Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 23, page 20, line 32, leave out from “person” to end of line 34.

If parts of the Bill could be described as a dog’s breakfast, clause 23 is the breakfast, lunch and tea. No canine would be dissatisfied when approaching it. As I mentioned, it is completely incomprehensible, but, worse, it will provide the Secretary of State with huge powers to do things that may be in the national interest—we are uncertain that they would be.

In relation to the Secretary of State, the clause uses phrases such as “may provide a person”, “may by regulations” and “may also by regulations”, and those regulations “may include” certain things. It says that the “rank or position” of the high-ranking police officer

“may be specified in the regulations”.

If clause 23 is desperately vague, subsection (3)(c), which I seek to delete, is even vaguer. Subsection (3) says that the regulations “may include” this, that and the other. Subsection (3)(c) refers to

“provision imposing other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made.”

It is simply not good enough to legislate on that basis. I ask the Under-Secretary to explain himself.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I feel like I am in the headmaster’s study, having to explain myself. I begin by saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the clause will give him some reassurance on the concerns raised in regard to the preceding clauses. Clause 23 lays down the rules. It allows the Secretary of State to lay down the rules for the process by which requests for using information will proceed. That is an important safeguard.

The clause uses the word “may”, but it is clear what is being authorised. Subsection (3)(b) refers to

“provision specifying or describing the persons who are entitled to make applications for the provision of information to a person”.

Okay, that might be vague, but what it means is that the rank and seniority needed for a request to be made, and for information subsequently to be provided, can be specified. That directly addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre about information swirling round organisations. I take his point on that, but the limits to which it can swirl round can be laid down. There can be limits in relation to the rank of the recipient.

Other limits can also be imposed. Paragraph (c) refers to

“provision imposing other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made.”

That is the issue at stake in relation to this amendment. This part of the clause allows the Secretary of State to lay out a clear procedure—for instance, that the request must be delivered in writing. That means that there can be a clear audit of the process; it will all be documented. In our view, that will be a safeguard, rather than a weakness that allows any abuse.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Durham, City of, Labour)

My reading of the clause is different from that of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. I think it restricts the use of the register; it restricts who can receive information and imposes requirements on the Secretary of State to specify who can make a request for information. Therefore, I am unsure how this concern arises.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

My hon. Friend is right. This part of the Bill puts in place the rules and safeguards that address the concerns that have been raised. Therefore, Opposition Members should be adding to it, rather than subtracting from it, because each subsection will enable the Secretary of State to be more prescriptive about how requests are made, such as by specifying the person entitled to make applications. Therefore, the clause is important.

The Secretary of State may use a power under the clause to impose regulations stating that applications should be in writing. I am sure hon. Members agree that it might be sensible to insist on that, because it will ensure that there is a documented process and that everything is above board and carried out in a proper manner. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s power to insist on such things.

Opposition Members can be assured that a rigorous process will underpin access to information, and the Secretary of State’s powers to lay down regulations are clearly set out. We agree with Opposition Members that the rules should be as clear and rigorous as possible to ensure that there is not abuse of the kind that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to. It is obviously right that public bodies have the ability to access information in order for them better to do their job, but it is obviously wrong that that information should then leak out or be abused in any way.

These rules will be drafted for the clear purpose that I have outlined; they will give Opposition Members the reassurance they seek. The amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw it.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

The most significant words the Under-Secretary uttered were that the clause “will enable the Secretary of State to be more prescriptive”. Of course, the Under-Secretary placed the emphasis on the second half—that is, on “to be more prescriptive”—but I am concerned about the first half, which is that the clause “enables the Secretary of State”. Therein lies the philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, and between the statists and those who want the citizen to have a role in the direction of his own life. That may be an unbridgeable gap, but it is a gap that needs to be identified and explained to the public at large.

There is no better way to keep something secret than to make a speech about it either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, but let me assure you, Mr. Hood, that Conservative Members will continue to argue for a better balance between the state and the individual, and to argue that the individual should be given the benefit of the doubt, where there is any, as opposed to power and discretion being given to the Secretary of State or the state.

I will not detain the Committee any longer by pressing the amendment to a Division. The time permitted by the Government for discussion of the Bill does not permit us to vote on everything with which we disagree, although that is what we would like to do. There will be other opportunities—I suspect in another place—for this aspect, and many others, of   this wholly unsatisfactory Bill to be debated and scrutinised with greater thoroughness, and I look forward to their lordships’ assistance in that regard later this year. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.