UK Parliament / Open data

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I add my support to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Amendment 62, as I read it, has two elements. The first is that, if the clause is to remain in the Bill, there must be a limit to the extent of information made available. The second is that there must be some connection to the local authority. Although the amendment is especially pertinent to the clause, which deals with lay justices and therefore may touch on information of a sensitive nature, the caveats expressed in the wording could equally be applied to all the other bodies for which the local authority will assume a duty. There must be no accidental publication of sensitive information as a result of the duty in this part that would otherwise not be available in the public realm. I hope that that goes without saying; but I do not yet accept the Government’s idea that any local authority should have a duty to promote understanding of things not connected to it—in this case, lay justices. Not only does that place a burden on the local authority, it creates a relationship that may not be appreciated by those who have been compelled to become involved. In this instance, I am thinking of magistrates’ organisations, such as Magistrates in the Community, which already goes to great lengths by going into schools, for example, to explain its role and function to the public. As I said earlier, if the local authority is merely to publish that on a website, how does that go any further than the local magistrates’ association publishing it on its website? I am also concerned about whether the people who will be visiting the local authority website may be the people who already sit on many local authority organisations. I am concerned that we may end up with a local area with the usual suspects on everything. Once again, I fear that the Bill creates the risk of overlap and duplication and the risk of sensitive information ending up where it should not. I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage those fears and provide justification for the inclusion of Clause 4.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c156-7GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top