UK Parliament / Open data

Health and Social Care Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Owen (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
No, the noble Lord has had his say. All I am saying now to the House is that this is a decision on which there are strong opinions in many ways. A lot of Members will vote just on the basis that under no circumstances do they want risk registers published. I say only this—that when companies are having an IPO, we legislate for them to produce the fullest, most detailed risk register of this. We also empower them in their annual, and in the case of America in their quarterly, statements to reveal risk registers at a penalty of going to court if they lie about it. There were times in this debate when I almost thought we were being asked to give a complete carte blanche to the Civil Service to say what it liked irrespective. I hope that is not the position of the Cabinet Secretaries and the Permanent Secretaries. It is possible that either a commissioner or a tribunal might look at a risk register and think that there were flagrant factual errors. I think it is very dangerous to use ““principle”” on this question, if I may say so to the noble Earl. The principle surely cannot be that under the Freedom of Information Act some risk registers might never need to be published in the public good. That is a judgment on which, as he says, one can then go to appeal on. However, there comes a point when one would have to judge against the background of repeated demands for disclosure. It is on this that the House must make up its mind. Can we wait a couple of weeks—three at the most—before the House prorogues to hear the words of the chairman of the appeal tribunal to whom we in the Freedom of Information Act gave the power to make that decision? The fact that it is against the Government does not mean we should give them a carte blanche, and I hope that this House will not do so. I wish therefore to test the opinion of the House. Division on Lord Owen's amendment. Contents 213; Not-Contents 328. Amendment disagreed. Bill read a third time. Clause 8 : Secretary of State's duty as to promoting equality of provision Amendment 1 Clause 8 : Secretary of State's duty as to promoting equality of provision Amendment 1 Moved by
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c657 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top