Localism Bill

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 200 and 201 in my name on the Order Paper. The amendments are similar to those that I tabled in Committee, so I do not intend to detain your Lordships' House long by rehearsing at length the arguments that I made for them then. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was good enough to write to me on 18 July setting out why the Government felt that they could not accept those amendments, and placed a copy of that letter in the Library. Despite all the fine words in that letter— some noble Lords may even have read it—about freedom of information, I found the arguments advanced by the Government so weak that I felt I had no alternative but to table the amendments once more in the hope that the Government might think again. I hope that I have good reason to think that the Government might think again about the amendments, designed to promote transparency, because of the pledge that they made in their coalition agreement, to, "““extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency””." However, as I set out in Committee, if the Bill works as it is intended to, far from extending the scope of freedom of information, it will restrict it. This comes in the context that, nearly a year and a half into the life of the Government, they have done virtually nothing to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act beyond the actions taken by the previous Government. By any account, the Government have a considerable way to go if they are to demonstrate that they made that commitment to transparency 18 months ago in good faith. In his letter, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, rejected what is now Amendment 199, which deals with the question of what information the public can obtain under the Freedom of Information Act about the work done for a local authority under contract. He did so on the grounds that the Government are committed to reducing the regulatory burden on business. That is a commendable commitment. I say that as someone who set up a small business and ran it for 12 years. But it is not an overriding commitment. However irksome business may find regulations, Governments still impose them in the public interest. This Government have, for example, quite recently proposed to do that for the banking sector. The Government say that they believe that freedom of information is in the public interest, so presumably, if businesses want to profit from taxpayers' money, they should be prepared to account for the use of it to the taxpayer. I should be grateful if the Minister could say in his reply whether the Government agree with that principle. If so, why are they resisting the amendment, especially as I have reworded it to ensure that very small businesses are not caught by it because there is now a limit of £1 million on the size of the contract that would be covered? That is particularly the case as the Freedom of Information Act and regulations already contain exemptions to protect the legitimate interests of business—for example, trade secrets or information likely to prejudice their commercial interests. Much the same arguments apply in support of Amendment 200, which would bring companies controlled by local authorities within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. In his letter, the Minister rejected that on the grounds that, "““it would create uncertainty for requests about the coverage of the FOI Act given that companies could pass in and out on transfer of shares””." I agree that there might occasionally—not often, but occasionally—be some such uncertainty, but it could easily be clarified. It hardly constitutes a compelling argument for keeping secret from the public important information about how their money is being spent. Clearly the Minister recognised that this was not the strongest of arguments as he then added: "““Where a company is only partly owned by the public sector, there is an increased likelihood that areas of its business will be unrelated to the public sector””." That is true but it is not a reason for keeping secret those areas of business which are paid for by the public and operate on the public’s behalf. It is not beyond the ingenuity of all those clever officials and lawyers who work for the Government to draft accordingly. Finally, the Minister rejected what is now Amendment 201, designed to provide greater transparency for the way in which local authorities discharge their responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and so to improve their performance. This amendment was designed simply to bring local government into line with central government. In this case I have to say that the Government did not produce a weak argument for the rejection of this amendment. They produced no argument at all. The sum of their case was: "““The Government is not currently convinced of the need to make this a statutory requirement””." Why are the Government not convinced? I am afraid the letter was silent on this point. We know for a fact that the performance of local authorities in delivering freedom of information in compliance with the legislation is variable. It can be excellent but can also be poor. Why would a Government claiming to be committed to transparency not compel local authorities to adopt a mechanism which has been shown to improve the performance of central government and which, by any stretch of the imagination, hardly constitutes an onerous burden on local authorities. I recognise that the Minister may not be in a position this evening to accept these amendments, no matter how keen he might be to do so. But given all the Government’s fine words about transparency, could he at the very least agree to look at an appropriate timescale for ensuring that the provisions of this Bill do not undermine, as they currently do, the Government’s commitment to increasing transparency and could he undertake to come back and tell your Lordships’ House the results of his investigations at Third Reading? We know that the longer politicians stay in power, the more they like it and the less they like any fetters on the exercise of it. The value of freedom of information legislation and transparency is precisely the fact that it is a fetter on the powerful. Eighteen months ago this Government suggested that they understood the importance of fettering those in power. I hope the Minister can now demonstrate that they are still committed to that, not simply in words but in actions as well.