newspaper, does he

:09:45.:09:51.

recalled that it was only last month that the BBC said that it was

:09:52.:09:57.

setting aside ?8 billion a year to pay for 150 reporters to work for a

:09:58.:10:01.

local newspaper organisations across the country. Isn't that stark

:10:02.:10:04.

evidence of the plight of many of our local newspapers?

:10:05.:10:09.

My honourable friend is absolutely right and I do not want to get to

:10:10.:10:16.

structure at this moment, but I think it is fair to say that the BBC

:10:17.:10:22.

doesn't help in these matters because they pinch local content and

:10:23.:10:27.

show it on their website is free of charge and it makes it difficult for

:10:28.:10:30.

local newspapers to monetise their work and so this was in response to

:10:31.:10:35.

that and I hope it will help and I very much welcome what the BBC are

:10:36.:10:39.

saying about this, but whether or not it works in practice in the way

:10:40.:10:42.

that it is envisaged I don't know because what I see, Madam Deputy

:10:43.:10:47.

Speaker, and I do not know what is happening in Derbyshire or other

:10:48.:10:50.

parts of the country, but what I see is local paper still shedding staff

:10:51.:10:54.

rather than recruiting staff and I haven't noticed any difference since

:10:55.:10:59.

that announcement was made, but we will have to see what happens, but I

:11:00.:11:03.

don't think we can glide... I think the point my honourable friend makes

:11:04.:11:09.

is that we can't rely on local newspapers to be able to fill this

:11:10.:11:18.

particular void. So amendment two, I think my friend is onto something

:11:19.:11:22.

and I think this is the strongest of this group of amendments. Amendment

:11:23.:11:26.

three, I think that between my honourable friend for Bury North and

:11:27.:11:31.

my honourable for East Yorkshire rather torpedoed my honourable

:11:32.:11:36.

friend's amendment on including any politician or journalist and I got

:11:37.:11:40.

the sense from my honourable friend from Christchurch's remarks that he

:11:41.:11:46.

rather felt they had torpedoed his amendment with the definition of

:11:47.:11:51.

politician, which was quite clearly unsatisfactory, and as both my

:11:52.:11:54.

honourable friend and my Right Honourable friend said, doing good

:11:55.:11:58.

people who are elected and not exclude people who are standing for

:11:59.:12:01.

election would be unacceptable, really. I don't think everyone

:12:02.:12:09.

should be on a level playing field, really. And in many respects, I

:12:10.:12:13.

think the beam of my honourable friend from Christchurch's further

:12:14.:12:17.

amendment says that because amendment two is so good, he sought

:12:18.:12:21.

a rather exposes the weakness of his other amendments because really

:12:22.:12:23.

seems to me that he is trying to make the best of a bad job with

:12:24.:12:29.

other ones, working on the premise that if amendment two was not

:12:30.:12:32.

acceptable, let me see what else we can try to do to make the bill

:12:33.:12:38.

better. I think really he should be focusing his fire on amendment two

:12:39.:12:43.

and his other ones really don't really cut the mustard. Amendment

:12:44.:12:52.

four, though, he is onto something with his amendment four about where

:12:53.:12:57.

he wants to include nondomestic rate payers. And again, he is absolutely

:12:58.:13:03.

right about this. And yes, I suppose if he hadn't put down amendment

:13:04.:13:11.

number two, I would have supported amendment number four, but if we put

:13:12.:13:14.

through amendment number two, it seems to me that we don't really

:13:15.:13:18.

have to bother with amendment number four because he is rather weak and

:13:19.:13:22.

what he is trying to do with his lead amendment. Amendments five,

:13:23.:13:29.

six, and seven, again my honourable friend was again trying to make the

:13:30.:13:33.

best of a bad job with his accredited professional and

:13:34.:13:37.

qualified definitions of journalists. Again, I think my

:13:38.:13:42.

honourable friend from Bury North rather made the point that these

:13:43.:13:47.

were not really good enough and I accept that and I suspect my

:13:48.:13:51.

honourable friend from Christchurch is a rather unenthusiastic supporter

:13:52.:13:56.

of those three amendments that he tabled. I appreciate the point of

:13:57.:14:04.

them because they have brought in a debate on for us to consider whether

:14:05.:14:07.

or not there was any merit in them and I think we have generally

:14:08.:14:10.

concluded that there isn't, but I am grateful to him by putting them

:14:11.:14:13.

forward for us to have a look at them. And again, with amendment

:14:14.:14:18.

number eight, removing the definition of a journalist, from

:14:19.:14:28.

what I can see, then again that amendment has merit but I think

:14:29.:14:32.

amendment number two rather supersedes it. I just want to dodge

:14:33.:14:36.

on amendment number one from my honourable friend from Bury North

:14:37.:14:41.

because I thought that the amendment is a very interesting one and I was

:14:42.:14:46.

interested in his defence of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. He made some

:14:47.:14:51.

very good points and I sort of moved from being between supporting it and

:14:52.:15:00.

opposing it and supporting it again as he was making his remarks and he

:15:01.:15:05.

certainly made a very good defence of his amendment. And I certainly

:15:06.:15:12.

agree with the thrust of what he is trying to achieve because what my

:15:13.:15:17.

honourable friend is clearly trying to achieve is to extend the

:15:18.:15:20.

definition of journalists to try to get as many people involved as

:15:21.:15:26.

possible and I think that is really what is the common theme of what we

:15:27.:15:29.

are all trying to achieve, those of us who have spoken so far, that we

:15:30.:15:32.

are all trying to get as many people as possible to have access to this

:15:33.:15:36.

information. That is really the common theme in this. The question

:15:37.:15:40.

is how do we best achieve that, and I thought my honourable friend's in

:15:41.:15:45.

men -- amendment was rather imaginative to try doing good

:15:46.:15:51.

virtually everybody in this. In some respects, it makes everybody a

:15:52.:15:55.

journalist in some regards if we are including Twitter and Facebook. I am

:15:56.:16:00.

not entirely sure of the numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker, of people who

:16:01.:16:06.

are not on Twitter or Facebook. They are the sensible ones, it seems to

:16:07.:16:11.

me. But I don't think there are that many. I am not on Facebook but I am

:16:12.:16:16.

on Twitter and I probably regarded as one of the worst things I ever

:16:17.:16:21.

did in my life, going on Twitter. I have about 16,000 followers, all of

:16:22.:16:25.

whom hate me. And it is all very interesting what they have to say.

:16:26.:16:31.

It seems to me rather pointless, to be perfectly honest. They can hurl

:16:32.:16:34.

as much abuse as they like. It doesn't bother me. I'm not entirely

:16:35.:16:41.

sure it gets us anywhere. But my honourable friend wants to sort of

:16:42.:16:44.

include these in his definition of a journalist and as somebody who

:16:45.:16:50.

always wanted to be a journalist and actually did the NCTJ course to be a

:16:51.:16:59.

qualified journalist, I am not entirely convinced that any of ours

:17:00.:17:10.

on that course had any one on Twitter being able to describe

:17:11.:17:13.

themselves as a journalist, but still that is the age we are in, it

:17:14.:17:16.

seems to be, so I think there is a lot of merit in what he is saying

:17:17.:17:19.

and it would be in many respects in this day and age bizarre to exclude

:17:20.:17:23.

those people who are in effect published materials in those ways.

:17:24.:17:30.

That is the way of the world and we have to accept that, whether we like

:17:31.:17:36.

it or not. It seems to me he is working in the spirit of the bill,

:17:37.:17:40.

as I think he made clear during his remarks and I was reading the bill

:17:41.:17:51.

as he was speaking and in the bill it actually says that journalist

:17:52.:17:57.

means any person who produces for publication journalistic material,

:17:58.:18:00.

whether paid to do so or otherwise, and actually in the explanatory

:18:01.:18:07.

notes it actually says that it will include journalists including

:18:08.:18:10.

Citizen journalists, that is bloggers and others who scrutinise

:18:11.:18:13.

local authorities but you may not be accredited members of the press to

:18:14.:18:18.

enable them to access a wider range of material in order to report and

:18:19.:18:21.

publish on their findings, so that it is available to local voters in

:18:22.:18:26.

an area, thus provided with information that will enable them to

:18:27.:18:29.

better hold their local authority to account. So it seems to me in many

:18:30.:18:33.

respects that what the bill is seeking to do is really what my

:18:34.:18:36.

honourable friend's amendment states. And so I can't work out and

:18:37.:18:43.

I look forward to what the Minister and might honourable friend has to

:18:44.:18:50.

say in response because I can't work out whether or not there is no

:18:51.:18:55.

reason at all for my honourable friend not to accept it because it

:18:56.:18:58.

seems to be the thrust of what she is trying to achieve or whether

:18:59.:19:02.

there is no point to my honourable friend's amendment because it is

:19:03.:19:05.

already going to be covered by the bill. I can't really work out which

:19:06.:19:09.

of those two it is. It may well be an element of both. But I think what

:19:10.:19:14.

my honourable friend for Bury North is trying to achieve in his

:19:15.:19:20.

amendment is to actually make it clear what it is involved. It may be

:19:21.:19:26.

that these people are already involved but he is seeking to make

:19:27.:19:29.

it clear on the face of the bill, and if that is what is happening I

:19:30.:19:32.

don't see why anyone would want to oppose it because of all he is doing

:19:33.:19:35.

is actually clarifying what is intended anyway, it seems to me that

:19:36.:19:39.

we are all in agreement, so I look forward to what my honourable friend

:19:40.:19:42.

and be ministered as to say as to whether or not my honourable friend

:19:43.:19:49.

for Bury and North is agreeing with what the bill is doing anyway. In

:19:50.:19:53.

terms of the other amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, again I think my

:19:54.:19:58.

honourable friend for Christchurch meets a very good case for all of

:19:59.:20:04.

his amendments, but I just want to touch on amendment number ten as

:20:05.:20:09.

well. I think my honourable friend for Bury North said it was the most

:20:10.:20:13.

controversial one and I think my honourable friend for Christchurch

:20:14.:20:16.

said it was the most radical one and I think I would rather describe it

:20:17.:20:21.

as being radical rather than controversial because I am not

:20:22.:20:25.

entirely sure why it would be controversial, but I do accept that

:20:26.:20:33.

it is radical and this includes the health service bodies. And again, I

:20:34.:20:47.

would be very and very interested to know what the argument is against

:20:48.:20:50.

what my honourable friend is doing as to why there shouldn't be the

:20:51.:20:53.

full scrutiny of their accounts, why we would not just focus on local

:20:54.:20:59.

councils and why other local health authorities should not be subject to

:21:00.:21:07.

the same rigours. Surely nobody can be suggesting that it is absolutely

:21:08.:21:11.

terrible for a local authority to be wasting money or misappropriating

:21:12.:21:17.

money but it is absolutely fine for a local health authority to do so,

:21:18.:21:21.

so surely nobody can be making that point, so if we want to be sure in

:21:22.:21:25.

this way that local authorities are not doing things that they shouldn't

:21:26.:21:27.

and that there is full accountability for the people but

:21:28.:21:31.

they are supposed to seven for people who may take an interest in

:21:32.:21:35.

what they are doing, surely the same balls must apply to local health

:21:36.:21:39.

authorities. I can see why anybody would argue against that. -- the

:21:40.:21:43.

same rules must apply. I will be interested to hear what the Minister

:21:44.:21:47.

has to say as to why they think that one is more important than the

:21:48.:21:52.

other. In fact, in many respects you could argue that from the public's

:21:53.:21:55.

perspective, they might have more concern for what is happening in the

:21:56.:22:01.

local health authority in their area rather than what is happening in the

:22:02.:22:04.

local authority, because it may well be more important to their day to

:22:05.:22:09.

day life, so again I think my honourable friend's amendment is

:22:10.:22:12.

certainly radical but I don't really see why it should be controversial

:22:13.:22:17.

and again many people would be astonished that it is not actually

:22:18.:22:21.

already included, to be perfectly honest. And I praise my honourable

:22:22.:22:29.

friend for Christchurch. He is absolutely forensic when

:22:30.:22:31.

scrutinising legislation and this house will be much poorer without

:22:32.:22:38.

doing so. And it goes to show, if I might say so, white bills should not

:22:39.:22:42.

go through displays on the nod and why we should actually have some

:22:43.:22:45.

proper scrutiny because there are some things that come up in the

:22:46.:22:48.

course of that scrutiny that people had not considered a note don't

:22:49.:22:53.

blame my honourable friend. That is why we have a debate and why we have

:22:54.:22:58.

amendments because the wisdom of 650 is quite clearly better than the

:22:59.:23:00.

wisdom of just one and other people think of things that we would never

:23:01.:23:04.

have thought of ourselves and my honourable friend for Christchurch

:23:05.:23:06.

does that on a regular basis and I commend him for doing so so in

:23:07.:23:10.

summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that my honourable friend for

:23:11.:23:14.

Christchurch and my honourable friend for Bury North have done the

:23:15.:23:17.

house a great service and actually seeking to improve this bill and

:23:18.:23:20.

anybody can see that they are not trying to ruin the bill, they are

:23:21.:23:24.

trying to make the bill a better deal. It is a good bill so far, but

:23:25.:23:28.

it certainly will be improved by these amendments and so my final

:23:29.:23:37.

analysis is that if my honourable friend 's art to push any of their

:23:38.:23:43.

amendments and obviously with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I

:23:44.:23:47.

think that amendments two is one that they absolutely should seek to

:23:48.:23:51.

push but also amendment number ten. They are the two that I think are

:23:52.:23:55.

the most powerful ones in this group of amendments and I think that both

:23:56.:23:59.

of those amendments would turn this bill from being an improvement into

:24:00.:24:04.

actually something very, very good. For the public, which will actually

:24:05.:24:07.

stand the test of time for many, many years to come. And so I wish

:24:08.:24:13.

the bill well but I hope that it will pass with those amendments

:24:14.:24:24.

added to it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the

:24:25.:24:27.

honourable member for all the rich brown hills for bringing the bill,

:24:28.:24:31.

as someone who has brought a Private member's bill to the house, I know

:24:32.:24:35.

the hard work that goes into it and the honourable lady's bill has got

:24:36.:24:40.

far further than my build it and I wish every success in taking it

:24:41.:24:44.

further. I don't intend to speak for too long on the amendments before is

:24:45.:24:50.

here. This is a bill which makes a relatively small change to existing

:24:51.:24:53.

legislation, but it is a small change that would increase

:24:54.:24:56.

transparency and improve openness and I think I hope it would increase

:24:57.:25:01.

public engagement in decision-making.

:25:02.:25:05.

There are 14 amendments before us. In the names of the honourable

:25:06.:25:12.

member per Christchurch and Bury North. I will briefly talk about

:25:13.:25:16.

them. Amendment two would extend the provision in the Bill to provide for

:25:17.:25:20.

public access to local audit documents. The register to vote in

:25:21.:25:26.

local elections in the UK. We would support measures to extend

:25:27.:25:29.

transparency and openness and this amendment would undoubtedly help to

:25:30.:25:33.

achieve that. Amendments three and four adjust the Bill to include

:25:34.:25:39.

politicians and ratepayers of business to enable them to

:25:40.:25:43.

scrutinise local audit ducklings. As with amendment two which would

:25:44.:25:46.

largely cover these we support amendments which would extend

:25:47.:25:50.

transparency and openness. Amendments five, six and seven

:25:51.:25:55.

adjust the title of journalists to to be accredited, professional or

:25:56.:25:59.

qualified. Amendment eight removes the definition of a journalist. I

:26:00.:26:03.

believe the honourable member has tabled these to ensure the issues

:26:04.:26:07.

around defining a journalist are debated today but I'm hesitant. It

:26:08.:26:11.

seeks to extend the ability to fuse these documents and ensure that we

:26:12.:26:16.

wouldn't want to ensure that no journalist is unable to scrutinise

:26:17.:26:19.

it admits. And one provides clarity to be legislation to ensure that the

:26:20.:26:25.

section covered all journalists from the humble local blogger to our own

:26:26.:26:29.

house Gallery in Parliament. Regardless of whether payment or

:26:30.:26:33.

subscription is needed. If the House which is to make these provisions

:26:34.:26:35.

applicable per just journalists we would have no objections to this

:26:36.:26:39.

becoming part of the Bill. Amendment nine extends the assurance that

:26:40.:26:42.

anyone able to view the documents can do so at all reasonable times

:26:43.:26:47.

and without payment. So long as the Minister can assure that this

:26:48.:26:50.

amendment would not impose a burden on local authorities we would

:26:51.:26:54.

welcome this amendment. Amendments ten and 11 extend these provisions

:26:55.:26:58.

to help service bodies and allows for inspections to be carried out

:26:59.:27:01.

beyond 30 days which we would support. Amendment 13 would allow

:27:02.:27:07.

the previous contracts to be inspected, which is welcome and the

:27:08.:27:10.

scrutiny of those powers contracts will no doubt ensure that future

:27:11.:27:13.

contracts are done in a way which secures the best possible service

:27:14.:27:18.

and value for money. Amendment 12 would remove the restriction on

:27:19.:27:22.

inspecting parts of the accounts with regard to commercial

:27:23.:27:26.

confidentiality, but would retain the restriction on copying.

:27:27.:27:31.

Amendment 14 would remove the definition in the act of when

:27:32.:27:33.

information is protected on the grounds of commercial

:27:34.:27:38.

confidentiality. But I would be hesitant to move these protections

:27:39.:27:41.

without further detail and consultation with local authorities.

:27:42.:27:45.

What I do look forward to hearing the Minister and other honourable

:27:46.:27:47.

members' responses to these amendments. Andrew Percy. Thank you,

:27:48.:27:59.

Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of

:28:00.:28:02.

the Government on this Bill. In place of I am afraid to say my

:28:03.:28:06.

honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Rhino would be

:28:07.:28:12.

delighted to be here were he not otherwise engaged. I too would be

:28:13.:28:18.

delighted if he were here today. LAUGHTER

:28:19.:28:22.

Knowing as I do of his passion for this particular piece of

:28:23.:28:27.

legislation. I also welcome, I will of course give way to my fellow East

:28:28.:28:32.

Yorkshire colleague. I am grateful, as he information to relate to the

:28:33.:28:37.

House as to why not one single Liberal Democrat is here? I am

:28:38.:28:44.

afraid sadly not, other than the information that the public seem to

:28:45.:28:50.

diminish their numbers somewhat at the last General Election proving

:28:51.:28:54.

once again that the public are very sensible individuals on the whole.

:28:55.:28:59.

But do welcome the opportunity to briefly on the amendments put

:29:00.:29:03.

forward by my honourable friend is the member for Bury North and the

:29:04.:29:07.

member for Christchurch and the important points made thus far in

:29:08.:29:10.

the day's debate. I did have the privilege also of stepping into the

:29:11.:29:14.

local government minister during the Committee Stage of this legislation

:29:15.:29:22.

and of this Bill, sorry, and did offer government support for the

:29:23.:29:27.

principles behind it which I do think are important ones. Whilst the

:29:28.:29:31.

amendments I know have been made with the best of intentions and my

:29:32.:29:35.

honourable friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills will deal with

:29:36.:29:39.

them in more detail, I understand, as the promoter of this Bill, but I

:29:40.:29:43.

do want to set up the Government's view as to why we don't think

:29:44.:29:47.

agreeing to them would be a good idea. The virtue of this Bill is its

:29:48.:29:55.

simplicity. By seeking to clarify what is meant in the legislation as

:29:56.:30:01.

to where material may be published, the honourable member for Bury North

:30:02.:30:05.

with amendment one may unintentionally, and it is

:30:06.:30:08.

unintentionally from the speech, have narrowed the places where such

:30:09.:30:13.

articles may be published. Sometimes a less precise phrase in law permits

:30:14.:30:19.

a helpfully wider interpretation and I believe that this is the case

:30:20.:30:24.

here. I would be delighted to give way. I have no doubt that a similar

:30:25.:30:30.

argument would have been advanced when the original Bill was going

:30:31.:30:35.

through this House that led to the 1998 that then led to the court case

:30:36.:30:41.

that this present Bill arises out of, so actually I think there is a

:30:42.:30:45.

strong argument for trying to be as clear as possible on the face of the

:30:46.:30:47.

Bill about what is actually intended. I don't agree. I do think

:30:48.:30:57.

particularly with regards to his reference to the internet of the

:30:58.:31:03.

websites, the nature of the proposed amendment could unintentionally be

:31:04.:31:10.

too unhelpfully narrowed the interpretation. You may be

:31:11.:31:17.

interested to know that both the concept of journalistic material and

:31:18.:31:21.

publication already appear in legislation many times, although to

:31:22.:31:28.

my mind in particular it is a simple plain English definition needing no

:31:29.:31:32.

further clarification. For example, journalistic material appears in

:31:33.:31:39.

section 264, two, of the investigatory Powers act 2016 as

:31:40.:31:43.

well as in section 13 of the criminal evidence act from 1984 and

:31:44.:31:50.

publication has similar antecedents. However I think it is fair to say

:31:51.:31:55.

that everybody who will seek to use this Bill will necessarily be

:31:56.:31:58.

familiar with the concepts of interpretation of these terms as

:31:59.:32:03.

they are used here and I have heard what my honourable friends have said

:32:04.:32:06.

on the subject and they will therefore committed to ensuring that

:32:07.:32:11.

any accompanying explanatory notes are amended if this Bill passes to

:32:12.:32:16.

the other place to clarify these points. My honourable friend the

:32:17.:32:20.

member for Bury North also made references with regards to

:32:21.:32:25.

journalists versus Citizen journalists and I can obviously say

:32:26.:32:30.

to him, the definition of a journalist does include citizen

:32:31.:32:33.

journalism and that is why a separate definition has not been

:32:34.:32:39.

required. I know the honourable lady for Aldridge-Brownhills keen to get

:32:40.:32:46.

to her feet and respond in detail to the amendments of my honourable

:32:47.:32:49.

friend for Christchurch, so in the interest of brevity I want to

:32:50.:32:53.

concentrate on two issues he has raised. Actually maybe three, on

:32:54.:32:58.

reflection. In particular the honourable member for Christchurch

:32:59.:33:03.

amendment number two would be likely to impose a new burden on local

:33:04.:33:06.

authorities. Could we have been asked them to make the records

:33:07.:33:09.

available to everyone which is something that they have not

:33:10.:33:12.

previously been required to do as part of the 2014 legislation. This

:33:13.:33:18.

would therefore need to be funded by government whereas what we are

:33:19.:33:23.

seeking to do is extend the existing right to a defined group of people,

:33:24.:33:26.

which would not be considered in the same light. In reference to

:33:27.:33:32.

amendment ten on health bodies I heard what he had to say and I can

:33:33.:33:37.

speak obviously on behalf of of the departments, but as a member of

:33:38.:33:41.

Parliament we are all concerned with transparency of course within the

:33:42.:33:45.

health system as well. Wally would just say is that the State intention

:33:46.:33:52.

of the original 2014, the consultation response on that

:33:53.:33:55.

legislation did not include health bodies and it would therefore be

:33:56.:33:58.

wrong to include those and bring those within the scope of this Bill

:33:59.:34:02.

today. I will give way. My honourable friend was pretty

:34:03.:34:09.

succinct in projecting amendment two. Has he got any evidence as to

:34:10.:34:13.

how much he thinks it would cost local authorities if amendment two

:34:14.:34:19.

became part of the law and would he seek to make a comparison between

:34:20.:34:23.

that cost and the payoff for the Chief Executive of Bournemouth?

:34:24.:34:29.

After Mike -- LAUGHTER .

:34:30.:34:32.

I listened with interest to the comments as regards to the Chief

:34:33.:34:34.

Executive of Bournemouth and perhaps the debate of officials I will not

:34:35.:34:42.

say anything with regards to that particular decision particularly in

:34:43.:34:47.

light of other issues affecting potential reorganisation at this

:34:48.:34:55.

moment in time. Needless to say, extending this right more generally

:34:56.:34:59.

to any electorate across the United Kingdom could have a substantial

:35:00.:35:03.

impact and it is likely the local authorities bodies would ask for

:35:04.:35:05.

additional resources for that. I can't give the figure on that. I

:35:06.:35:09.

want to be honest with him from the dispatch box. But there is no doubt

:35:10.:35:16.

it is extending the right in such a way would come with additional

:35:17.:35:20.

burdens. In addition and further to the comments made by my honourable

:35:21.:35:27.

friend for Christchurch on amendments 12-14, paragraph 31 and

:35:28.:35:32.

32 of the local authority transparency code do of course

:35:33.:35:36.

already require councils to publish quarterly spending and procurement

:35:37.:35:40.

information. There was reference made to tender documents and that is

:35:41.:35:48.

that code, it of course requires the details of every invitation to

:35:49.:35:53.

tender for contracts to provide goods and services of the value that

:35:54.:35:57.

exceeds ?5,000 to be published as well as any details for any

:35:58.:36:02.

contract, commission activity, purchase order, framework agreement

:36:03.:36:05.

and any other legally enforceable in agreement that has a value of over

:36:06.:36:09.

?5,000. That is available for anybody. Furthermore, last May the

:36:10.:36:17.

Government consulted on updating but cold to provide the opportunity for

:36:18.:36:21.

greater Townhall transparency and that is something we all want to see

:36:22.:36:24.

I think across the House and certainly on the side of the House,

:36:25.:36:29.

that greater transparency. We want to see enhanced scrutiny of the use

:36:30.:36:34.

of public assets and resources including through better comparison

:36:35.:36:40.

of data. In respect of contractual information, the consultation on

:36:41.:36:43.

proposed to standardise this data and make comparisons easier through

:36:44.:36:48.

publication to a central source of course is important. We hope to be

:36:49.:36:51.

publishing our response to that consultation shortly and I hope that

:36:52.:36:57.

will about some of the concerns my honourable friend for Christchurch

:36:58.:37:02.

as in regards of local transparency. I want to just deal very quickly

:37:03.:37:05.

with an intervention from a honourable friend the member for

:37:06.:37:10.

Gainsborough who was not in this place now, he is on his way back to

:37:11.:37:15.

his constituency, in which he referenced local government

:37:16.:37:16.

reorganisation in Lincolnshire and stated that one council was trying

:37:17.:37:22.

to dig over another. I want to make it clear for the record that water

:37:23.:37:27.

can sure council is not propose to take over any other neighbouring

:37:28.:37:32.

authority. The Department -- Lincolnshire Council. It has

:37:33.:37:35.

received no proposals of that nature and all there is is a cross

:37:36.:37:42.

Lincolnshire in the broadest sense including the county and unitary

:37:43.:37:46.

areas, a conversation going on between all council leaders as to

:37:47.:37:51.

the future. I figured it is important to clarify that as it was

:37:52.:37:56.

raised in response to this debate. I'm hoping that both my honourable

:37:57.:38:02.

friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills will address

:38:03.:38:05.

some of these amendments herself in a moment and I am confident that the

:38:06.:38:10.

honourable members for Bury North and Christchurch will respond to

:38:11.:38:19.

those in their usual way, with reasonableness and understanding

:38:20.:38:23.

that I think that what is, which I think I got from there speeches,

:38:24.:38:27.

what is behind this Bill is a good thing, to extend a right to

:38:28.:38:31.

increased transparency. And that is why I would urge them to withdraw

:38:32.:38:34.

their amendments and enabled this Bill to pass to the other place. And

:38:35.:38:43.

on that basis, I look forward to this will's further progress.

:38:44.:38:46.

Learning. -- built. Thank you. I am very pleased to be

:38:47.:38:59.

able to speak again on my Private members Bill, local or that public

:39:00.:39:06.

access to documents Bill and as honourable friend have already

:39:07.:39:09.

explained today, there were no amendments being committed on the

:39:10.:39:13.

7th of February and the passage of my Bill was quite swift through

:39:14.:39:18.

Committee. And so the Bill was reported to the House unamended.

:39:19.:39:23.

However my honourable friend for Bury North and my honourable friend

:39:24.:39:27.

for Christchurch's proposed amendments proposed amendments, they

:39:28.:39:31.

are late entries to the debate but I have been very keen to listen to

:39:32.:39:34.

those amendments and to listen to the arguments and I think they have

:39:35.:39:41.

provided us with some additional scrutiny and some additional debate

:39:42.:39:48.

here in the chamber this morning. I have to say, when I looked at the

:39:49.:39:52.

number of amendments I think there was 13 or 14 and having already

:39:53.:39:55.

brought a Private members Bill to the House last year I was quite

:39:56.:40:01.

surprised by the number of amendments and they did wonder

:40:02.:40:04.

whether that was a record in terms of a Private members Bill. I was

:40:05.:40:07.

assured by the honourable member for Christchurch that was not the case.

:40:08.:40:12.

I accept as a new member I have probably still got a lot to learn

:40:13.:40:17.

here in the chamber. However I am none the less grateful to them for

:40:18.:40:20.

those amendments and for their contributions.

:40:21.:40:25.

As my honourable friend the member for Bury North sorts of simply put

:40:26.:40:31.

it, they were succinct contributions this morning. However, having

:40:32.:40:38.

listened to them and I have listened to them carefully and I considered

:40:39.:40:42.

them when I saw them tables, I am not convinced, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:40:43.:40:46.

that they are helpful changes to what I believe at heart is a very

:40:47.:40:52.

simple bill. It has one purpose alone. And that is to extend the

:40:53.:40:59.

definition of interested person to include journalists, which includes

:41:00.:41:02.

citizen journalists, so that they may have access to a wider range of

:41:03.:41:07.

local audit documents to assist with their investigations and publicise

:41:08.:41:12.

their findings so that local electors and -- are made more aware

:41:13.:41:16.

and are better able to hold their council to account for their actions

:41:17.:41:20.

to questioning the auditor or making an objection. We have said much

:41:21.:41:26.

about openness and transparency, and I think this bill will make a

:41:27.:41:32.

valuable contribution in doing that. But let me respond, Madam Deputy

:41:33.:41:38.

Speaker, first of all to amendment two, and hopefully I can add my

:41:39.:41:41.

thoughts to those that were aired a few minutes ago by the Minister.

:41:42.:41:46.

Amendment two, Madam Deputy Speaker, was tabled by my honourable friend

:41:47.:41:52.

the member for Christchurch and seeks to expand inspection rights

:41:53.:41:56.

under 26 to all UK registered local electors. This would essentially

:41:57.:42:00.

give the public at large the right to inspect accounting documents of

:42:01.:42:04.

any local authority in England. The local audit framework already

:42:05.:42:09.

introduces migratory transparency codes for the very smallest and the

:42:10.:42:14.

largest public bodies which requires the electronic publication of key

:42:15.:42:19.

financial and other data, available for all to view free of charge. And

:42:20.:42:24.

whilst ministers clearly flagged their intention to extend this

:42:25.:42:29.

specific inspection from accounting information to journalists in order

:42:30.:42:31.

to insist them in their investigations to extend these

:42:32.:42:36.

rights to everyone with vastly expand the potential for mischief

:42:37.:42:39.

making without any wider public benefit. Madam Deputy Speaker, in

:42:40.:42:45.

addition to this, to permit anyone to inspect this wider range of

:42:46.:42:50.

accounting information would, I fear, potentially results in a

:42:51.:42:53.

greater cost burden on local authorities, as they might well in

:42:54.:42:59.

order to prevent numerous requests to inspect decide to scan and pulled

:43:00.:43:03.

a large amount of information every year with the unintended consequence

:43:04.:43:07.

of making it harder for the man in the street to find useful, basic

:43:08.:43:13.

data. This would also be a burden on local authorities, it which I have

:43:14.:43:18.

been very mindful of in bringing forward this bill and making sure

:43:19.:43:22.

that we do get the right balance. Turning now to amendments three and

:43:23.:43:26.

four, they seek also to amend the persons who at the right to expect

:43:27.:43:33.

-- inspect the accounting documents of all to a lesser degree. I do not

:43:34.:43:37.

consider that these amendments to the bill are desirable. For

:43:38.:43:41.

instance, the term politician is a loosely defined term that could

:43:42.:43:45.

potentially open inspection rights to people outside the UK. I am

:43:46.:43:50.

afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have visions of the president of the

:43:51.:43:54.

United States asking to see the accounts of maybe my old local

:43:55.:44:03.

authority, Walsall, or Christchurch. Plus, Madam Deputy Speaker, unlike

:44:04.:44:06.

journalists, whose role is to disseminate information more

:44:07.:44:09.

publicly, this would not necessarily be part of a politician's remit,

:44:10.:44:14.

unless it was in their interest, and removing the definition of

:44:15.:44:16.

journalist from the bill would undermine its whole purpose in

:44:17.:44:21.

relation to citizen journalists, specifically in relation to

:44:22.:44:24.

amendment four. The courts have already clarified that a

:44:25.:44:27.

non-domestic rate payer would be considered a person interested and

:44:28.:44:34.

so this amendment is unnecessary. Broadly speaking, Madam Deputy

:44:35.:44:40.

Speaker, amendments five through 28, also tabled by my honourable friend

:44:41.:44:43.

the member for Christchurch, seek to refine the definition of journalists

:44:44.:44:48.

and remove the rights of citizen journalists and bloggers for

:44:49.:44:52.

inclusion in the bill. And although I recognise that there is

:44:53.:44:56.

amendments, my honourable friend is trying to defend the ideal of the

:44:57.:45:02.

fourth estate, that is that the press is defined by Scottish

:45:03.:45:06.

philosopher Edmund Burke in the 18th-century. I do feel that he

:45:07.:45:09.

needs to recognise that there is now a fifth estate of networked

:45:10.:45:13.

individuals with the ability to share information, to create

:45:14.:45:17.

communities and to organise social movements online. It is not possible

:45:18.:45:21.

to turn back the clock. We need to accept that many people today get

:45:22.:45:26.

their information from nontraditional sources, which is

:45:27.:45:31.

precisely why the bill includes the concept of a citizen journalist. The

:45:32.:45:37.

use of this term also includes bloggers and others who scrutinise

:45:38.:45:39.

local authorities, but you may not be accredited members of the press,

:45:40.:45:43.

and we have had debate in the chamber this morning about this.

:45:44.:45:46.

However, this doesn't mean that it would cover anyone with social media

:45:47.:45:51.

access. By referring to journalistic material in the bill, the focus is

:45:52.:45:56.

on what the person does and would suggest that such a person would be

:45:57.:46:00.

able to provide details of other blogs or tweets that they had

:46:01.:46:04.

offered and the forums in which they had been published in order to gain

:46:05.:46:09.

the ability to inspect the accounting documents requested. In

:46:10.:46:14.

addition to that, use of the term publication implies a public

:46:15.:46:19.

element, so whilst it might include journalistic material tweeted on

:46:20.:46:25.

Twitter, it may not include material circulated to a small, invite only

:46:26.:46:30.

Facebook group. Will my honourable friend give way? I am grateful to my

:46:31.:46:35.

honourable friend for giving way because I perhaps should have

:46:36.:46:38.

covered this in my earlier comments. I apologise to the house that I

:46:39.:46:44.

didn't. But I do think that one shouldn't just solely go by that

:46:45.:46:51.

parameter because what if a local Facebook group has got 5000 locally

:46:52.:46:58.

interested residents on it. Surely that is publication to interested

:46:59.:47:05.

people and that is just as valid as publishing in a newspaper that no

:47:06.:47:10.

one reads? Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend for his

:47:11.:47:15.

intervention. He makes a fair point, but what I am driving at here is the

:47:16.:47:19.

difference between a small, invite only Facebook group, which the bill

:47:20.:47:25.

won't cover, compared with a broader Facebook group, and open Facebook

:47:26.:47:31.

group, because of this bill is about transparency and openness, that is

:47:32.:47:35.

what this is about, not about invite only groups. It is also unlikely to

:47:36.:47:41.

include material sent as a direct message on either Twitter, Facebook

:47:42.:47:45.

or e-mail. So as an example, it might be expected to includes a

:47:46.:47:50.

bloggers such as Eve Fox, one of the bloggers that most others in this

:47:51.:47:56.

chamber I think know what, but not a campaign group like 38 Degrees. I

:47:57.:48:02.

now like to turn to amendment number one from my honourable friend for

:48:03.:48:06.

Bury North because this covers this point as well. I believe its aim is

:48:07.:48:10.

to clarify that the bill would cover all journalists who may wish to

:48:11.:48:14.

publish their articles in a newspaper or on the internet,

:48:15.:48:17.

irrespective of whether there are charges. And I would like to

:48:18.:48:21.

reassure my honourable friend that the bill, as drafted, would cover

:48:22.:48:25.

the inclusion of an article in a newspaper, magazine, or on the

:48:26.:48:29.

internet, either on a website or in a blog, whether paid for free. The

:48:30.:48:33.

use of the words journalistic material and for publication. In

:48:34.:48:39.

point of fact, by specifying were such material or articles are

:48:40.:48:45.

published, he may in fact be limiting the potential for where

:48:46.:48:49.

they are placed, as a blog or a tweet may not be part of a specific

:48:50.:48:53.

website. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is important because it is

:48:54.:48:56.

necessary to keep up with the times and use terminology that would

:48:57.:49:00.

incorporate the many and varied realms of the internet such as

:49:01.:49:05.

twitter and the blogosphere in its provisions. And for those who may be

:49:06.:49:08.

concerned that this may mean that anyone could say that they blog or

:49:09.:49:12.

tweets, the onus would be on them to show that their work has been made

:49:13.:49:17.

available in a sufficiently public forum in order to prove their

:49:18.:49:21.

credentials as a citizen journalist before access is given. Will my

:49:22.:49:26.

honourable friend give way? My honourable friend as referred to a

:49:27.:49:31.

sufficiently public forum. How many members of the public would be

:49:32.:49:39.

required to make that criteria? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

:49:40.:49:43.

What I am trying to set out here is the difference between information

:49:44.:49:50.

that is going on to a private forum and actually such as when I am

:49:51.:49:55.

referring to open Facebook sites and direct e-mails and compared with the

:49:56.:50:02.

more open social media that citizen bloggers would be proving that they

:50:03.:50:05.

are on because at the heart of this bill it is about giving citizen

:50:06.:50:11.

bloggers access to local Government accounts so that they can put

:50:12.:50:13.

information into the public domain so that the electors can do further

:50:14.:50:24.

scrutiny if they so wish. Will she give way? I am just a bit concerned

:50:25.:50:28.

that we may end up getting ourselves into a model because of course most

:50:29.:50:31.

journalistic publications are in effect private subscription, the

:50:32.:50:40.

Spectator, for example, you had to subscribe privately in order to get

:50:41.:50:43.

that information. It is not in that sense public so I am not entirely

:50:44.:50:48.

sure why we are distinction between a magazine publication which is a

:50:49.:50:51.

private subscription magazine, which would still be covered, it seems to

:50:52.:50:56.

me by the bill, but is all the private publications which he is

:50:57.:51:02.

seeking to exclude from the bill. Thank you. I think there are many

:51:03.:51:08.

sites out there that do not require its inscription and what I am

:51:09.:51:12.

endeavouring to do here is to explain the difference and about the

:51:13.:51:19.

need to ensure that the citizen blogger is that person who is

:51:20.:51:22.

getting the information for the greater use of the public rather

:51:23.:51:31.

than just for a private, social media group or for direct twitter.

:51:32.:51:35.

But I would now, Madam Deputy Speaker, like to move on and speak

:51:36.:51:43.

to a member -- amendments nine, ten and 11. In relation to amendment

:51:44.:51:48.

nine, I recognise that my honourable friend is seeking to achieve

:51:49.:51:51.

comparability with the rights held by electors under section 25. Whilst

:51:52.:51:59.

it is not explicitly included in section 26, because this is the

:52:00.:52:02.

right enshrined in law, my view is that the council would be on very

:52:03.:52:07.

questionable grounds if they tried to charge an interested person to

:52:08.:52:10.

inspect their accounting records as they would be in effect bettering

:52:11.:52:15.

that right. Furthermore, there are existing powers in the local

:52:16.:52:19.

Government act 2003 for an authority to charge for discretionary

:52:20.:52:26.

services, that is services that are not under a duty to provide. In

:52:27.:52:33.

facilitating an interested person's right to inspect documents, and

:52:34.:52:35.

authority would surely not be able to charge, as that person has a

:52:36.:52:41.

right to inspect. In addition, whilst section 26 also gives the

:52:42.:52:47.

right to interested persons to make copies, there is no equivalent

:52:48.:52:50.

provision requiring an authority to provide copies to them. This would

:52:51.:52:55.

be a discretionary service and saw the authority could be relying on

:52:56.:52:59.

its powers in the local Government act 2003 to charge for providing

:53:00.:53:06.

copies. In relation to amendment ten, Madam Deputy Speaker, sections

:53:07.:53:11.

25 and 26 of the 2014 act exclude health bodies because the inspection

:53:12.:53:16.

rights in relation to their accounts do not apply. Health bodies differ

:53:17.:53:20.

in several key respects to other relevant authorities covered by the

:53:21.:53:24.

2014 act. Not least of which is in the treatment of their accounts.

:53:25.:53:30.

Which include separate monitoring arrangements through the NHS and the

:53:31.:53:35.

Department of help. In addition to that, the Government's initial

:53:36.:53:38.

stated intent to act in this respect, in its 2014 response to

:53:39.:53:43.

consultation, did not include health bodies. It would therefore be wrong

:53:44.:53:49.

to extend these rights. So I hope that provides my Right Honourable

:53:50.:53:54.

friend with some reassurance in relation to amendment ten. Turning

:53:55.:53:59.

now to amendment 11, which as I understand it seeks to extend the

:54:00.:54:02.

right to inspect accounting documents beyond the current

:54:03.:54:07.

accounting year, the primary purpose of these particular right at present

:54:08.:54:11.

is to enable the interested persons which would including local

:54:12.:54:15.

Government Elector to inspect these additional documents, so that they

:54:16.:54:18.

have all the information they might need in order to question the

:54:19.:54:22.

auditor and potentially make an objection within the dirty working

:54:23.:54:27.

day periods, whilst the accounts for that you are still open. -- 30

:54:28.:54:32.

working day period. Whilst the accounts have been signed off, this

:54:33.:54:36.

right lapses because the auditor is unable to act and investigate the

:54:37.:54:39.

question raised or objection raised. Therefore being able to inspect past

:54:40.:54:43.

year 's accounting information becomes an academic exercise. I

:54:44.:54:48.

would also like to point out that the 30 day period is actually

:54:49.:54:51.

provided for in secondary legislation, which I believe makes

:54:52.:54:55.

this amendment inappropriate, but I do hope again I have been able to go

:54:56.:54:57.

some way in clarifying that. With regard to amendments 12, 13 and

:54:58.:55:08.

14, also tabled by my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch,

:55:09.:55:11.

I consider these amendments go beyond what my bill is trying to

:55:12.:55:14.

achieve in tampering with the ability of local authorities to

:55:15.:55:19.

restrict access to commercially sensitive information. It is

:55:20.:55:20.

important that some information, the disclosure of which

:55:21.:55:49.

would prejudice which -- prejudice commercial confidence charity,

:55:50.:55:51.

remained exempt from inspection. Similar exists in the Freedom of

:55:52.:55:53.

information Act 2000 and I don't think this bill is the right place

:55:54.:55:55.

to challenge those provisions which could easily be the subject of a

:55:56.:55:58.

separate debate of their own. Section 26 of the 2014 Act sensibly

:55:59.:56:00.

includes a provision that inspection would be permitted if there was an

:56:01.:56:03.

overriding public interest in favour of disclosure of information that

:56:04.:56:04.

might otherwise prejudice commercial confidentiality. It appears to me at

:56:05.:56:07.

least that as though the legislation strikes reasonable balance between

:56:08.:56:09.

allowing for the inspection of commercially confidential

:56:10.:56:11.

information that is in the public interest to disclose while

:56:12.:56:14.

protecting information that it would not be in the public interest to

:56:15.:56:19.

disclose. In coming to my conclusions, as I said earlier, this

:56:20.:56:25.

bill is very straightforward bill, and I believe it does exactly what

:56:26.:56:30.

is on the tin, exactly on the face of bill. Whilst I'm very grateful to

:56:31.:56:37.

my honourable Friends for their contributions this morning, for the

:56:38.:56:41.

amendments, and it has given us more things to think through in terms of

:56:42.:56:46.

the bill, I believe that one of the amendments proposed will add to that

:56:47.:56:53.

simplicity. I close in thanking both of my Honourable Friends for their

:56:54.:57:01.

amendments. May I begin by thanking my Honourable Friends the promoter

:57:02.:57:04.

of this bill because she has been assiduous in the way in which she

:57:05.:57:08.

has addressed the amendments that we have put forward, and would that

:57:09.:57:14.

that was always the case. She has also been a very charming and

:57:15.:57:17.

courteous in the way she has dealt with this throughout, and it is

:57:18.:57:24.

therefore with some dismay that I say I can't agree with everything

:57:25.:57:30.

that she's said. Before I get onto that in detail, can I say it is also

:57:31.:57:34.

very helpful that we have been able to hear the view from the shadow

:57:35.:57:40.

Minister, because the shadow ministers is supportive of some of

:57:41.:57:46.

these amendments, which gives me extra enthusiasm, really, and

:57:47.:57:50.

confidence that I am onto a good thing here. I've always been in

:57:51.:57:57.

favour, as you will know, of consensus, trying to find consensus

:57:58.:58:02.

across the House, cross-party support, and I think the honourable

:58:03.:58:07.

lady's support for amendment two and amendment ten, I'm not going to push

:58:08.:58:11.

amendment tend to vote, but I certainly hope to push an amendment

:58:12.:58:15.

to abode, amendment ten is something we will have to come back to because

:58:16.:58:19.

I think she accepts and the House seems to accept there is a strong

:58:20.:58:24.

case for extending these powers to health bodies. I then looked to see,

:58:25.:58:33.

well, what is the point my honourable friend the Minister makes

:58:34.:58:38.

as an objection to amendment two? He says it will be a new burden on

:58:39.:58:41.

local authorities which will have to be funded by the Government, but in

:58:42.:58:45.

fairness to him he makes no bones about it, he has no idea of the

:58:46.:58:49.

extent of that burden, he has made no estimate of it. In my submission

:58:50.:58:55.

it would be a relatively small burden and will actually only tend

:58:56.:58:59.

to be a burden for local authorities which are not already sufficiently

:59:00.:59:03.

transparent and accountable, because it is those authorities which would

:59:04.:59:09.

invite people by their secrecy to come along and want to try and

:59:10.:59:13.

inspect their books and their accounts. Would my honourable friend

:59:14.:59:21.

not agree that the scrutiny this will place upon local authorities

:59:22.:59:24.

would probably lead them to save more money in their everyday

:59:25.:59:28.

business than it would cost them to implement the provisions of this

:59:29.:59:34.

particular amendment? Absolutely, with all these things it is an issue

:59:35.:59:38.

of proportionality and there was a balance between the burden on local

:59:39.:59:41.

government and the benefit to the public interest, and I think in this

:59:42.:59:45.

case and the case of amendment two the benefit to the public interest

:59:46.:59:50.

far outweighs any minuscule burden to local authorities, even if the

:59:51.:59:54.

argument put forward by my honourable friend were not accepted

:59:55.:59:58.

by those authorities. The Member for Oldridge Brownhills says that the

:59:59.:00:05.

bill does what it says on the tin and she talks about wanting to

:00:06.:00:11.

confine the bill to extending rights to journalists, but I remind her of

:00:12.:00:17.

the long title to her own bill, which says extend public access,

:00:18.:00:21.

public access, to certain local audit documents under section 26 of

:00:22.:00:26.

the local ordered and accountability Act. It is not limited to

:00:27.:00:31.

journalists, if my honourable friend wanted to limit it to journalists

:00:32.:00:35.

then she could have done so when she put down the long title for her

:00:36.:00:39.

bill, so I think that it is sensible that we should take this opportunity

:00:40.:00:45.

to see if we can make this bill are bigger and more substantial piece of

:00:46.:00:47.

legislation banned it would otherwise have been, and I would

:00:48.:00:54.

like to put amendment two to the vote.

:00:55.:01:00.

In that case the question is that amendment two be made. As many as

:01:01.:01:03.

are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division, clear

:01:04.:01:08.

the lobby. The question is that amendment two

:01:09.:02:09.

be made. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the

:02:10.:02:11.

contrary, "no". Tellers for the eyes, David Nuttall and Philip

:02:12.:02:15.

Davies. Tellers for the nose Rebecca Powell and Kevin Hollin rate. Thank

:02:16.:02:16.

you. -- tellers for the noes. The ayes to write, 15, the noes to

:02:17.:11:40.

the left, 41. -- the ayes to the right. Thank you. The ayes to the

:11:41.:11:48.

right, 15. The noes to the left, 41. The noes have it, the noes have it.

:11:49.:12:00.

Unlock. Does the honourable member for Baru

:12:01.:12:08.

North wish to push amendment one? I will withdraw amendment two...

:12:09.:12:16.

Amendment one. Amendment one is withdrawn. Consideration completed,

:12:17.:12:24.

third reading, what date? Now. Wendy Morton. I beg to move that the bill

:12:25.:12:29.

now be read a third time. Despite having had some previous success

:12:30.:12:33.

with a private members bill in this place, it is always special to be

:12:34.:12:40.

back at third reading having brought a bill this far. And particularly

:12:41.:12:46.

pleased to be able to bring this bill forward because it is short and

:12:47.:12:51.

simple, as I set out earlier, yet I believe it will have an impact

:12:52.:12:55.

nationally and potentially improving the transparency of local councils,

:12:56.:13:00.

and I hope it will have an impact within my own council area of

:13:01.:13:05.

Walsall as well, and help local journalists in my area, too. We have

:13:06.:13:12.

some excellent local newspapers, The Walsall Advertiser, The Express And

:13:13.:13:17.

Star, The Chronicle, The Sudden Observer. I am behind this bill, it

:13:18.:13:23.

is an intention to improve transparency and accountable in both

:13:24.:13:26.

central and local glove, something this Government has done much to

:13:27.:13:31.

improve since coming into power. I am pleased to play my part, although

:13:32.:13:37.

very small, in furthering that agenda. Will be honourable friend

:13:38.:13:43.

give way? Of course. Can I congratulate my honourable friend

:13:44.:13:46.

for piloting this bill through the House of Commons and its many

:13:47.:13:51.

stages? She is fast becoming a master of these Fridays, private

:13:52.:13:55.

members bills, she is too bashful to say that herself but I think it will

:13:56.:14:04.

be a worthy bill. I'm very grateful for his kind words, he contributed

:14:05.:14:09.

at second reading. I am grateful to all the honourable members who have

:14:10.:14:15.

played a part in this bill. If even one journalist, one citizen

:14:16.:14:20.

journalist, uses this power to bring poor spending decisions or untoward

:14:21.:14:24.

expenditure to the attention of local electors so they can ask

:14:25.:14:29.

questions of the auditor or object to their council accounts, thus

:14:30.:14:33.

forcing them to publicly account for their spending decisions, then I

:14:34.:14:36.

believe that this bill would have done its part. In closing, I would

:14:37.:14:43.

like to thank all those who have enabled me to reach this stage today

:14:44.:14:49.

with my bill at third reading. To those who initially supported it, to

:14:50.:14:53.

those who contributed at second reading and to those who came along

:14:54.:14:58.

and supported me at committee stage as well. And to everyone here for

:14:59.:15:04.

giving up yet another very precious constituency Friday on a week which

:15:05.:15:07.

has not been the easiest in this place all this country. I conclude

:15:08.:15:13.

by saying I hope this continues to have a smooth and speedy passage

:15:14.:15:18.

through this place and into the other and becomes law. Thank you.

:15:19.:15:25.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also congratulate my honourable friend on

:15:26.:15:32.

having taken this bill so far? As I said in a speech earlier, this bill

:15:33.:15:37.

is not one that I oppose, but I think it could have been so much

:15:38.:15:41.

more strong and worthwhile, but that is how it is. As we know, Madam

:15:42.:15:46.

Deputy Speaker, Friday business is of iron is tradition nature and

:15:47.:15:49.

wants an issue has been ventilated on a Friday, as sure as eggs are

:15:50.:15:55.

exit will probably come back on another Friday, so I think the

:15:56.:16:00.

issues about extending these rights to the health bodies and beyond

:16:01.:16:06.

journalists are likely to find favour, ultimately, with other

:16:07.:16:11.

members of this house. As my honourable friend said, this bill is

:16:12.:16:16.

limited at the moment to extending the powers under section 20 62

:16:17.:16:27.

journalists, -- under section 26 two journalists, we do that in a climate

:16:28.:16:31.

under which journalists are under a lot of pressure. This very week

:16:32.:16:38.

there is a new local newspaper in Christchurch, they have revived the

:16:39.:16:44.

title The Christchurch Times. Additional one is this week and I

:16:45.:16:47.

look forward to reading the copy when I get back to the constituency

:16:48.:16:54.

later today. That just shows that local newspapers are not dying or

:16:55.:16:59.

dead. I am grateful to him for giving way.

:17:00.:17:04.

Can he tell the House whether he has any intention of becoming the editor

:17:05.:17:07.

of this publication? LAUGHTER

:17:08.:17:14.

I am afraid I had to tell my right honourable friend that that is

:17:15.:17:19.

commercial and confidential. You need to make a better offer! My

:17:20.:17:27.

honourable friend -- as my honourable friend says, I am waiting

:17:28.:17:31.

for a better offer. I think it is really good news... Would my

:17:32.:17:34.

honourable friend give way? I agree it is good news, the new

:17:35.:17:42.

arrival to the newspapers seen in his constituency, but I wonder

:17:43.:17:45.

whether my honourable friend knows whether or not the newspaper in

:17:46.:17:50.

question, being a new arrival, is making use of the new breed of

:17:51.:17:55.

citizen journalists we have talked about?

:17:56.:17:58.

I suspect it is probably going to rely upon citizen journalists to

:17:59.:18:03.

send letters and to report to real journalists information which they

:18:04.:18:05.

think the newspaper should investigate. I think this newspaper

:18:06.:18:14.

will have a very responsible attitudes towards ensuring that the

:18:15.:18:18.

news that it prints is properly authenticated and cannot be put in

:18:19.:18:22.

the category of being fake news or news which has not been properly

:18:23.:18:29.

checked out in the sources from which it has come. I regard it as an

:18:30.:18:35.

example of highly responsible journalism as, indeed, I think they

:18:36.:18:40.

will find from the additional reporters that will be recruited

:18:41.:18:44.

across the United Kingdom as a result of the requirement on the BBC

:18:45.:18:50.

to set aside money to pay for those reporters. As I said earlier, we

:18:51.:18:56.

know now that the BBC have set aside ?8 million each year to pay for 150

:18:57.:19:01.

reporters who will work for local news organisations, rather than the

:19:02.:19:07.

BBC, across the country. I am sure that those reporters, likewise, will

:19:08.:19:11.

be professional or accredited journalists, responsible as well,

:19:12.:19:18.

and they will add to the scrutiny of local democracy across our country.

:19:19.:19:23.

Unfortunately I know from other reports that not all parts of the

:19:24.:19:27.

country are as well served by their local newspapers as we are in

:19:28.:19:34.

Dorset, and there are parts of the country, constituencies, whole local

:19:35.:19:39.

authority areas where there is no proper newspaper operating,

:19:40.:19:42.

certainly not a daily newspaper and often not even a weekly newspaper.

:19:43.:19:47.

That means it is very difficult to hold local authorities properly to

:19:48.:19:54.

account. I have referred already to some of the local stories that have

:19:55.:20:01.

out. How about this come one, Mr Deputy Speaker? Poole council revamp

:20:02.:20:08.

waste of money before merger, recurrence of the fact that they are

:20:09.:20:16.

proposing to spend quarter of ?1 million revamping the Civic Centre

:20:17.:20:18.

at a time when they also propose they should be abolished in favour

:20:19.:20:23.

of the Council merger. Another from Bournemouth, Council shuts ?15

:20:24.:20:27.

million bank of Bournemouth after issuing just 22 loans. That is 18

:20:28.:20:34.

months after it was created, another completely haywire scheme which has

:20:35.:20:40.

cost local taxpayers a lot of money and nobody has really been properly

:20:41.:20:47.

held to account. We could go on. I will not go on. But just to say that

:20:48.:20:53.

I think this bill could have been so much better than it is, it is better

:20:54.:21:01.

than nothing and, for that, I think my honourable friend, whether or not

:21:02.:21:06.

it will find favour in the other place in the short space in which

:21:07.:21:11.

the other place will have to consider it, I don't know. One of my

:21:12.:21:14.

concerns about bills going through at this late stage in the session is

:21:15.:21:19.

that if the other place is minded to amend the bill, which I hope it will

:21:20.:21:23.

be in the light of following some of the debates we have had today, they

:21:24.:21:27.

are often inhibited from doing that because they are told, if you

:21:28.:21:31.

amended, the bill will not be able to come back before the Commons

:21:32.:21:35.

before we end this session of Parliament. I hope the Macon text

:21:36.:21:42.

that the Minister perhaps in responding to this debate will be

:21:43.:21:45.

able to give an assurance that were their Lordships minded to amend this

:21:46.:21:49.

bill in any way, the Government would provide time to ensure that

:21:50.:21:52.

the bill in its amended state would still be able to be dealt with by

:21:53.:21:59.

this House before the end of this session so that it cannot be -- so

:22:00.:22:06.

the pistol cannot be held to the head of anyone who tries to amend

:22:07.:22:10.

this bill and threatened that if they try to it would be the death of

:22:11.:22:14.

the bill. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that I

:22:15.:22:21.

am going to support this bill today should there be a division on it.

:22:22.:22:29.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to

:22:30.:22:34.

address the house in this short third Reading debate. I also welcome

:22:35.:22:42.

this bill in the spirit with which it has been brought forward. Despite

:22:43.:22:49.

the fact that my attempt to amend it which was not, as I said at the

:22:50.:22:54.

time, wrecking amendments, it was a genuine amendment to try to improve

:22:55.:22:58.

the bill despite the that it was not met with approval by the proposal of

:22:59.:23:04.

the bill, I listened carefully to what my honourable friend said about

:23:05.:23:11.

that. I didn't wholly agree with it and I think that when one looks at

:23:12.:23:20.

the explanatory notes to the bill and the fact that the heading of

:23:21.:23:35.

clause one of the bill states... It says the words, and citizen

:23:36.:23:39.

journalists. My honourable friend, the proposer of the bill's

:23:40.:23:44.

explanation was that journalists include citizen journalists. Well,

:23:45.:23:48.

if that is the case, why is it that it was thought to be necessary to go

:23:49.:23:54.

on to say and citizen journalists in the title of the clause if it

:23:55.:23:58.

already includes them? I do think that there needs to be looking at it

:23:59.:24:05.

again, but I'm conscience of the very important point that my

:24:06.:24:09.

honourable friend, the member for Christchurch, has just made. I

:24:10.:24:11.

appreciate that if this bill was to be amended in the other place,

:24:12.:24:17.

unless the Government make time for this House to be able to consider

:24:18.:24:22.

any amendments, it would spell the death of this bill in this

:24:23.:24:28.

particular session. It is a question of what is more important, is it

:24:29.:24:33.

more important that we get this legislation right or do we just let

:24:34.:24:36.

it go through in a form that we are not happy with? It is a fine

:24:37.:24:42.

balance. I hope that the answer lies in the Government saying if the

:24:43.:24:48.

other place feel that it is appropriate for this bill to be

:24:49.:24:54.

amended, that they will find time in Government time to consider those

:24:55.:25:03.

amendments if they are made in the other place on the grounds that the

:25:04.:25:07.

other place may read the debate that has gone on to date and seen the

:25:08.:25:11.

arguments and read the arguments that we have put forward this

:25:12.:25:17.

morning to why this bill would benefit from further clarification,

:25:18.:25:23.

and it may be that the lordships reach a different view to the view

:25:24.:25:28.

that this House has taken this morning.

:25:29.:25:34.

The reason I suggested would be appropriate for the Government to

:25:35.:25:42.

find time for any Lords amendments to be considered is that the Act

:25:43.:25:56.

which this bill seeks to amend, the local audit public access to

:25:57.:26:04.

documents bill, seeks to amend the 2014 local audit and accountability

:26:05.:26:08.

Act, and after that Act had been passed it was put out to

:26:09.:26:13.

consultation by the Department for Communities and local government,

:26:14.:26:17.

and in December 20 14th they published their response and in a

:26:18.:26:23.

paragraph 411 of that response they said, furthermore, the Government

:26:24.:26:28.

believes that journalists should also be able to inspect accounts and

:26:29.:26:32.

information in the interests of local people, and therefore intends

:26:33.:26:38.

to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the

:26:39.:26:43.

definition of persons interested as defined in section six of the 26 --

:26:44.:26:50.

section 26 of the local accountability Act, is wide enough

:26:51.:26:54.

to enable this. There was a clear commitment given

:26:55.:26:58.

in the Government's responds on page ten of that response document, the

:26:59.:27:08.

future of local audit, to making the amendment which is contained in this

:27:09.:27:13.

bill, albeit it has been brought forward now as a Private members

:27:14.:27:16.

Bill, and therefore I think there is a sound argument for why the

:27:17.:27:21.

Government should make time available. I wholeheartedly support

:27:22.:27:31.

the general thrust of this bill, I think it is right that we should

:27:32.:27:39.

give as much access as possible to those who are interested, that was

:27:40.:27:47.

the initial phraseology used in the legislation, and I extend that to

:27:48.:27:51.

include journalists. I'm sorry the amendment we have just voted on does

:27:52.:27:56.

not include it to all electors who have the vote in local elections,

:27:57.:28:03.

but nevertheless it is a step in the right direction. And I think it is

:28:04.:28:10.

right that we try and extend the right to inspect local government

:28:11.:28:14.

accounts and all the other bodies that are listed in schedule two of

:28:15.:28:22.

the 2014 Act as well to give journalists and citizen journalists

:28:23.:28:29.

the right to inspect those accounts. I do accept that there is a concern

:28:30.:28:39.

that this might result in those bodies being inundated with

:28:40.:28:45.

requests, as has been noted earlier in the debate. There is no evidence

:28:46.:28:52.

to suggest this is the case. And I suspect the answer lies in the

:28:53.:28:59.

legislation, actually, because the legislation does provide for the

:29:00.:29:06.

bodies to be able to charge for copies of documents that are taken

:29:07.:29:13.

away, but I do think that despite that we are weighing up two

:29:14.:29:20.

competing interests, I think the overriding interest is the interest

:29:21.:29:27.

of the public to know what is going on and the alternative is to say,

:29:28.:29:33.

well, look, once the accounts are published there should be no right

:29:34.:29:39.

for anyone to go in and inspect the underlying documents and the books

:29:40.:29:43.

of accounts and so forth. I don't think any of us would want to go

:29:44.:29:49.

down that road, and I suspect that what we have stumbled upon here is

:29:50.:29:57.

probably the best of the options available to us. I would like to

:29:58.:30:07.

have gone further, but nevertheless extending the right to journalists

:30:08.:30:11.

is better than nothing, and it is now up to journalists to make use of

:30:12.:30:22.

the new power that will be given to them once this bill becomes law. It

:30:23.:30:31.

will be interesting to see whether or not anybody covered by this bill

:30:32.:30:39.

actually seeks to do what Bristol council did in respect of the

:30:40.:30:48.

earlier bill and exclude journalists because they are not specifically

:30:49.:30:53.

mentioned on the face of the bill, other than in the title to the

:30:54.:30:59.

clause. I would hope that doesn't happen, and if they do I would refer

:31:00.:31:09.

them to the explanatory notes that were published alongside this bill,

:31:10.:31:12.

where it makes very clear in deed that the intention of the bill was

:31:13.:31:21.

that the term citizen journalists should include bloggers and others

:31:22.:31:26.

who scrutinise local authorities but who may not be accredited members of

:31:27.:31:33.

the press, and in clause seven of the notes it saves as well as

:31:34.:31:37.

accredited members of the press is the term journalist would be

:31:38.:31:41.

extended to cover citizen journalists such as bloggers,

:31:42.:31:44.

enabling them to inspect the accounts of a local authority where

:31:45.:31:47.

they are not a local collector so that in publishing their findings

:31:48.:31:51.

they can help to enable the public to hold their local authority to

:31:52.:31:55.

account, and I think that is really the key to this whole bill, isn't

:31:56.:32:01.

it? It is about being able to uphold elected politicians to account. And

:32:02.:32:08.

I trust that when this bill is considered in the other place they

:32:09.:32:14.

will look carefully at the arguments that have been made here this

:32:15.:32:22.

morning and consider whether or not it is worthy of further amendment,

:32:23.:32:27.

but I would hope that the bill is not amended in the other place

:32:28.:32:32.

unless they can be assured that the Government provides time within

:32:33.:32:39.

Government time, as there are no more Private Members days allocated

:32:40.:32:42.

for those amendments to be considered, and in concluding, Mr

:32:43.:32:50.

Deputy Speaker, could I thank my honourable friend the Member for

:32:51.:32:56.

Aldridge-Brownhills for her work in ensuring the bill has reached this

:32:57.:33:04.

stage and for her efficient and courteous way she has handled

:33:05.:33:08.

proceedings, and I wish the bill well.

:33:09.:33:17.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I don't intend to make more than a few

:33:18.:33:20.

remarks on this bill for third weeding because this is a bill that

:33:21.:33:25.

has the support of these benches, the Government and local government

:33:26.:33:28.

Association. A short piece of legislation and a welcome one which

:33:29.:33:33.

aims to improve transparency and accountability of local public

:33:34.:33:36.

bodies and in an era where local newspapers are in many places

:33:37.:33:41.

diminishing and in some places don't exist at all, extending transparency

:33:42.:33:45.

of public bodies benefits all of our local democracy. Indeed, as we

:33:46.:33:47.

devolve more powers and sometimes even

:33:48.:34:01.

funding down to local authorities, there is an ever increasing need for

:34:02.:34:04.

greater transparency, but I know there are many other important bills

:34:05.:34:07.

to be debated today so I will draw my comments to a close.

:34:08.:34:13.

It is a pleasure... Mr Deputy Speaker, I am still recovering from

:34:14.:34:17.

the excitement of the report stage, which I was delighted to speak at,

:34:18.:34:21.

as I was at the committee stage as well. But it is a pleasure to speak

:34:22.:34:25.

at third weeding our behalf of the Government to once again offer our

:34:26.:34:31.

support for my honourable friend for Aldridge-Brownhills's bill and I pay

:34:32.:34:37.

tribute to her for the way in which she has got this bill to the stage

:34:38.:34:42.

it is at today and also to those of us who have also sponsored and

:34:43.:34:46.

supported this, but I also associate myself with her comments on how

:34:47.:34:51.

important it is to be here after a difficult week for Parliament, how

:34:52.:34:55.

important it is to be looking at the detail of legislation, doing the job

:34:56.:35:00.

we are elected to do and the job others would have liked to prevent

:35:01.:35:03.

myself with her comment on that. myself with her comment on that.

:35:04.:35:08.

This is a bill the Government has supported from the beginning and I

:35:09.:35:21.

note the support of the opposition note the support of the opposition

:35:22.:35:22.

as well. It is important because it furthers our

:35:23.:35:26.

accountability by extending this global

:35:27.:35:26.

accountability by extending this important right to journalists, and

:35:27.:35:33.

I also pay tribute to the other people who have spoken this

:35:34.:35:36.

afternoon, particularly the Member afternoon, particularly the Member

:35:37.:35:38.

for Christchurch about the plight of local newspapers -- the importance

:35:39.:35:44.

of local newspapers to local accountability, and it would be

:35:45.:35:48.

wrong not to mention the excellent work that one of my local papers

:35:49.:35:50.

does, ensuring my place in it next does, ensuring my place in it next

:35:51.:35:56.

week. They are so important to the local democracy and to local

:35:57.:35:59.

accountability and I associate myself with everything my honourable

:36:00.:36:03.

little more than that, there is little more than that, there is

:36:04.:36:08.

other business to be conducted, other than just to again thank my

:36:09.:36:12.

this bill forward and congratulate Aldridge-Brownhills for bringing

:36:13.:36:27.

this bill forward and congratulate her on its unamended passage through

:36:28.:36:29.

the other place, I understand she the other place, I understand she

:36:30.:36:30.

has secured the support of the noble Baroness Eton and without jinxing it

:36:31.:36:39.

I hope it passes, and I will say that I am not in a position at this

:36:40.:36:42.

time to make any guarantees about time to make any guarantees about

:36:43.:36:51.

future time, should this bill be future time, should this bill be

:36:52.:36:52.

amended in the other place. I hope and wish the Government will see it

:36:53.:36:57.

unamended through the other place, thank you.

:36:58.:37:01.

The question is that the bill now be read a third time. As many as are of

:37:02.:37:04.

the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it,

:37:05.:37:11.

the ayes habit. The merchant shipping homosexual

:37:12.:37:22.

conduct bill, to be considered. Amendment one is the only amendment

:37:23.:37:27.

on the paper, Mr Christopher choke. I beg to move amendment one, clause

:37:28.:37:33.

one, page one, line four, end insert two, subsection one shall have

:37:34.:37:37.

effect and be taken to have had effect from November the 3rd 1994,

:37:38.:37:43.

and the explanatory statement in support of that amendment is, this

:37:44.:37:46.

amendment would make the repeal of sections 100 and 43 and 173 of the

:37:47.:37:55.

criminal disorder Act retrospective to the date that they came into

:37:56.:38:01.

operation. And I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this amendment will

:38:02.:38:08.

find favour with the House and with the sponsor of the bill, whom I

:38:09.:38:11.

congratulate on having taken the bill so far.

:38:12.:38:20.

I'm grateful to him for giving way. He is a passionate Democrat. Does he

:38:21.:38:26.

not agree with me there is something profoundly undemocratic about

:38:27.:38:31.

seeking to make a retrospective -- retrospective law change? I don't

:38:32.:38:36.

think it would be undemocratic because of course it is democracy,

:38:37.:38:44.

it would be an Act of democracy. But it would be an Act of democracy. But

:38:45.:39:04.

I agree with Mike right honourable I agree with Mike right honourable

:39:05.:39:05.

friend that it... I will spell out friend that it... I will

:39:06.:39:05.

why this is a special situation. We why this is a special situation. We

:39:06.:39:09.

know that there was a bill to pardon Alan Sutton, although he had

:39:10.:39:13.

actually been convicted of a criminal offence, that was a

:39:14.:39:20.

retrospective Act and we have since had legislation to enable other

:39:21.:39:23.

people who were similarly so convicted to apply for their

:39:24.:39:29.

convictions to be effectively quashed. There are other examples of

:39:30.:39:34.

retrospective legislation, but the interesting thing about this bill is

:39:35.:39:41.

that it is dealing with a situation which is almost new good Tory

:39:42.:39:46.

anyway, as it says in the overview of the bill, set out in the

:39:47.:39:52.

explanatory notes, whilst the sections to which we refer are no

:39:53.:39:57.

longer of any legal effect, due to other legislation, primarily the

:39:58.:40:01.

equality Act 2010 and regulations made under it, repealing them would

:40:02.:40:05.

be both symbolic and will prevent any misunderstanding as to their

:40:06.:40:10.

current effect. It seems to me that that in itself puts this into a

:40:11.:40:14.

completely different category from the norm of bills which one would be

:40:15.:40:19.

seeking to have retrospective effect, this has no longer got any

:40:20.:40:26.

illegal effect because of other legislation, and if it is going to

:40:27.:40:31.

be, if it is accepted that it is symbolic, I think what better symbol

:40:32.:40:36.

could there be than to say that at all material times this provision

:40:37.:40:42.

which was incorporated into the original 1994 Act by a backbench

:40:43.:40:49.

amendment to be able to say that at all material times that backbench

:40:50.:40:52.

amendment will be deemed to have had no effect? So it seems to me that

:40:53.:41:02.

this meets that test of special circumstances which I'm the first to

:41:03.:41:04.

accept is one which we should always apply when we are considering

:41:05.:41:10.

whether or not we should countenance a retrospective legislation.

:41:11.:41:15.

I have, unfortunately -- that have, unfortunately, been a number of

:41:16.:41:24.

recent examples where retrospective legislation has been a necessity,

:41:25.:41:28.

normally because of what can only be put down as cross errors, I think,

:41:29.:41:35.

by the Government at the time. The mental health approval functions act

:41:36.:41:42.

2012, for example was rushed through parliament because it became

:41:43.:41:47.

apparent that approximately 2000 doctors who were dealing with mental

:41:48.:41:52.

health issues had not been properly approved, and they had participated

:41:53.:41:58.

in the detention of between 4000 and 5000 patients within institutions in

:41:59.:42:02.

the NHS and independent sectors without effectively legal authority.

:42:03.:42:12.

That was because of the mistake made in the primary legislation. There

:42:13.:42:16.

are a number of other examples, I am sure some of my honourable friends

:42:17.:42:20.

will refer to those during the course of this debate. I accept that

:42:21.:42:25.

it should only be in the most extreme circumstances that we do

:42:26.:42:32.

make legislation retrospective, but since this is essentially a gesture

:42:33.:42:38.

bill, a symbolic gesture, a gesture whereby this house can show

:42:39.:42:42.

solidarity to the people who would otherwise have been victims of this

:42:43.:42:50.

amendment which was passed in the 1994 act, it seems to me that both

:42:51.:42:56.

the policy background and the legal backgrounds make it perfectly

:42:57.:42:59.

reasonable to support this amendment. I think that the

:43:00.:43:11.

provisions... It says in the legal background, paragraph ten, sections

:43:12.:43:17.

1464 and 1473 were added chewing the passage of the bill following

:43:18.:43:22.

non-Government amendments. It was concerned that making homosexual

:43:23.:43:25.

conduct legal in the Armed Forces and the merchant Navy might mean

:43:26.:43:29.

that homosexuals could not be dismissed for in gauging and it nor

:43:30.:43:34.

such conduct used as the basis of a prosecution under military

:43:35.:43:41.

discipline. But those were saving conditions which meant they did not

:43:42.:43:46.

repeal or override other legislation which, of course, has come in to

:43:47.:43:51.

ensure that they have no applicability. This is quite a

:43:52.:43:58.

narrow point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that my honourable friend and

:43:59.:44:03.

the Government will accept the motivation behind it and the content

:44:04.:44:08.

of its and incorporate it into the bill, then that really will tidy up

:44:09.:44:13.

the statute. It will have the effect of this never having been

:44:14.:44:18.

legislation. Philip Davies. The question is that

:44:19.:44:25.

the amendment be made, Philip Davies?

:44:26.:44:27.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. My honourable friend's

:44:28.:44:33.

amendments, as my right honourable friend for East Yorkshire said, is

:44:34.:44:37.

trying to introduce retrospective legislation. Like my honourable

:44:38.:44:43.

friend I am not naturally in favour of retrospective legislation, it

:44:44.:44:46.

seems to be rather like the rewriting of history and something

:44:47.:44:52.

that I have been opposed to in the past. That said, I said chewing the

:44:53.:44:57.

second reading of the debate but I thought that the law was one that

:44:58.:45:03.

should never have been -- I said during the second reading of the

:45:04.:45:07.

debate. So I can absolutely understand my honourable friend's

:45:08.:45:12.

motivation for wanting to make the law retrospective, because I think

:45:13.:45:15.

many people in the House agree that this law should never have been

:45:16.:45:22.

place, so it would be, in effect, neatly correcting that situation.

:45:23.:45:28.

However, looking at the effect of his amendment, which I think is

:45:29.:45:33.

really where we should start with this, I asked the House of Commons

:45:34.:45:37.

library, who are always helpful, about what the effect of this

:45:38.:45:42.

amendment would be. And they said that the amendment would have

:45:43.:45:46.

retrospective effect going back to 1994. The bill is seeking to repeal

:45:47.:45:50.

a law which says it would not be unfair to dismiss as Seafarer for a

:45:51.:45:54.

homosexual act, the amendment would mean any dismissal on that basis

:45:55.:46:00.

since 1994 would not enjoy the statutory protection of being deemed

:46:01.:46:04.

an unfair dismissal. They then went on to say, so far as I can see, the

:46:05.:46:10.

amendment would have no practical effect. Any dismissal of the

:46:11.:46:14.

Seafarer for a reason relating to a homosexual act could already

:46:15.:46:18.

constitute sexual orientation discrimination, which has been

:46:19.:46:23.

unlawful in respect of seafarers since at least 2011. Claims in

:46:24.:46:27.

respect of the period before 2011 would be well out of time, among

:46:28.:46:35.

others, of iron Acton 's in 1987. Anyone dismissed would already have

:46:36.:46:40.

a claim or be at a time for making one. The amendment of the bill would

:46:41.:46:43.

not change those things and it would appear that the amendment is

:46:44.:46:47.

intended as a symbolic gesture. We are in a rather bizarre situation

:46:48.:46:53.

where, in effect, the bill itself has no real, practical change

:46:54.:47:02.

because of the quality laws already in place -- because of the equality

:47:03.:47:06.

laws. There would be no practical impact, either. It must be a first

:47:07.:47:12.

for a bill going through Parliament where the bill itself makes no real

:47:13.:47:16.

difference to the law but the amendment to it makes no difference

:47:17.:47:21.

to the law, either. Maybe there are some historical precedents for this

:47:22.:47:25.

procedure but I am not aware of wants in the small number of years I

:47:26.:47:29.

have been in here. In many respects I suspect that that is my honourable

:47:30.:47:35.

friend's case, as this bill is only symbolic in itself, there is no harm

:47:36.:47:42.

in his symbolic and retrospective legislation, even though we might in

:47:43.:47:49.

essence be against the principle of retrospective legislation. In that

:47:50.:47:53.

sense, it is not retrospective because it is not changing the

:47:54.:47:59.

impact of anything. I am not entirely sure where that leads us,

:48:00.:48:04.

if I am perfectly frank. It seems to me that it leaves us where you want

:48:05.:48:10.

to be left and you pays your money and takes your choice whether you

:48:11.:48:14.

want to be a purist like the right honourable friend for East Yorkshire

:48:15.:48:18.

and say I will vote against retrospective legislation, come what

:48:19.:48:22.

may, or whether you want to take the view of my honourable friend

:48:23.:48:25.

footrace -- Christchurch and say that as we are dealing with symbolic

:48:26.:48:29.

legislation there is nothing wrong with retrospective symbolism in the

:48:30.:48:32.

bill. I don't know. I asked the House of

:48:33.:48:37.

Commons library to help me with other examples of retrospective

:48:38.:48:44.

legislation. The library briefing under the heading of what is

:48:45.:48:48.

retrospective legislation said it is generally defined as legislation

:48:49.:48:51.

which takes away or impose any bested right acquired under existing

:48:52.:48:56.

laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new GT or attaches a new

:48:57.:49:01.

disability in respect to transactions or considerations

:49:02.:49:06.

already passed -- or imposes a new duty.

:49:07.:49:14.

Yes. Paul Azinger that point, if my honourable friend looks at it again,

:49:15.:49:19.

and that definition this amendment would not be retrospective

:49:20.:49:22.

legislation -- pausing at that point. It does not take away or

:49:23.:49:27.

impair any bested right acquired by existing rules or creating a new

:49:28.:49:31.

obligation or imposing a new GT or attaching a new disability in

:49:32.:49:35.

respect of transactions or considerations already passed? I

:49:36.:49:40.

think he is right. Unfortunately he is slightly arguing against himself

:49:41.:49:51.

in that sense, because... Is in his amendment that he has tabled he very

:49:52.:49:55.

helpfully as ever put in an explanatory statement to his

:49:56.:49:58.

amendment which actually says that it would make the repeal

:49:59.:50:03.

retrospective. Having explained to the house that he was making his

:50:04.:50:08.

amendment retrospective he appears to be arguing that he is not. So...

:50:09.:50:18.

Yes. I am not really sure where that takes us. Of course. I think the

:50:19.:50:24.

distinction is that it would be retrospective but not amount to

:50:25.:50:27.

retrospective legislation until it turns that the definition to which

:50:28.:50:32.

my honourable friend referred. I can tell why he was such a

:50:33.:50:39.

successful lawyer. He is getting into legalistic lawyer jargon which

:50:40.:50:43.

is well above my head as a poor former retailer, is goes way beyond

:50:44.:50:51.

my knowledge base. I am sure he has justified it to himself but I am not

:50:52.:50:57.

sure that I quite understood. The Oxford dictionary of law about

:50:58.:51:00.

retrospective legislation says that operates at is taking place before

:51:01.:51:05.

its enactment, eg by penalising conduct that was lawful when it

:51:06.:51:08.

occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to

:51:09.:51:13.

have retroactive effect unless they merely legal procedure. The last

:51:14.:51:17.

time I conceded that the Government set out its policy on retrospective

:51:18.:51:27.

legislation, somebody asked Parliamentary question that macro

:51:28.:51:32.

Parliamentary to the last Labour Government and what its opinion was,

:51:33.:51:36.

the then Solicitor General said Government policy before introducing

:51:37.:51:40.

legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance

:51:41.:51:44.

the conflicting public interest and consider whether the general public

:51:45.:51:48.

interest in the law not being change retrospectively might be outweighed

:51:49.:51:52.

by any competing public interest. In making this assessment the

:51:53.:51:56.

Government will have regard to the relevant international standards

:51:57.:52:00.

including those in the European Convention for the protection of

:52:01.:52:03.

human rights and public freedom is incorporated into UK law by the

:52:04.:52:09.

Human Rights Act of 1998. I mention that because in some respects it

:52:10.:52:15.

backs up my honourable friend's position, in effect they are saying

:52:16.:52:19.

that really the position on this is a matter of looking at the public

:52:20.:52:24.

interest. As my honourable friend has really quite rightly said that

:52:25.:52:31.

there is no public interest in not making the legislation

:52:32.:52:33.

retrospective, in some respects but adds lustre to his argument. There

:52:34.:52:43.

are examples of legislation applied retrospectively, for example the

:52:44.:52:46.

statutory instruments production and sale act of 1996 which amended the

:52:47.:52:58.

act 1946 to validate and authorise retrospectively the printing of

:52:59.:53:00.

instruments for contractors working for HMO, an active 1991 which

:53:01.:53:07.

excluded caravans from the definition of domestic subjects in

:53:08.:53:12.

the abolition of domestic rates etc. It deemed the amendment to have had

:53:13.:53:18.

effect since the 1st of April 19 90. There was the compensation act of

:53:19.:53:24.

2006 and The Scotland Act 20 Twell provided that the regulation of

:53:25.:53:27.

activities in Antarctica should have been treated as being reserved for

:53:28.:53:33.

the UK Government since the beginning of devolution, even though

:53:34.:53:39.

it was not reserved in The Scotland Act.

:53:40.:53:46.

He has moved to 2012, but in The Finance Act 2008, specifically

:53:47.:53:51.

section 58, legislation was trained retrospectively to frustrate a tax

:53:52.:53:57.

planning scheme which affected many constituents across the country,

:53:58.:54:02.

including some of my own. Touch legislation was changed. They were

:54:03.:54:06.

very badly affected by this retrospective change in legislation.

:54:07.:54:16.

He is absolutely right. Are quite interesting. It appears that the

:54:17.:54:23.

reason that I chose the ones that I did, and of course my honourable

:54:24.:54:26.

friend is on the ball and threw another one into the melting pot,

:54:27.:54:30.

which I would have been a slightly different category to these once, is

:54:31.:54:36.

that, in effect, these once were trying to correct things that should

:54:37.:54:40.

really have always been the case, really, as far as people could see.

:54:41.:54:46.

I think it was much more of an outrage, in many respects, than the

:54:47.:54:49.

one highlighted by my honourable friend. Whereas these were really,

:54:50.:54:55.

in effect, tidying up the law so that it was as it always should have

:54:56.:55:00.

been, really. And I think my honourable friend for Christchurch

:55:01.:55:04.

is onto something when he says this always should have been the case, it

:55:05.:55:09.

was a mistake in the first place that needs to be corrected, in

:55:10.:55:13.

effect, and we need to go back to the start of this to correct it. I

:55:14.:55:19.

was trying to use examples which would support my honourable friend's

:55:20.:55:23.

case, I think, and I felt the ones that I highlighted did. But he was

:55:24.:55:29.

right to highlight the ones that he did as well.

:55:30.:55:37.

There are other examples of retrospective legislation. I am not

:55:38.:55:42.

going to bore the House was going through all of them because there

:55:43.:55:50.

are quite a few. As we were asked by the Government the last time the

:55:51.:55:55.

answer does to look at the European Convention of human rights I looked

:55:56.:55:59.

at the European Convention of human rights about the rules on

:56:00.:56:04.

retrospective Betty on article seven and I am sure the member for

:56:05.:56:09.

Christchurch is an expert on this. He will know more about this as me.

:56:10.:56:15.

Article seven of the European Convention states, no one shall be

:56:16.:56:18.

held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act that did not

:56:19.:56:25.

come under international law when it was committed. This will not

:56:26.:56:28.

prejudice the trial went at the time it was committed was criminal

:56:29.:56:33.

according to general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

:56:34.:56:40.

It then says that criminal laws cannot have retrospective effect. It

:56:41.:56:43.

has been a long-standing rule of English law. Someone can only be

:56:44.:56:48.

guilty of crime if he commits an act which the law expressly forbids at

:56:49.:56:52.

the time he does it. Certain penal provisions of the immigration act

:56:53.:56:56.

1971 had retrospective effect, their conviction was quashed. Retroactive

:56:57.:57:08.

application of common law offences to cover conduct which would not

:57:09.:57:11.

previously have been regarded as a crime. In some respects this is

:57:12.:57:18.

where we get into a bit of an issue with this thing. Even though I

:57:19.:57:24.

absolutely sure my honourable friend's view, I think we are in

:57:25.:57:32.

danger... We are in danger of talking about criminal law which is

:57:33.:57:36.

not the case. I know you are good at the detail and you want to get back

:57:37.:57:42.

onto the detail, Mr Philip Davies. You are right, Madame, Mr Deputy

:57:43.:57:50.

Speaker. I was sidetracking myself. But on the principle of

:57:51.:57:54.

retrospective legislation, and I think this is a very similar case,

:57:55.:58:03.

we have the Alan Turing statutorily pardon Bill, it is from the same

:58:04.:58:12.

stable as this type of legislation, in the House of Lords, the very

:58:13.:58:17.

great Lord Tebbit made what might be a pertinent points to this, he said

:58:18.:58:22.

he had no intention of obstructing the Bill as it continues on its

:58:23.:58:26.

journey towards the statute book however, something must be said,

:58:27.:58:31.

Alan Turing committed and was convicted of an act which would not

:58:32.:58:35.

be a crime today, so have many others, many other crimes have been

:58:36.:58:41.

committed, I hope the Bill will not be a President, I hope we will not

:58:42.:58:46.

posthumously conflict men of tries for acts that were not criminal when

:58:47.:58:51.

committed, but would be if they were committed today, there is a

:58:52.:58:54.

dangerous precedent within this Bill. Lord Tebbit's warning at that

:58:55.:58:58.

time on that Bill is very relevant to this Bill today. That I think is

:58:59.:59:04.

the particular issue that I have with it. Both the court that he used

:59:05.:59:13.

which caused Mr Deputy Speaker to intervene and the court he has just

:59:14.:59:16.

used relate to criminal retrospection. This Bill is not

:59:17.:59:23.

about criminal retrospection. Will my honourable friend accept that? I

:59:24.:59:30.

do accept that, absolutely. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to

:59:31.:59:34.

defy you ruling, I would never do that. We do not want to be due off

:59:35.:59:43.

your objective. I suspect you are right about my honourable friend, Mr

:59:44.:59:47.

Deputy Speaker, he has been leading the street for many years. The point

:59:48.:59:54.

I want to meet, Mr Deputy Speaker, the serious point, the relevant

:59:55.:59:58.

point, the principles are the same. I except the difference with the

:59:59.:00:04.

criminal law that is a plain, the point I was trying to make, maybe

:00:05.:00:09.

even a ham-fisted way, the principles are similar in terms of

:00:10.:00:13.

retrospective legislation, and whether we should go down that

:00:14.:00:18.

situation. In conclusion, I support the Bill, I am all for changing the

:00:19.:00:22.

law, I still maintain today that this law that my honourable friend

:00:23.:00:29.

is dealing with, should never have been the law, this should never have

:00:30.:00:32.

been the law, it was an outrage that it ever was the law of the land, I

:00:33.:00:38.

am all for changing it, but I am concerned that there not necessarily

:00:39.:00:43.

unintended consequences but unintended precedents by trying to

:00:44.:00:45.

change it retrospectively. I give way. Is the essence that we should

:00:46.:00:52.

not be seeking to pass provisions that I retrospective unless there is

:00:53.:00:59.

a compelling reason to do so? Where are honourable friend for

:01:00.:01:03.

Christchurch has failed us to explain what is compelling about his

:01:04.:01:09.

Amendment? My right honourable friend sums it up perfectly. There

:01:10.:01:13.

are two ways of looking at this. One is the review looks of that, we

:01:14.:01:16.

should not pass retrospective legislation a mess that is a

:01:17.:01:19.

compelling reason. My honourable friend appears to be taking The View

:01:20.:01:23.

that we should not pass at a mess that is a good reason not to. We

:01:24.:01:28.

seem to be on two sides of that coin. I am with my right honourable

:01:29.:01:32.

friend for East Yorkshire, unless there is a cast iron reason why we

:01:33.:01:35.

should pass retrospective legislation then we should avoid

:01:36.:01:39.

doing so, in case it sets dangerous President is further down the line.

:01:40.:01:43.

Quite clearly my honourable friend has not met that test. Even though I

:01:44.:01:47.

have got sympathy of what he is trying to do and I agree the

:01:48.:01:53.

sentiments behind his Amendment, I would urge honourable members to

:01:54.:01:57.

resist it on this occasion and leave the Bill as it is. Thank you, Mr

:01:58.:02:06.

Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my honourable friend, the member for

:02:07.:02:09.

Christchurch, for tabling this Amendment. I understand his

:02:10.:02:14.

honourable intentions behind it and I have reflected very carefully on

:02:15.:02:19.

it over recent weeks as well. My honourable friend has put his case

:02:20.:02:22.

well and I acknowledge the attraction of the logic which says

:02:23.:02:25.

if we think this should not be on the statute books no, do we not

:02:26.:02:29.

think it should never have been there in the first place? I also

:02:30.:02:34.

acknowledge the deep injustice that an individual would feel into being

:02:35.:02:39.

dismissed under provisions which are later superseded. But injustice is

:02:40.:02:43.

something which has been tackled and the other cases of legislation

:02:44.:02:49.

penalising homosexual activity, for example in the policing and crime

:02:50.:02:52.

act, which allowed for the pardon of those convicted of sexual acts which

:02:53.:02:58.

are no longer illegal. Their may be a place for providing some level of

:02:59.:03:02.

the dress or apology to those who are dismissed from the merchant Navy

:03:03.:03:10.

on grounds of homosexual conduct -- providing redress. But a system of

:03:11.:03:14.

redress which needs to be calibrated in a similar way to the Turing

:03:15.:03:27.

provisions. Sadly the capacity for the scrutiny that such legislation

:03:28.:03:31.

would require does not exist within the private members Bill system and

:03:32.:03:35.

the tight timings that involves. However, in the absence of a system

:03:36.:03:42.

for investigation and redress, retrospective repeal creates

:03:43.:03:46.

unnecessarily ambiguity over dismissals which would have been

:03:47.:03:50.

clearly legal at the time, without creating a clear opportunity for

:03:51.:03:55.

redress or apology. As I have said previously the aim of this Bill is

:03:56.:03:59.

to create clarity and certainty going forward and that he would be

:04:00.:04:04.

frustrated if we were to create an ambiguity about the legality of some

:04:05.:04:09.

possible dismissals, until the provisions were legally superseded

:04:10.:04:14.

by the equality act 2010. I also have a deeper concern. The House, as

:04:15.:04:21.

has been discussed, has generally been extremely cautious about any

:04:22.:04:25.

form of retrospective legislation, and particularly so in the case of

:04:26.:04:30.

legislation which creates an offence or penalty where none existed at the

:04:31.:04:33.

time, something which is deeply inconsistent with the rule of law.

:04:34.:04:40.

The Amendment could potentially retrospectively render the actions

:04:41.:04:45.

of merchant Navy employers illegal, retrospective legislation has

:04:46.:04:51.

occasionally been used very sparingly to validate or authorise

:04:52.:04:54.

retrospective reactions that were illegal at the time. But the

:04:55.:05:01.

motivation for including sections 1464, because is repealed in the

:05:02.:05:08.

1994 act, was to enable merchant Navy employers to dismiss seafarers

:05:09.:05:13.

for homosexual conduct even though the 1994 act decriminalised such

:05:14.:05:17.

conduct, and we need to remember that the relevant sections apply to

:05:18.:05:22.

employers, not seafarers. The proposed Amendment does not

:05:23.:05:25.

authorise conduct found to be illegal at the time and so it does

:05:26.:05:29.

not fit to recent precedent of retrospective legislation. My

:05:30.:05:34.

honourable friend the member for Christchurch discussed with me

:05:35.:05:40.

privately earlier the one rare possible President where criminal

:05:41.:05:43.

liability was treated retrospectively, with the war crimes

:05:44.:05:47.

act 1991, and with respect to him I looked into this carefully, and that

:05:48.:05:53.

act allows domestic criminal proceedings to be brought against

:05:54.:05:55.

British citizens who had committed war crimes in Germany during World

:05:56.:06:00.

War II, this was because there was no provision for extradition, the

:06:01.:06:06.

act was a response to a practical problem of the operation of

:06:07.:06:08.

international law where an offence really existed. My honourable

:06:09.:06:13.

friend's Amendment does not go into that category and while he did not

:06:14.:06:18.

mention of this afternoon I wanted to be very respectful to his

:06:19.:06:23.

conversation on this matter. I would contend it is not covered by that

:06:24.:06:28.

precedent. I also mentioned to more practical concerns. First, the other

:06:29.:06:33.

place has possibly even more discomfort around retrospective

:06:34.:06:35.

legislation than the House and this was the case with that War crimes

:06:36.:06:40.

act 1991 which the then Government had to use the Parliament Acts to

:06:41.:06:44.

enact, and that this Amendment was carried, I worry that the Bill would

:06:45.:06:48.

be amended again in the Lords and then lost altogether as they would

:06:49.:06:54.

be no these is available. The second, is that during the passage

:06:55.:06:58.

of the book I enjoyed the warm support of the Government -- passage

:06:59.:07:05.

of the Bill, I understand the Government does not sponsor

:07:06.:07:08.

retrospective legislation unless a lengthy procedure is undertaken to

:07:09.:07:12.

examine all possible effects, I am told they will not do so in this

:07:13.:07:16.

case. I fear that again the Bill could be lost without the support of

:07:17.:07:21.

the Government. Can I conclude by thanking my honourable friend for

:07:22.:07:25.

his Amendment and the serious scrutiny that he has performed on

:07:26.:07:30.

this Bill and on others? And my sincere respect for his intentions

:07:31.:07:37.

in doing so. But can I also appealed to him to withdraw the amendments to

:07:38.:07:41.

make sure that we pass a Bill that does provide, I believe, legal

:07:42.:07:45.

clarity and certainty, rather than a degree of ongoing ambiguity? Thank

:07:46.:07:55.

you, let me briefly address clause two of the Bill, which we supported

:07:56.:07:59.

the, it is right that this Bill comes into force immediately upon it

:08:00.:08:03.

receiving Royal assent rather that the end of the two months. The

:08:04.:08:06.

sooner the change to the law has made the better, in that spirit that

:08:07.:08:09.

they go on to the amendments tabled by the honourable member for

:08:10.:08:14.

Christchurch. Labour appreciates that this Amendment is well

:08:15.:08:18.

intentioned, we acknowledge it is in principle certainly right to seek

:08:19.:08:21.

redress for any members of the merchant Navy who were dismissed on

:08:22.:08:25.

the grounds of homosexual conduct between the passing of the 1994 act

:08:26.:08:32.

and the 2010 equality act, nonetheless, the retroactive

:08:33.:08:36.

legislation is only set into law in rear and exceptional circumstances,

:08:37.:08:39.

and we do not believe on this occasion that are forcing

:08:40.:08:42.

synchronous amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. As my

:08:43.:08:46.

honourable friend, the brilliant member for Cambridge express that

:08:47.:08:50.

committee stage, as the provisions to be repealed are no legally null

:08:51.:08:55.

and void, this Bill is a symbolic gesture which will tidy up existing

:08:56.:09:00.

legislation. Accordingly the Bill does not aim to provide redress for

:09:01.:09:05.

those members of the merchant Navy affected by the provisions to be

:09:06.:09:10.

repealed. The amendments tabled by the honourable member does not fit

:09:11.:09:14.

with the purpose of the Bill. Therefore Labour will not be

:09:15.:09:19.

supporting this Amendment today. Minister of State. Thank you. Seneca

:09:20.:09:32.

the younger said, if one does not know to which one port is ceiling,

:09:33.:09:36.

nor wind is favourable. It is certainly true that the honourable

:09:37.:09:40.

member for Salisbury knew exactly which port he was sailing to when he

:09:41.:09:47.

brought this Bill and I congratulate him on both his hard work and

:09:48.:09:53.

persistence in doing so. It is an important measure which puts right a

:09:54.:09:54.

wrong. I want also to thank the right

:09:55.:10:03.

Honourable member for Christchurch for his thoughts and diligence, and

:10:04.:10:09.

as the Honourable member for Middlesbrough said, it is

:10:10.:10:11.

understandable that we should wish that this bill was brought earlier

:10:12.:10:17.

than it has been, for the very reasons he set out in his thoughtful

:10:18.:10:24.

contribution earlier. Nevertheless, rather like the honourable member

:10:25.:10:28.

opposite, I'm afraid the Government would not support the amendment

:10:29.:10:32.

would should make the current law retrospective. This is something the

:10:33.:10:36.

Government rarely does and the House is rightly hesitant to do. Unless

:10:37.:10:44.

there are very good reasons for doing otherwise, what is the law at

:10:45.:10:49.

a given time cannot be revisited later. People should be able to

:10:50.:10:54.

settle their affairs with the certain knowledge of what the law

:10:55.:10:59.

is. This is an important principle of such significance, as I say, the

:11:00.:11:03.

Government does not depart from it unless there are very good reasons

:11:04.:11:07.

for doing so. At the very greatest respect to my honourable friend, I

:11:08.:11:11.

am not convinced that those very good reasons prevail on this

:11:12.:11:16.

occasion. Might I just say that it is important to appreciate what this

:11:17.:11:20.

bill does. It does not deal with criminal offences because the

:11:21.:11:25.

subsections that the bill seeks to amend refers solely to employment

:11:26.:11:30.

rights. It does not remove from employers any right to dismiss

:11:31.:11:33.

seafarers, but the ability to dismiss people because of their

:11:34.:11:38.

sexuality has been illegal in the UK since 2003. For the same reason it

:11:39.:11:42.

does not create any new rights for employees. The subsections we deal

:11:43.:11:46.

with the data have been entirely superseded by new law and remain a

:11:47.:11:51.

dead letter. They are a reminder of a very different time. Now, as my

:11:52.:11:55.

honourable friend the member for Salisbury has made clear and I

:11:56.:11:59.

myself have said previously, there are good reasons for moving such

:12:00.:12:04.

dead letters from the statute book. I am clear there are good reasons

:12:05.:12:10.

for doing so now, but I don't feel we can do it retrospectively. I

:12:11.:12:14.

cannot see how it would benefit anyone to make the amendment

:12:15.:12:18.

retrospective and I think that the general position that the House does

:12:19.:12:22.

not pass retrospective legislation should stand.

:12:23.:12:25.

I am stranded in that view by this final short point, between 1994 when

:12:26.:12:30.

the criminal justice and Public order act came into existence and

:12:31.:12:35.

2003 when the sexual orientation regulations came into force, it is

:12:36.:12:39.

possible that some people were dismissed from ships because of

:12:40.:12:43.

their sexuality. They might have taken legal adviser at the time and

:12:44.:12:47.

been told, sadly and entirely properly, that nothing could be

:12:48.:12:52.

done. Making this bill retrospective would not change that, I am afraid,

:12:53.:12:57.

however sad that is, for the reasons I have explained.

:12:58.:13:00.

I would rather save those people from thinking otherwise having taken

:13:01.:13:06.

legal advice, I would not want them to how to do so all over again only

:13:07.:13:12.

to be frustrated. Was appreciating the reasons why the change was

:13:13.:13:17.

suggested in this amendment I am afraid the Government cannot support

:13:18.:13:22.

it and I ask my honourable friend to withdraw his amendment as, indeed,

:13:23.:13:27.

the honourable member for Salisbury has already done. Might I finish

:13:28.:13:34.

with this? It has been said that a sailor is not defined as much by how

:13:35.:13:40.

many sees he has sailed than by how many storms he has overcome. Let's

:13:41.:13:47.

hope that in life's sees, some sailors will encounter fewer storms

:13:48.:13:53.

as a result of what the honourable member for Salisbury has brought to

:13:54.:14:00.

the attention of the House? We have had an excellent and high

:14:01.:14:06.

quality debate, I think, on this issue, I have listened very

:14:07.:14:09.

carefully to his points and I'm very much indebted to the member for

:14:10.:14:13.

Salisbury for having considered this amendment Circe Risley, he went to a

:14:14.:14:17.

lot of effort and we have been in discussions about it. I heard what

:14:18.:14:24.

my honourable friend said and his public torment about whether or not

:14:25.:14:28.

he should support this amendment or not. I think in the end I am

:14:29.:14:33.

persuaded by the points made by my honourable friend for Salisbury and

:14:34.:14:40.

the Minister that if we made this retrospective it might cause

:14:41.:14:44.

uncertainty for those people, if we know who they are, were dismissed

:14:45.:14:49.

from the merchant Navy between 1994 and the time when this became a

:14:50.:14:57.

unlawful under other legislation. I would not want to achieve that

:14:58.:15:01.

objective which I think would be an unintended consequence of this. Mr

:15:02.:15:05.

Deputy Speaker, this has been a useful debate because what it has

:15:06.:15:11.

also done, and I am with all those honourable and Right Honourable

:15:12.:15:15.

members who essentially deplorable respectively just than, this debate

:15:16.:15:22.

has been very useful in getting from the Government and others a

:15:23.:15:26.

reaffirmation of our disgust and rejection of the principles of

:15:27.:15:30.

retrospective legislation, even to the extent that we will not even

:15:31.:15:34.

make symbolic legislation retrospective. I think that has been

:15:35.:15:39.

a useful exercise and with the leave of the house I seek to withdraw this

:15:40.:15:46.

amendment. Is it your pleasure by leave that the amendment be

:15:47.:15:51.

withdrawn? Aye. Consideration completed, the reading, what day?

:15:52.:15:59.

John Glenn? I beg to move that the bill be now read a third time. I

:16:00.:16:04.

will not detain the house for very long and I'm very grateful at this

:16:05.:16:09.

point, I wish the bill God speed as it is sent to the other place. As

:16:10.:16:15.

honourable members have noted, this bill is short and simple. However,

:16:16.:16:20.

what it symbolises and the lasting impact it will have is about more

:16:21.:16:27.

than the repeal of sections 1464 and 1473 in the criminal justice and

:16:28.:16:32.

public order act 1994. It sends an important message in this country

:16:33.:16:37.

when it comes to employment, what matters is your ability to do the

:16:38.:16:45.

job, not your gender, age, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.

:16:46.:16:50.

Bypassing this bill, we make a clear statement that employment

:16:51.:16:52.

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has no place in

:16:53.:16:57.

our country. We should not underestimate the importance of

:16:58.:17:01.

that. Looking back at the previous stages, honourable members will

:17:02.:17:05.

recall, I am sure, the very powerful speech made at second reading by my

:17:06.:17:10.

honourable friend the member for Milton Keynes South, and his very

:17:11.:17:16.

moving remarks on how legislation previously left him feeling unable

:17:17.:17:20.

to pursue the career of his choice. We want to send a clear message to

:17:21.:17:25.

younger generations or anyone who might have been confused upon

:17:26.:17:29.

reading the 1994 act that sexual orientation is not a basis for

:17:30.:17:34.

employment discrimination. In the merchant navy or anywhere else. I am

:17:35.:17:37.

pleased that the bill is supported by honourable members on all sides

:17:38.:17:42.

of the house, as they have noted the important reassurance and clarity

:17:43.:17:45.

provides. I want to thank honourable members who served on the public

:17:46.:17:50.

Bill committee and in particular my honourable friend the members the

:17:51.:17:55.

call before his helpful input. The bill will come into force on the day

:17:56.:17:59.

becomes law -- my honourable friend the member for Corby, for his

:18:00.:18:04.

helpful input. I also wish to thank my right honourable friend the

:18:05.:18:07.

Minister for his support throughout the passage of this bill. Finally,

:18:08.:18:13.

it only remains for me to wish the bill safe passage as it goes to the

:18:14.:18:16.

other place. I hope they will share the conviction of this Haas that

:18:17.:18:22.

imply mid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong

:18:23.:18:26.

and it is time for the entirety of the statute book to fully reflect

:18:27.:18:31.

that reality. The question is that the bill now be read in the third

:18:32.:18:36.

time? Mr Phillip Dennis? I would very much like to congratulate my

:18:37.:18:40.

honourable friend the member for Salisbury on this bill. He is one of

:18:41.:18:44.

the most diligent people in the House and one of the nicest, it is a

:18:45.:18:49.

pleasure to be here to support his bill. I reiterate my support for the

:18:50.:18:55.

Bill and note that it has support from across the House. Was the Bill

:18:56.:18:59.

is in effect a tidying up exercise and one that will not make a lot of

:19:00.:19:03.

practical difference I think it is only right that we have laws that

:19:04.:19:08.

are enforceable and justifiable on the statute Bill, and this bill

:19:09.:19:17.

seeks to clear away something which was unjustifiable. When the bill had

:19:18.:19:22.

its Ekin -- second reading, in many respects it is about dealing with

:19:23.:19:25.

things that should never have been illegal in the first place and

:19:26.:19:28.

sometimes when we talk about things like gay rights, sometimes the tone

:19:29.:19:33.

can be that we are dreaming people a favour. Nothing to do with that, it

:19:34.:19:38.

is not about doing people a favour, these things should never have been

:19:39.:19:42.

illegal in the first place. It is making it clear that something is on

:19:43.:19:45.

the statute book were wrong and we had to make a point of taking those

:19:46.:19:50.

away from the statute book when they were wrong. It is certainly not

:19:51.:19:54.

about doing anyone any favours and we should not make it sound like

:19:55.:20:01.

that. Clearly the provisions in the sections have been superseded by

:20:02.:20:05.

other legislation, specifically the equality act of 2010. But I think it

:20:06.:20:12.

is interesting to note at this point that this legislation should really

:20:13.:20:15.

never have been needed, it should have been dealt with in its entirety

:20:16.:20:18.

when the equality act was introduced. Actually, as the House

:20:19.:20:26.

of Commons library made clear when I asked them if it would have been

:20:27.:20:30.

possible to deal in this matter then they said that, yes, that is correct

:20:31.:20:36.

and this issue would have been in the equality Bill's scope. Such an

:20:37.:20:41.

omission has meant we needed to produce an entirely new bill simply

:20:42.:20:46.

to correct the position, which in many respects is unfortunate. I am

:20:47.:20:49.

delighted my honourable friend has taken the opportunity to do so. I

:20:50.:20:54.

think it is right, we have a proper scrutiny of this bill both at the

:20:55.:20:57.

second reading, the committee stage on the report stage today, that is

:20:58.:21:03.

absolutely right. It is a small bill but that does not mean they should

:21:04.:21:07.

not get scrutiny, just like big bills, and I am grateful we have had

:21:08.:21:11.

the opportunity to give the bills and proper scrutiny because it

:21:12.:21:16.

should never be easy to get legislation through Parliament and I

:21:17.:21:18.

think my honourable friend has approached the Bill in exactly the

:21:19.:21:22.

right way, exactly the right spirit, he has taken on board people's

:21:23.:21:26.

comments, looked into them diligently. It has been a model of

:21:27.:21:30.

how people should take a private members' bill through Parliament and

:21:31.:21:35.

I am pleased to support him and given the nature of the Bill I hope

:21:36.:21:39.

its sales through the House of Lords very quickly. Andy McDonald.

:21:40.:21:47.

I will keep my comments brief, the point I wish to make a

:21:48.:21:50.

straightforward and does not require a lengthy speech. On the side bar

:21:51.:21:54.

has we wholeheartedly support this bill for what you represent and I

:21:55.:21:57.

would like to congratulate the honourable member for Salisbury in

:21:58.:22:03.

bringing this forward -- on this side of the House. He has focused

:22:04.:22:08.

our attention on anachronistic and unfair provisions from the criminal

:22:09.:22:12.

justice and public order act 1994 which suggest it would be lawful to

:22:13.:22:17.

dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. This would remove ambiguities

:22:18.:22:21.

surrounding whether it is legal to dismiss Seafarer on the basis of

:22:22.:22:28.

such an act, but the discriminatory provisions targeted by the member

:22:29.:22:33.

for Salisbury's bill has been superseded by the current equality

:22:34.:22:37.

legislation, primarily the equality after 2010. This bill is symbolic

:22:38.:22:45.

but importantly so, as we should not underestimate the importance and

:22:46.:22:50.

power of symbols. We believe that this bill, which would amend

:22:51.:22:54.

legislation to better effect the values of equal rights to which we

:22:55.:22:59.

now it's here, is a powerful symbol, and we on this side of the house are

:23:00.:23:03.

pleased to give it our support. -- to which we now adhere.

:23:04.:23:12.

Nothing I say will either be the persuasion of the honourable members

:23:13.:23:15.

the Salisbury nor add to the straightforward certainty about this

:23:16.:23:19.

bill's virtues. Quite simply, it speaks for itself. The question is

:23:20.:23:26.

that the Bill be read a third time. As many as are of the opinion, say

:23:27.:23:29.

"aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it, the ayes have it.

:23:30.:23:35.

Guardianship missing Persons Bill, not amended in public committee, to

:23:36.:23:39.

be considered. We begin with amendment one, that it should be

:23:40.:23:43.

convenient to consider the amendments as listed on the

:23:44.:23:47.

selection paper. Philip Davies? Thank you. I have

:23:48.:23:52.

tabled Bees four amendments to this particular bill and I have set out

:23:53.:23:57.

right from the start that these were designed to be probing amendments,

:23:58.:24:03.

and I don't intend to push any of them to a division. What I am

:24:04.:24:11.

conscious of is that we have a bill which I think by anybody's admission

:24:12.:24:20.

is quite a meaty Bill. It runs to 20 five quarters. -- 20 five quarters.

:24:21.:24:28.

We have had no scrutiny of this bill in the chamber. It went through at a

:24:29.:24:34.

second reading on the nod without any debate whatsoever, and here we

:24:35.:24:40.

are with time pressing on and we have not had any opportunity before

:24:41.:24:44.

now to debate any of its provisions at all. So I actually tabled the

:24:45.:24:48.

amendments as probing amendments to try to tease out from my honourable

:24:49.:24:52.

friend why some of the provisions in the Bill were as they are. Because

:24:53.:24:58.

it was not clear from just reading the Bill White, for example, the

:24:59.:25:02.

timescales in it were set in the way that they were. So my amendment one

:25:03.:25:11.

is page one, clause one, sub-clause four, 914, to leave out subsection

:25:12.:25:15.

four. This subsection that I propose leaving out is a person who is

:25:16.:25:21.

detained whether in a prison or another place is to be treated for

:25:22.:25:24.

the purposes of this act does absent from his or her usual place of

:25:25.:25:28.

residence and usual day-to-day activities. Really, the purpose for

:25:29.:25:34.

this amendment is to try to tease out from my honourable friend the

:25:35.:25:36.

reasoning behind the inclusion of this subsection in the Bill.

:25:37.:25:44.

Because we did not have any scrutiny at the second reading in order to

:25:45.:25:52.

find out. In 2014, just in passing I should say, that there is a Bill

:25:53.:25:58.

going through the House of Lords, we are looking at the Guardianship

:25:59.:26:02.

(Missing Persons) Bill, there is also a missing persons Guardianship

:26:03.:26:05.

Bill going through the House of Lords, I am not sure if that is

:26:06.:26:09.

different in its provisions to this, I have not had time to look at that,

:26:10.:26:13.

maybe they are trying to achieve the same things, but in 2014 the

:26:14.:26:19.

Government held a consultation regarding guardianship of property

:26:20.:26:22.

and fears of missing persons and not once in this consultation was this

:26:23.:26:33.

subsection address. The reasoning behind the inclusion of this

:26:34.:26:36.

subsection, the library confirmed they could not find anything about

:26:37.:26:41.

the background to clause one, subsection four, beyond its

:26:42.:26:45.

inclusion as an example, they could not explain the reason behind its

:26:46.:26:48.

inclusion in the Bill. After speaking with the library at further

:26:49.:26:54.

length, they did say that the Bill defines a missing person as someone

:26:55.:26:58.

who is absent from the usual place of residence or day-to-day

:26:59.:27:01.

activities, the reason for being absent maybe because the person is

:27:02.:27:06.

being detained, in addition, the first second condition set out in

:27:07.:27:09.

subsections two or three must also be met, in most cases the first

:27:10.:27:14.

condition is likely to be relevant, their whereabouts of the person is

:27:15.:27:18.

not known or not known with sufficient precision to enable

:27:19.:27:23.

contact to be made. That was their explanation as to why this may be in

:27:24.:27:30.

there. But given that they were not entirely clear why, I thought it was

:27:31.:27:34.

important to put down an Amendment to hear from first hand from my

:27:35.:27:38.

honourable friend why it was in there, that is why I see it as an

:27:39.:27:44.

appropriate Amendment. My amendments to, in this sense, it is page two,

:27:45.:27:58.

clause two, line 17, and at the end, insert two A, the court may be

:27:59.:28:07.

required to take further steps for the purpose of tracing the missing

:28:08.:28:14.

person, that is to ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to

:28:15.:28:19.

try and locate the missing person. This Amendment... On reflection

:28:20.:28:27.

would he not a giddy that the court probably has that power anyway? --

:28:28.:28:35.

would he not agree. Somebody seeking such an order must sure that all

:28:36.:28:38.

reasonable steps have been taken to discover where the missing person

:28:39.:28:43.

is. I am hoping that this what my honourable friend will be able to

:28:44.:28:46.

confirm, which is why I described it as a probing Amendment. I wanted

:28:47.:28:52.

that clear on the record that that was the case. Looking through it I

:28:53.:28:55.

was not entirely clear that that was the case. I hope he is right. That

:28:56.:28:59.

is why I said it was a probing Amendment so we could get that

:29:00.:29:06.

confirmation on the record today. You are making a valid point but as

:29:07.:29:10.

I understand that there are good systems in place for distinguishing

:29:11.:29:14.

whether a person is missing and that side of it. There is no system for

:29:15.:29:18.

looking after their estate or anything that the own if they are

:29:19.:29:22.

declared missing. That is what this private members Bill is all about,

:29:23.:29:26.

to help the people left at home deal with the property or the estate, or

:29:27.:29:29.

deal with the hardship that they might be facing because they cannot

:29:30.:29:33.

access funds or money or get into the House and all. Of things, so it

:29:34.:29:38.

does seem straightforward and sensible. My honourable friend is

:29:39.:29:44.

right. What she is referring to is the principle of the Bill and I

:29:45.:29:47.

support the principle of the Bill and I do not intend to do anything

:29:48.:29:51.

to stop the Bill from proceeding. That is not the point. The point I

:29:52.:29:56.

am trying to make here is that we are looking at the detail in the

:29:57.:29:59.

Bill and to make sure that we have got the detail in the Bill right,

:30:00.:30:03.

because I would think that we would all support the principle behind the

:30:04.:30:07.

Bill, and the purpose of these amendments is simply not to scupper

:30:08.:30:10.

the Bill or affect the principle of the Bill, me and her are as one on

:30:11.:30:17.

that, it is to make sure that they are happy that some of the details

:30:18.:30:20.

are directly just having it because it is quite chunky piece of

:30:21.:30:24.

legislation that does deserve that Italy. The Amendment that have

:30:25.:30:29.

proposed works from a similar basis that is the requirement in the lease

:30:30.:30:35.

hold reform act 1993. I do not know if I need to the clear on my

:30:36.:30:43.

register as a landlord, but I do just in case, section 26 of the

:30:44.:30:50.

leasehold urban development act 1993 addresses applications where the

:30:51.:30:54.

relevant landlord cannot be found, I was merely using that as a basis for

:30:55.:30:59.

my Amendment in this piece of legislation here. And similar

:31:00.:31:05.

legislation elsewhere in the world contains similar requirements before

:31:06.:31:10.

a guardian can be appointed. In three Australian states, New South

:31:11.:31:16.

Wales, there is a process whereby people can seek to be appointed to

:31:17.:31:21.

manage the affairs of a person who is missing. Similarly in Canadian

:31:22.:31:25.

law. That was the purpose behind this Amendment. To make sure that we

:31:26.:31:29.

are happy that we have got all this particular detail right. Amendment

:31:30.:31:38.

three, as people can see, is to leave out 90 days and insert six

:31:39.:31:41.

months, this is to increase the amount of time an individual must be

:31:42.:31:45.

missing before I guardian it can be appointed. Again, this was

:31:46.:31:51.

specifically designed as a probing Amendment because it was the only I

:31:52.:31:54.

could think of to tease out from my honourable friend why he said 90

:31:55.:31:58.

days as the limit in the Bill, the only way to do that is to propose an

:31:59.:32:03.

alternative, my alternative therefore was for six months. I

:32:04.:32:08.

wonder whether or not 90 days... I give way. I am grateful. I am

:32:09.:32:13.

grateful for his scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. He

:32:14.:32:17.

mentioned earlier some of the territories around the world who use

:32:18.:32:22.

this kind of legislation, New South Wales, Victoria, British Columbia,

:32:23.:32:27.

all of those used at 90 day period saw it as a sensible starting point

:32:28.:32:30.

from which we can begin. I am grateful to him for that. I don't

:32:31.:32:38.

read the consultation when this was out to consultation. As far as I

:32:39.:32:41.

could see there were 40 responses, of which it commented on the

:32:42.:32:45.

proposal that applications should only be able to be made after the 90

:32:46.:32:50.

day terminology. In many cases some of those responses were that 90 days

:32:51.:32:57.

was too long. I accept that. But there were some practical points

:32:58.:33:01.

relating to timing that were identified, for example, the finance

:33:02.:33:05.

and leasing Association raised some concerns about the timing of 90

:33:06.:33:12.

days. The consultation there summarised that we accept that the

:33:13.:33:15.

90 day period may create problems in some cases but are also conscious

:33:16.:33:20.

that overhasty applications may result in unnecessary expenses being

:33:21.:33:25.

incurred. Given that it was 90 days and not 60 days, 100 days, whatever,

:33:26.:33:29.

I was trying to seek out the rationale for 90 days. I would say

:33:30.:33:34.

that my honourable friend has in his intervention been very helpful and

:33:35.:33:38.

made it clear why he went for 90 days and I am grateful to him for

:33:39.:33:41.

that, but that was the purpose of that. Finally my Amendment for,

:33:42.:33:47.

again as people can see, but leaves out for years and inserts two years,

:33:48.:33:52.

and this Amendment would have the effect of reducing the maximum

:33:53.:33:58.

period of guardianship from four years to two years, caused seven

:33:59.:34:00.

sets out the period of guardianship and requests that the period will be

:34:01.:34:06.

stated in the court order, the maximum possible as for years, I am

:34:07.:34:11.

proposing this Amendment to have it. Again, the same principle as their,

:34:12.:34:19.

to try and tease out from my honourable friend why he thinks that

:34:20.:34:24.

four use is right and whether he thinks that should be not longer or

:34:25.:34:32.

shorter. I can see the attractions of making its longer to avoid people

:34:33.:34:39.

who want to go back time and time again and the cost of going back

:34:40.:34:42.

time and time again, I was not sure if that was the primary purpose, or

:34:43.:34:49.

whether there was another rationale why four was the appropriate time.

:34:50.:34:56.

Arising from the same issue, I was concerned as to what happens when a

:34:57.:35:01.

missing person is found, because it does not automatically negate the

:35:02.:35:05.

guardianship. I would have hoped that it would. That is an argument

:35:06.:35:11.

for saying that the guardianship should be a shorter period otherwise

:35:12.:35:14.

as soon as somebody is found they have two apply to the court to end

:35:15.:35:18.

the guardianship before they can be treated again as a normal person. My

:35:19.:35:22.

honourable friend makes a good point. That is why I propose a

:35:23.:35:26.

shorter period of time rather than a longer. I am grateful to my

:35:27.:35:33.

honourable friend for giving way. He has inadvertently misled the House,

:35:34.:35:39.

as I read the Bill. The term of four use is the maximum and the court has

:35:40.:35:42.

power to make an order for any length of time up to four years. If

:35:43.:35:50.

I did mislead the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not intend to. I did

:35:51.:35:56.

see it was a maximum of four years. I thought I had made that clear, it

:35:57.:36:01.

was a maximum of four years, if I did not I apologise. It is a

:36:02.:36:06.

maximum. But does not necessarily need to be so. I do not think that

:36:07.:36:10.

necessarily overcomes the point of my honourable friend for

:36:11.:36:14.

Christchurch made that decision for four years could be made in good

:36:15.:36:17.

faith which has been superseded and because I'm issue. Again I just want

:36:18.:36:25.

to look at the consultation that took place around these matters

:36:26.:36:29.

because the consultation did receive a range of views on the appropriate

:36:30.:36:34.

duration of guardianship appointments about this. Two

:36:35.:36:37.

respondents said they agreed with the proposed maximum term of four

:36:38.:36:41.

years while there were suggestions from four other respondents which

:36:42.:36:45.

said a shorter period of one or two years, and one proposal that it

:36:46.:36:50.

should be eight years. So my honourable friend might see, we spot

:36:51.:36:54.

the difference and went for four years and that was the consensus, I

:36:55.:37:01.

do not know. There are examples in other countries as well, and again

:37:02.:37:09.

in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, the administrator

:37:10.:37:12.

or manager is appointed initially for up to two years, and that

:37:13.:37:16.

appointment can be extended for a further two years, I wonder whether

:37:17.:37:20.

that might have been a more sensible way of going about it. As I see it

:37:21.:37:28.

that is also the same in Irish law as well, an initial two years that

:37:29.:37:32.

can be extended for a further two years, and whether that was better

:37:33.:37:35.

than a straight four years from the word go. They were the purpose for

:37:36.:37:43.

my four amendments, they were in no way seeking to cause any problem for

:37:44.:37:46.

the Bill, said to give it some Stuart Waiton if it shuts scrutiny

:37:47.:37:49.

fit if it shuts the spider does not have. My honourable friend would

:37:50.:37:52.

concede that there is not had that scrutiny. -- to give it some

:37:53.:38:06.

scrutiny which it has not had. The question is that the Amendment be

:38:07.:38:14.

made. Minister. I am keen for this to progress. I will speak to

:38:15.:38:20.

Amendment to, four, Amendment one, in this speech. Amendment one

:38:21.:38:24.

relates to the definition of when a person is missing for the purposes

:38:25.:38:27.

of the Bill the Amendment would remove subsection four of clause one

:38:28.:38:34.

of the Bill, subsection four relates to absence of the missing person,

:38:35.:38:37.

without the subsection it would not be clear on the face of the

:38:38.:38:41.

bellwether for the purposes of the Bill the person detained in prison

:38:42.:38:45.

or otherwise would be treated as being absent from his or her usual

:38:46.:38:50.

place of residence, and usual day to day activities. Amendment to

:38:51.:38:57.

addresses a different aspect of the question of whether a person is

:38:58.:39:02.

missing for the purposes of the Bill. First, the Bill already

:39:03.:39:07.

provides in subsection one, closed 20, that the application must be

:39:08.:39:11.

advertised in accordance with the rules of the court, the subsection

:39:12.:39:16.

also provides that notice of the application in any other information

:39:17.:39:20.

required by rules of court must be sent to the person specified in the

:39:21.:39:25.

rules of the court. Secondly the procedure for healing the

:39:26.:39:29.

application will be governed the rules of court. These rules have not

:39:30.:39:34.

yet been written that will specify the information that needs to be

:39:35.:39:38.

provided to the court with the application. This is likely to

:39:39.:39:43.

include a requirement that the application is supported by evidence

:39:44.:39:47.

of the various issues on which the court must be satisfied before it

:39:48.:39:50.

can make a guardianship order in accordance of the Bill. Amendment

:39:51.:39:55.

three relates to the question of how long a person must be missing before

:39:56.:40:01.

an application can be made for the appointment of a guardian. I

:40:02.:40:04.

appreciate my honourable friend's concerned that guardianship orders

:40:05.:40:08.

should not be granted likely with undue haste. I think however that

:40:09.:40:15.

extending the period to six months would be excessive. The question of

:40:16.:40:19.

the length of the period of absence was raised in the Ministry of

:40:20.:40:23.

Justice in this consultation on guardianship and 2014, the

:40:24.:40:27.

suggestion of 90 days was well supported beer. The main alternative

:40:28.:40:32.

was that of a shorter period, as my honourable friend rightly mentioned.

:40:33.:40:39.

Amendment four relates to the amount of time that a guardian can be

:40:40.:40:44.

appointed for and it would change that time from four years to two

:40:45.:40:48.

years. I appreciate concern that guardians should not likely be given

:40:49.:40:54.

an extended period of authority over the property and financial affairs

:40:55.:40:57.

of the missing person. Giving one person authority to deal with

:40:58.:41:00.

property and affairs is a very serious step. There is no reason why

:41:01.:41:06.

the maximum period must be four years. International practice

:41:07.:41:10.

varies, some jurisdictions leave the lands to the courts but others apply

:41:11.:41:18.

a maximum. We have chosen the four year period which was well supported

:41:19.:41:20.

in the consultation. In summary, the four year period is a maximum as I

:41:21.:41:25.

mentioned in an intervention and even where it is applied it can be

:41:26.:41:30.

cut down the circumstances required. Two year maximum could be unduly

:41:31.:41:35.

restrictive and result in unnecessary response for those

:41:36.:41:39.

affected. I hope my honourable friend will withdraw all four of his

:41:40.:41:44.

amendments in the light this. Thank you very much. I am very

:41:45.:41:51.

grateful to the Minister for his explanation of those points. We

:41:52.:42:00.

hadn't heard from the proposer of the bill about whether or not he and

:42:01.:42:07.

Dost the Minister's points -- endorsed the Minister's points. I am

:42:08.:42:14.

very grateful to him for giving way. I think the minister laid at the

:42:15.:42:18.

response very comprehensively and I have nothing significant to add. He

:42:19.:42:22.

raised a point in terms of the passage through the House of Lords,

:42:23.:42:27.

that other legislation would not be required if we took it through the

:42:28.:42:33.

House and went into the Lords. His point about removing clause one and

:42:34.:42:39.

four would deal with the situation where somebody was detained in

:42:40.:42:44.

another place away from this place in a hostage situation or similar.

:42:45.:42:49.

Terry Waite springs to mind, for five years he was unable to be

:42:50.:42:52.

contacted. I'm very grateful to my honourable

:42:53.:42:57.

friend for that addition to the Minister's explanation, shall we

:42:58.:43:02.

say? I absolutely accept their points, I think it is important that

:43:03.:43:06.

we have them on the record, that we have some way or the teasing out

:43:07.:43:12.

from the Government why they had, I am sure that is useful for people to

:43:13.:43:16.

know and I am very happy to withdraw my amendment. The amendments be

:43:17.:43:24.

withdrawn by the league of the house? As many as are of the

:43:25.:43:27.

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. Third

:43:28.:43:33.

reading, what day? Now. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg

:43:34.:43:37.

to move that the Bill be read the third time. I would like to thank

:43:38.:43:41.

all honourable members for contribution, my honourable friend

:43:42.:43:45.

from Shipley for his detailed scrutiny and all the members who

:43:46.:43:49.

served on the bill committee. I very much hope this bill will pass

:43:50.:43:53.

swiftly both through this house and the House of Lords. Many times in

:43:54.:43:59.

this house we get involved in different issues for many different

:44:00.:44:03.

reasons. My reason for being involved in this particular issue is

:44:04.:44:06.

the person sat in the gallery today, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Peter

:44:07.:44:13.

Lawrence. He and Mrs Lawrence have a deep connection with my

:44:14.:44:15.

constituency. Their daughter cloudier went missing eight years

:44:16.:44:21.

ago this very week -- their daughter Claudia. Still no answers can be

:44:22.:44:26.

found to the reason for that disappearance. As well as the

:44:27.:44:30.

trauma, anxiety and stress around that kind of situation, what the

:44:31.:44:35.

Lawrences discovered in those early weeks is their inability to deal

:44:36.:44:40.

with the financial affairs of Claudia. Because of contract law,

:44:41.:44:49.

because of data protection law. Of course. I am very grateful. Can I

:44:50.:44:55.

congratulate him on safely navigating this far what is a very

:44:56.:45:00.

important bill? He cites the example of his constituents, has he assessed

:45:01.:45:04.

how many other of our constituents across the country will potentially

:45:05.:45:10.

benefit as a result of his excellent piece of legislation? Thank you for

:45:11.:45:15.

that intervention. Would you believe 370 people go missing every day in

:45:16.:45:19.

this country? They will not all require the provision of this

:45:20.:45:24.

legislation, but many will. It is a very important piece of legislation

:45:25.:45:27.

and many people have been campaigning to get this on the

:45:28.:45:32.

statute book including, of course, Mr and Mrs Lawrence and the

:45:33.:45:35.

campaigning organisation Missing People, who are very clean to --

:45:36.:45:41.

keen to have this legislation to support others in the circumstances

:45:42.:45:45.

like these. This situation where you cannot manage the affairs of a

:45:46.:45:49.

missing person, most people think it is incredible. Why is that? I think

:45:50.:45:54.

they feel that way because in other similar situations, if a loved one

:45:55.:45:59.

passes away or somebody has dementia or mental incapacity, there are

:46:00.:46:05.

other pieces of legislation that can help in those circumstances. But not

:46:06.:46:09.

in this circumstance. For months or years you are unable to deal with

:46:10.:46:14.

the mortgage company, the landlord, the utility company, insurance

:46:15.:46:17.

companies, they cannot speak to you. This costs money from the missing

:46:18.:46:23.

person's estate and, more critically, for the dependents are

:46:24.:46:26.

back to state. Quite often the person who has gone missing has

:46:27.:46:31.

dependents, and they need to be able to look after those people. I am

:46:32.:46:36.

very grateful to the great support we have had across the House for

:46:37.:46:42.

this legislation, to the Government for their support on this, our

:46:43.:46:45.

excellent ministers, the organisation Missing People. My

:46:46.:46:52.

honourable friend is in the House today, but also from York Outer and

:46:53.:46:56.

Selby, who have worked so hard on this legislation before me. This is

:46:57.:47:01.

very much a team effort, I think I was just in the right place in the

:47:02.:47:04.

right time in terms of being able to take it forward, it is a great

:47:05.:47:09.

pleasure to be able to do so. One really important thing about this

:47:10.:47:13.

legislation, it is a simple piece of legislation that will fill the gap

:47:14.:47:19.

in the law that exists, as a tribute to Mr and Mrs Lawrence and how hard

:47:20.:47:22.

they have worked and their commitment in champing Dann champion

:47:23.:47:31.

in the cause of guardianship, their eternal hope, their endless fight

:47:32.:47:34.

for answers and justice and the commitment to help others in similar

:47:35.:47:39.

tragic circumstances, I very much hope that this legislation, if

:47:40.:47:44.

effected, will always be known as Claudia's law. The question is that

:47:45.:47:52.

the bill now be read a third time? Andy McDonald? I would like to

:47:53.:47:56.

congratulate the honourable member for Thirsk and Malton in his work in

:47:57.:47:59.

bringing this bill, I would like to say a great deal about it but I will

:48:00.:48:04.

be quick. The Labour supports the -- Labour Party supports this bill, it

:48:05.:48:09.

has resounding cross-party support. It is clearly a gap in the law that

:48:10.:48:14.

needs to be addressed, and also a missing is person charity has been

:48:15.:48:18.

influential in the creation of the Bill and supporting its current

:48:19.:48:21.

form. There is no mechanism in England and Wales which protects the

:48:22.:48:25.

property and affairs of the missing person, the bill will do that. The

:48:26.:48:29.

honourable member for Thirsk and Malton previously said that 2500

:48:30.:48:34.

people could benefit from a law of this kind. Courts will be how it to

:48:35.:48:39.

appoint a guardian to manage the affairs on behalf of the missing

:48:40.:48:43.

persons. Unfortunately the delay in filling this gap in the law has been

:48:44.:48:48.

lengthy, too lengthy, and the cross-party support has been

:48:49.:48:52.

long-standing and consistent. Happily it has wider support among

:48:53.:48:57.

campaigners and other interested parties. Mr Deputy Speaker, we

:48:58.:49:01.

should not frustrate laws like this when there is political consensus

:49:02.:49:05.

about the positive case for acting. As I said at the outset, we support

:49:06.:49:10.

this bill and I am glad of the opportunity to speak, albeit

:49:11.:49:13.

briefly, in favour of it in the House today.

:49:14.:49:19.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate my honourable friend the member for

:49:20.:49:22.

Thirsk and Malton for introducing the bill to create the new legal

:49:23.:49:26.

status of guardian of the property and financial affairs of a missing

:49:27.:49:32.

person and on bringing it so far, so quickly. The Government is committed

:49:33.:49:37.

to creating the new legal status and is pleased to support the bill. The

:49:38.:49:42.

proposals now in the Bill have taken some time to evolve. It goes without

:49:43.:49:48.

saying that the Bill would not create a panacea for all the

:49:49.:49:53.

troubles and anguish caused by a sudden and unexplained

:49:54.:49:58.

disappearance. But it will provide a clear, practical procedure for those

:49:59.:50:02.

left behind to use to find solutions to the financial problems that they

:50:03.:50:07.

face. Putting one person in charge of the property of another person's

:50:08.:50:12.

property and affairs is a very significant step. But guardianship

:50:13.:50:18.

is not unique in this respect. The proposals in the Bill have been

:50:19.:50:20.

modelled in part on the provisions for the appointment of deputies in

:50:21.:50:27.

the mental capacity act of 2005. The Guardian is, for example, to be

:50:28.:50:31.

treated as the agent of the missing person. I hope this will mean that

:50:32.:50:38.

businesses and other organisations can relatively quickly adapt their

:50:39.:50:43.

systems to accommodate the new status and deal with guardians

:50:44.:50:48.

confidently. Will he give way? The Government has said it will

:50:49.:50:52.

bring forward the secondary legislation which this bill requires

:50:53.:51:00.

within 12 months. In other words, by 2018. Can my honourable friend from

:51:01.:51:03.

the front bench give that assurance to the House today, please?

:51:04.:51:09.

I can assure the Haas that as the Government it supportive of this

:51:10.:51:13.

bill, we will do everything in our power to bring forward regulation so

:51:14.:51:17.

it will come into force as soon as practicable. Putting one person in

:51:18.:51:26.

charge of another is... Another person's property and affairs is a

:51:27.:51:30.

very significant step and guardianship, as I have said, is not

:51:31.:51:34.

unique in this respect. The character and qualities of the

:51:35.:51:38.

Guardian will be critical. Guardians can therefore only be appointed by

:51:39.:51:42.

the court and can be held to account for their actions by the individuals

:51:43.:51:46.

affected. They will be subject to supervision by the office of the

:51:47.:51:50.

public Guardian. The detail will be worked out in secondary legislation,

:51:51.:51:55.

in codes of practice, just as occurs in relation to deputies. The key

:51:56.:52:02.

principle that the guardian must observers that he or she must act in

:52:03.:52:05.

the best interests of the missing person, which is defined in the

:52:06.:52:09.

Bill, it might be further defined in regulations, but it does not simply

:52:10.:52:13.

mean preserving and protecting and where possibly augmenting the assets

:52:14.:52:19.

of the missing person. That would do some good but it would do nothing

:52:20.:52:23.

until the person returned for those left behind. The Guardian is able,

:52:24.:52:27.

subject to the tests in the Bill and in terms of the guardianship order,

:52:28.:52:31.

to use the missing person's assets for the benefit of people for whom,

:52:32.:52:36.

had they not disappeared, the missing person would probably have

:52:37.:52:41.

supportive. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the

:52:42.:52:44.

charity Missing People which, along with its pro bono lawyers, Clifford

:52:45.:52:47.

chance, had assisted the Ministry of Justice in preparing legislation.

:52:48.:52:55.

The Department is grateful to the charities Prisoners Abroad and

:52:56.:53:00.

Hostages Uk, who have contributed to the development of this bill. As I

:53:01.:53:05.

have said I would like to thank the member for Thirsk and Malton for his

:53:06.:53:09.

hard work in steering the Bill the spa. I am grateful to all those

:53:10.:53:15.

families affected by a disappearance who had shared their experiences in

:53:16.:53:21.

public to help ways awareness of the need for reform, particularly Peter

:53:22.:53:24.

Lawrence. Touch to help raise awareness. As my honourable friend

:53:25.:53:28.

the member for Thirsk and Malton said, the letter of the law will

:53:29.:53:33.

call this bill the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill, but I know

:53:34.:53:36.

as my honourable friend said, that this bill will always be known as

:53:37.:53:43.

Claudia's Law. This bill has taken a long way in coming and arriving to

:53:44.:53:48.

the stage. Your party Parliamentary group for runaway missing children

:53:49.:53:53.

and adults, for example, called the legislation in 2011. The vent

:53:54.:53:57.

Government undertook to consider when legislation was required in a

:53:58.:54:04.

cross government strategy published that year. I am delighted to commend

:54:05.:54:10.

the bill to the House. The question is that the bill now be read a third

:54:11.:54:13.

time. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

:54:14.:54:18.

The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill, not

:54:19.:54:29.

amended in public committee, to be considered. I beg to move the Bill

:54:30.:54:35.

on behalf of the honourable member for Bridgwater and West Somerset.

:54:36.:54:43.

Objection. I was going to move my amendments Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I

:54:44.:54:47.

speak to my amendments in the three seconds that remain? I would like to

:54:48.:54:55.

move the amendments to this Bill because I think it is very important

:54:56.:54:58.

that they should be properly articulated in this House. Order,

:54:59.:55:07.

order. Consideration, what day? Friday 12th of May. Crown Tenancies

:55:08.:55:19.

Bill... Sorry. We have come to the end of the time for private bills

:55:20.:55:27.

this session. Four private bills have been passed this session with

:55:28.:55:31.

another three today, it is not possible to debate anymore today's

:55:32.:55:34.

bills which will make progress only if no member objects. There are no

:55:35.:55:41.

remaining sitting Friday is appointed for consideration of

:55:42.:55:44.

private members bills. Following a recommendation in the procedure

:55:45.:55:47.

committee there is a list on the Parliamentary website of many

:55:48.:55:54.

private members bills. Thought the House is not expected to be sitting

:55:55.:55:59.

on Friday 12th of May. The clerk will read over the titles of the

:56:00.:56:02.

rest of the Bill is set down for today. If there are objects is --

:56:03.:56:09.

objections, then Friday 12th of May be named or any other day of their

:56:10.:56:14.

particular choice. Crown Tenancies Bill to be considered. Object.

:56:15.:56:22.

Objection taken. Friday May the 12th. Farriers registration Bill to

:56:23.:56:34.

be considered. The question is as on the order paper, the Ayes have it.

:56:35.:56:49.

Third reading. No. As many of that opinion say Ayes, the contrary, now,

:56:50.:56:58.

the Ayes have it. Awards for valour protection Bill. To be further

:56:59.:57:08.

considered. I beg to move. Road traffic offenders Bill. Not amended

:57:09.:57:17.

to be considered. To remove no. Object. Objection taken. Friday the

:57:18.:57:26.

12th of May. Adjourned debate on consideration to be further

:57:27.:57:30.

considered. I beg to move now. Object. Objection taken, what the?

:57:31.:57:37.

Friday 12th of May. Carbon monoxide poisoning second reading. Object.

:57:38.:57:44.

Objection taken. Friday the 12th of May. Harbours, docks and peers

:57:45.:57:53.

clauses 1847 Amendment Bill, second reading. What day? The question is

:57:54.:58:01.

that the Bill... Not moved. Double taxation treaties, adjourned debate

:58:02.:58:09.

on second reading. Not moved. House of Lords exclusion of hereditary

:58:10.:58:16.

peers Bill, second reading. I beg to move. Object. What the? Friday 12th

:58:17.:58:28.

of May. Modern slavery transparency and supply chains Bill, second

:58:29.:58:36.

reading. And solicitors marketing communications second reading. Beg

:58:37.:58:43.

to move. Object. What day? Friday 12th of May. Statutory nuisance

:58:44.:58:53.

aircraft noise Bill, second reading. I beg to move. Object. Objection

:58:54.:59:04.

taken. What day? Friday 12th of May. Second reading, what day? Electoral

:59:05.:59:11.

reform, local elections and miscellaneous provisions Bill,

:59:12.:59:18.

second reading. Not moved. Feeding products for babies and children,

:59:19.:59:21.

advertising and promotion Bill, second reading. That the Bill be

:59:22.:59:30.

moved. Object. What day? Friday 12th of May. Wild animals in circuses

:59:31.:59:38.

Prohibition Bill, second reading. I beg to move no. Object. Objection

:59:39.:59:46.

taken, second reading what the? 12th of May. Animal fighting sentencing

:59:47.:59:51.

Bill, second reading. I beg to move no. Object. Second reading, what

:59:52.:00:01.

day? Friday 12th of May. National health service Bill, second reading.

:00:02.:00:07.

Beg to move. Object. Friday 12th of May. Asset freezing compensation

:00:08.:00:17.

Bill, second reading. On behalf of my friend, no. Object. What day?

:00:18.:00:24.

Friday 12th of May. That is a very popular day. Workers' rights,

:00:25.:00:29.

maintenance of EU standards Bill, second reading. I beg to move.

:00:30.:00:34.

Definitely object. We would have been shocked if they had not. Friday

:00:35.:00:41.

12th of May. Vehicle noise limits enforcement Bill, second reading. I

:00:42.:00:47.

beg to move no. Object. My word, and echo around the chamber. What the?

:00:48.:00:55.

Friday 12th of May. Families with children and Young People's Bill

:00:56.:01:00.

debt, respite Bill, second reading. I beg to move no. Object. What the?

:01:01.:01:10.

Friday May the 12th. Unlawful killing, recovery of remains Bill,

:01:11.:01:14.

second reading. I beg to move. Object. Second reading? Friday 12th

:01:15.:01:25.

of May. Protection of family homes, adjourned debate on second reading.

:01:26.:01:34.

I beg to move. Object. Debate to be resumed what day? Friday 12th of

:01:35.:01:43.

May. We know come to the business of the House motion. I beg to move.

:01:44.:01:50.

Question is as on the order paper, the Ayes have it. I beg to move this

:01:51.:02:01.

House do know adjourned. But not on the 12th of May. Jim Fitzpatrick. I

:02:02.:02:07.

am grateful for the opportunity to raise a question of funding on

:02:08.:02:22.

cochlear implantation. The starting point is a petition calling for a

:02:23.:02:29.

review of the tests for implants approved by Nice. I have been

:02:30.:02:38.

contacted by my honourable friend 's, both constituents fall foul of

:02:39.:02:43.

the tests, it is this aspect that concerns them and they are in people

:02:44.:02:47.

mac and able wanted reviewed. I will come back to that later. As well as

:02:48.:02:53.

the case of a constituent of the honourable member for Daventry, whom

:02:54.:02:58.

I am pleased to see in his place on the Treasury bench. I also want to

:02:59.:03:01.

register my appreciation for assistance with briefings for this

:03:02.:03:06.

debate to action on hearing loss, implant action group. If I may start

:03:07.:03:15.

with the paper said to me by the ear foundation. Sue Archibald writes, I

:03:16.:03:19.

was at the World Health Organisation in Geneva on world health Day, 12th

:03:20.:03:26.

of March, when for the first time they confirmed that cochlear implant

:03:27.:03:30.

and hearing aids were cost-effective and should be made more widely

:03:31.:03:36.

available globally. The World Health Organisation has produced two

:03:37.:03:40.

documents, cost effectiveness and interventions, and action for

:03:41.:03:43.

hearing loss, I am sure officials for the department will have brought

:03:44.:03:45.

these to the attention of the Minister. One of the UK's meeting

:03:46.:03:54.

clinicians e-mails me and said cochlear implants are funded for a

:03:55.:04:00.

health and Nice only looks at this aspect, what needs to be addressed

:04:01.:04:04.

is value for the taxpayer, for example in education, children with

:04:05.:04:14.

CIs are going into the mainstream sector. We have a generation going

:04:15.:04:18.

through higher education and this not only means better employment

:04:19.:04:22.

prospects but also more people paying more tax. Adults who go deaf

:04:23.:04:27.

can expect better health outcomes with CIs. Deafness is associated

:04:28.:04:32.

with illness and unemployment and studies in the USA and France have

:04:33.:04:38.

shown improvement and reduction in dementia in the elderly. It says

:04:39.:04:43.

they are spending ?13 billion on dementia and Professor concludes

:04:44.:04:48.

with the recommendation. The ear foundation has produced a document

:04:49.:04:54.

improving access to cochlear implantation change lives and save

:04:55.:05:01.

society money. It recommends among other things that Nice urgently

:05:02.:05:08.

conducts a formal review of its current guidance on cochlear

:05:09.:05:13.

implants, to lowering the threshold for candidates, any cost benefit

:05:14.:05:19.

analysis done should ensure real-world benefits are taken into

:05:20.:05:24.

account including in social care, and a screen for a candidacy for

:05:25.:05:30.

cochlear implants should be the interview team audiological

:05:31.:05:33.

appointments. Action on hearing loss rights, more adults could benefit

:05:34.:05:38.

from cochlear implantation than are currently doing so. Nice should

:05:39.:05:43.

review and update its current cadence on cochlear implantation,

:05:44.:05:47.

they also say 74% of children who could benefit from cochlear

:05:48.:05:55.

implantation aged up to three, have not received them, increasing to 94%

:05:56.:06:01.

by the time the age 17. The compatible figure for adults is only

:06:02.:06:06.

around 5%, and I am sure the Minister is aware of that. Research

:06:07.:06:12.

is underway to see whether the sentence tests could be excluding

:06:13.:06:16.

adults who would benefit. The document recommends reviewing

:06:17.:06:21.

guidelines and raising awareness of the benefits of cochlear

:06:22.:06:25.

implantation amongst the public and professionals, and finally Brian

:06:26.:06:34.

Lamb, writes, hearing loss is one of the most challenging health and

:06:35.:06:37.

social issues facing the UK. Those with hearing loss have higher rates

:06:38.:06:43.

of unemployment and underemployment. Hearing loss is associated with

:06:44.:06:46.

risks of developing dementia, and those with severe hearing loss have

:06:47.:06:51.

five times the risk of developing dementia than those with normal

:06:52.:06:55.

hearing. I refer back to the billions that they are spending on

:06:56.:06:59.

dementia. An older age people with hearing loss are at greater risk of

:07:00.:07:04.

social isolation and reduced mental well-being yet we have never had it

:07:05.:07:08.

solutions to addressing hearing loss. They go on to see hearing aids

:07:09.:07:15.

can make a huge difference to the majority of people but for those who

:07:16.:07:20.

are severely or profoundly deaf cochlear implantation offers the

:07:21.:07:23.

main way of healing spoken language again. We now have world leading

:07:24.:07:30.

technology in cochlear implants to address hearing loss but more people

:07:31.:07:34.

could benefit from this transformative technology than

:07:35.:07:39.

currently do. It goes on, there are an estimated 100,000 people with

:07:40.:07:44.

profound hearing loss, and 360,000, with severe hearing loss, who might

:07:45.:07:48.

benefit from implantation at any one time. Yet as I have said before, and

:07:49.:07:57.

the Minister is where, only 5% receive CIs. The UK is currently one

:07:58.:08:01.

of the most restrictive tests across Europe. In this country it is not

:08:02.:08:07.

until hearing losses over 90 decibel is that people qualify, where in

:08:08.:08:12.

Europe the majority of clinics use the measure of 75-80. They also use

:08:13.:08:18.

a word test which is no longer fit for purpose. According to reviewed

:08:19.:08:24.

by experts in the field they concluded, use of this measure alone

:08:25.:08:28.

the to assess hearing function has become inappropriate, as the

:08:29.:08:31.

assessment is not suitable for use with the diverse range of implant

:08:32.:08:36.

candidates we have today. The guidelines have been in place since

:08:37.:08:41.

2009 and not reviewed since 2011. The action plan on here and gloss

:08:42.:08:45.

published by the Department of Health and NHS England in 2015 made

:08:46.:08:50.

clear that there should be timely access to specialist services when

:08:51.:08:54.

required, including assessment for cochlear implants. That action plan

:08:55.:09:01.

was widely welcomed twin published and I and others commended the

:09:02.:09:05.

Department, officials and ministers at the time, but much of it seems to

:09:06.:09:11.

be being ignored by a number of commissioning groups, and some are

:09:12.:09:14.

following policies in contradiction to the plan. The request is for more

:09:15.:09:19.

research into the links between hearing loss and dementia and mental

:09:20.:09:23.

health issues and in conclusion the right, the NHS has been a leader on

:09:24.:09:28.

cochlear technology, and helped transform many peoples lives, the

:09:29.:09:33.

Nice guidance was well come when produced in 2009, but we are now

:09:34.:09:38.

falling behind the access available in many developed countries. It is

:09:39.:09:42.

our health and social care services which will be the cost of not

:09:43.:09:46.

intervening early for those who could benefit. Mr Deputy Speaker, as

:09:47.:09:52.

you know, I where to hearing aids, primarily because of damage

:09:53.:09:56.

sustained to my ears while in the Fire Service, but no added to by my

:09:57.:10:02.

age, I am one of the 11 million people in the UK suffering from

:10:03.:10:05.

hearing loss, one in six of the population. I know that despite the

:10:06.:10:13.

annoyance of asking people to repeat, and the use of the loop

:10:14.:10:21.

system, and I still rely on my hearing aids because they worked for

:10:22.:10:26.

me despite sometimes limitations. But I have listed the problems for

:10:27.:10:30.

people suffering profound hearing loss, which are much more serious,

:10:31.:10:32.

and we can do something about. stop we have the technology and it

:10:33.:10:41.

is not a matter of course because it should save money, it should save

:10:42.:10:46.

the NHS and the tax payer money, as well as allowing profound hearing

:10:47.:10:49.

loss sufferers to live more complete and productive lives.

:10:50.:10:54.

If I make a main conclusion, returned to the e-mails of my

:10:55.:10:57.

constituents and those of my honourable and right honourable

:10:58.:11:01.

colleagues. Lemina passes the pure tone threshold for Cochlear implant

:11:02.:11:07.

but had to take the speech recognition test in watcher regarded

:11:08.:11:10.

as a ridiculously false at the sphere of the soundproof booth with

:11:11.:11:15.

very simplistic sentences in an environment totally different from

:11:16.:11:18.

real conversation or the normal outside world. She is, in her own

:11:19.:11:23.

words, two deaths to hear but not deaf enough for an implant. Robert

:11:24.:11:29.

Chi, the constituent of the honourable gentleman from Daventry

:11:30.:11:32.

writes similarly, and gives us more details about what it is. He says

:11:33.:11:37.

just to give you some benchmarks, 60 DBE equates to the volume of

:11:38.:11:42.

conversation in a restaurant, 70 is twice that volume, equivalent to

:11:43.:11:52.

busy traffic, 80 db is four times that, an alarm system, 90 db is

:11:53.:11:57.

eight times in similar to factory machinery. He refers to the sentence

:11:58.:12:01.

comprehension test, a candidate qualifies if they can only hear with

:12:02.:12:04.

hearing aids fitted and repeated less than 50% of the sentences

:12:05.:12:10.

played over speakers. The problem is that the test is conducted in a

:12:11.:12:15.

soundproof booth with the sentences played at 70 decibel 's, double the

:12:16.:12:19.

volume level of Stander conversation. This test does not

:12:20.:12:25.

represent a reality at all. -- standard conversation. Mrs Diane

:12:26.:12:29.

Matthews started the petition to ask Nice for review. She writes, I

:12:30.:12:34.

started a petition for Nice to revise their Cochlear implant tests

:12:35.:12:38.

after refusal again in January this year. The tests are in the

:12:39.:12:46.

soundproof room at a sound intensity of 70 db. Whilst I understand there

:12:47.:12:49.

have to be set parameters this does not mirror the real world. There

:12:50.:12:52.

should be a test with background noise and sentences should be

:12:53.:12:55.

comparable with adult conversation. Cochlear implant is life changing

:12:56.:13:00.

and whilst it is not a cure, it is the best option. To know there is

:13:01.:13:05.

something to help and be denied is heartbreaking when you want to work

:13:06.:13:10.

and contribute to society. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that Nice will

:13:11.:13:15.

accept the requests from individual patients, professional clinicians

:13:16.:13:18.

and campaign organisations and I hope the minister in his response

:13:19.:13:23.

can articulate something by way of support or at least acceptance and

:13:24.:13:30.

understanding that there a major issue, and I will obviously right to

:13:31.:13:33.

Nice directly at the same time. We have a solution, at worst it is cost

:13:34.:13:38.

neutral and in reality it offers huge cost benefits in terms of

:13:39.:13:42.

productivity, economic Lee and in human well-being, and I look forward

:13:43.:13:44.

to hearing the response from the Minister.

:13:45.:13:50.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I congratulate the member for Poplar

:13:51.:13:55.

and Limehouse," in obtaining this debate on an important subject. The

:13:56.:14:00.

whole issue of profound hearing loss is important and the issues are

:14:01.:14:04.

substantial, I will address them. Also to congratulate him for his

:14:05.:14:09.

work on the APPG for deafness and the awareness he is giving to this

:14:10.:14:14.

major issue. Carriles congratulates of those who e-mailed stories to him

:14:15.:14:18.

that he has used in this debate, particularly Diane Matthews and the

:14:19.:14:22.

petition, which is also important in terms of getting awareness of an

:14:23.:14:28.

important issue. He has raised, I guess, two issues of substance here,

:14:29.:14:33.

one is around Nice and the tests that they do, particularly whether

:14:34.:14:38.

or not the be Kebe test is appropriate, and also whether the

:14:39.:14:45.

threshold is appropriate in terms of 90 kb, as opposed to what is used in

:14:46.:14:49.

other parts of the world. I will not instruct Nice on what to do but I

:14:50.:14:52.

will come back to them and their guidance. It is a particularly put a

:14:53.:14:58.

piece of guidance, their guidance is technical and because of that it

:14:59.:15:02.

means it is compulsory, unlike other Nice guidance which is just for

:15:03.:15:05.

consideration. It is important we get that right, I will come to that.

:15:06.:15:10.

The second issue is awareness amongst commissioners, he mentioned

:15:11.:15:14.

the action plan not being implemented as effectively as

:15:15.:15:17.

perhaps it should be, I will also talk to that. In doing so I am

:15:18.:15:24.

informed amongst other things by the extremely good paper that The Ear

:15:25.:15:28.

Foundation put out in October last year on improving access, also a

:15:29.:15:33.

paper written by Brian Lamb, I think the University of Derby, in terms of

:15:34.:15:38.

better assessment of the Cochlear implants. I thought both pieces were

:15:39.:15:42.

very good work that I would not have it not been in preparing for this

:15:43.:15:46.

debate, so we have achieved that, at least. In terms of the nature of the

:15:47.:15:50.

problem we know there is something like 700,000 adults in our country

:15:51.:15:56.

with severe or profound deafness. 80% of those are over retirement

:15:57.:16:01.

age, that is a demographic that is increasing, so this issue is

:16:02.:16:05.

increasing. It is important that we get it right. Also in terms of

:16:06.:16:10.

children, we know that something like around 372 400 children are

:16:11.:16:13.

born each year with profound deafness. -- 370 two 400 children.

:16:14.:16:22.

This technology can be a life changer for children and adults in

:16:23.:16:25.

terms about. As the member for Poplar told us, unless we get this

:16:26.:16:32.

right, employability is affected, he mentioned the tax base, it is

:16:33.:16:37.

important also to different reasons. Mental health is affected. People

:16:38.:16:41.

with hearing loss have something like five times the likelihood of

:16:42.:16:46.

contracting dementia as the rest of us, that is a very sobering

:16:47.:16:51.

statistic. Of course the Rugby increased risk of isolation and all

:16:52.:16:54.

of that, as the member for Poplar said, means more reliance on the

:16:55.:16:59.

health system, the NHS and the social care systems and a number of

:17:00.:17:03.

the papers that that out. There was a World Health Organisation paper

:17:04.:17:06.

that spoke in a lot of detail about that. Let me describe, if you like,

:17:07.:17:12.

the response to this and how the system ought to be working. Mr

:17:13.:17:16.

Deputy Speaker, Cochlear implants are commissioned by the specialist

:17:17.:17:21.

commissioning part of the NHS through 17 specialist centres across

:17:22.:17:26.

the country. Typically there is effectively a 2-tier approach, the

:17:27.:17:30.

CCG should do a general assessment, and then send the individual for

:17:31.:17:33.

further assessment for the sorts of tests we have spoken about. Then, if

:17:34.:17:39.

appropriate, on to an implant and the rehabilitation and the

:17:40.:17:42.

maintenance work that it would follow on from that. Roughly

:17:43.:17:49.

speaking, in our country, we do 1100 to 1200 of these implants each year,

:17:50.:17:54.

probably split 60% to adults, 40% for children. That figure has been

:17:55.:18:02.

fairly static over the last five to six years. The Nice guidance which,

:18:03.:18:09.

in a way, drives that number, was last done in 2009, updated in 2011.

:18:10.:18:18.

As the member for Poplar said, this technology is moving fairly quickly

:18:19.:18:20.

and the question that we are addressing today is the extent to

:18:21.:18:23.

which the guidance is still appropriate. In terms of response,

:18:24.:18:30.

as the members said there is an action plan and hearing loss which

:18:31.:18:35.

came out in 2015 which set out in Saint detail what best practices

:18:36.:18:39.

should be being followed in the CCGs, the first point of contact in

:18:40.:18:43.

terms of prevention, early diagnosis, patient centre management

:18:44.:18:48.

and commissioning framework which came out after the action plan which

:18:49.:18:53.

set out the requirement for consistency and the removal of the

:18:54.:18:56.

inequalities of access that we have heard about. If I could read from

:18:57.:19:00.

that it says that there are clearly defined referral arrangements such

:19:01.:19:06.

as timely access to cochlear devices when required. The devil is in the

:19:07.:19:10.

detail and the word when required as when we get into some of the issues.

:19:11.:19:14.

The work following on from that, we can't work on a joint needs

:19:15.:19:19.

assessment toolkit and what works guidance with case studies which

:19:20.:19:22.

should help to get awareness and knowledge of all of this with

:19:23.:19:27.

commissioners both at CCG Lovell and more generally. The problem that

:19:28.:19:32.

still exists, it is the one we are really debating today, in spite of

:19:33.:19:37.

all that there is evidence of under utilisation of this technology,

:19:38.:19:40.

given its life changing characteristics. That evidence is

:19:41.:19:44.

particularly to be seen amongst the adult population. I think the member

:19:45.:19:47.

talked about 5% of adults that could benefit from it, my figure is 7%,

:19:48.:19:53.

that is not a point we will quibble about. With children, the uptake

:19:54.:19:59.

seems to be much higher, 74% of children under the age of three have

:20:00.:20:05.

access to this or have this, 94% of children under the age of 17. That

:20:06.:20:11.

takes us to a feeling that perhaps commissioners do not always regard

:20:12.:20:16.

this, when an older person goes with hearing loss, as an appropriate

:20:17.:20:20.

solution in the same way that they might with a child. In a sense, age

:20:21.:20:26.

discrimination, I suppose. In international comparators, the paper

:20:27.:20:31.

from the Ear Foundation talked about the US, Germany and Australia being

:20:32.:20:37.

stronger users of this than we are, that is true. It is not quite as

:20:38.:20:40.

clear that we are behind the field quite as badly as it might have

:20:41.:20:47.

implied, I have looked at some more details numbers across Europe, we

:20:48.:20:51.

are stronger than Luxembourg, Belgium and others, but I think it

:20:52.:20:55.

is better to say that at very best we are at the third quartile of

:20:56.:21:01.

this. Room for improvement. That brings us to the whole issue of

:21:02.:21:06.

the Nice guidance, the crux of the point that the member for Poplar

:21:07.:21:10.

raised and also what the Ear Foundation talked about. The first

:21:11.:21:14.

thing I would say is that I don't tell Nice what to do, politicians

:21:15.:21:19.

don't influence what is a technical and scientific evaluation. But I

:21:20.:21:26.

think it is fair to say that we understand that that guidance has

:21:27.:21:33.

not been updated now since 2011. There have been set of really quite

:21:34.:21:37.

rapid changes to the technology here. Better surgical procedures as

:21:38.:21:42.

well, and more evidence of the cost effectiveness. I'm very pleased to

:21:43.:21:46.

say, you did not mention this in his speech but it is a fact, add nothing

:21:47.:21:50.

to do with anything I have done, that Nice are currently reviewing

:21:51.:21:54.

their guidance. That review is due to complete in the summer of 2017.

:21:55.:22:02.

Part of the review, they will look at all new evidence out there,

:22:03.:22:06.

including the work of the Ear Foundation, the world Health

:22:07.:22:09.

Organisation and, indeed, Brian Lamb plus my paper. I will also see to it

:22:10.:22:16.

that the issues raised in this debate, both his remarks and mine,

:22:17.:22:21.

go to Nice as part of the process, so they are under no illusion as to

:22:22.:22:24.

the fact that Parliament has considered this. I know we are

:22:25.:22:28.

extremely keen that they come to the right answer. It is for them to

:22:29.:22:33.

decide whether the test is right or not, for them to decide whether or

:22:34.:22:41.

not 75 kilohertz is the right measure to use. I think the good

:22:42.:22:45.

news from a point of view of this debate is that process is happening

:22:46.:22:49.

and it is due to complete in the summer of 2017. I will touch briefly

:22:50.:22:56.

on the issue, I guess, GP awareness. He mentioned the action plan. I

:22:57.:23:00.

think there is probably an issue when you look at those figures for

:23:01.:23:03.

children and adults as to whether or there is a reluctance to

:23:04.:23:09.

commissioned this for older people, just because it is not regarded as a

:23:10.:23:13.

natural thing to do if you have lost your hearing in your 80s, your 70s

:23:14.:23:19.

or whatever. There is no pressure on the Government for that to happen,

:23:20.:23:22.

indeed it should not. The action that we will take on that is that we

:23:23.:23:29.

do work with health education England and others on GP training

:23:30.:23:32.

and those types of matters, again this issue and the fact that

:23:33.:23:36.

cochlear implants can make such a radical difference to people's

:23:37.:23:40.

lives, we will make sure that is emphasised with the GPs as part of

:23:41.:23:44.

that process. In any event I would say that when the new Nice guidance

:23:45.:23:50.

comes out, particularly technological, that in itself is

:23:51.:23:54.

likely to create quite a bit of impetus about getting that knowledge

:23:55.:23:58.

out to the CCGs, the specialist centres and therefore the people

:23:59.:24:05.

that make the decisions. I finish by just thanking the member for Poplar

:24:06.:24:11.

again for raising this important debate, I have not discussed

:24:12.:24:13.

deafness in a debate in this chamber since I have been a minister.

:24:14.:24:22.

Subtitles will resume on 'This Week In Parliament' at 2300.

:24:23.:24:30.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS