POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION (Hansard, 28 April 1978)

§ Mr. Trotter
I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 40, after "or", insert "to serve or revoke".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following amendments:
No. 37, in page 5, line 40, after "or", insert "to serve or revoke".
No. 76, in Schedule 1, page 17, line 8, leave out from "21" to end of line 9 and insert the words 'or vary' and the words from 'or, as' onwards were omitted".

§ Mr. Trotter
Amendment No. 76 has the effect of removing the Secretary of State's power to vary a notice to warn. After consideration, it is felt that there is no need for such a power. It will still enable the Secretary of State to revoke a notice to warn, but not to vary it. Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 are consequential upon No. 76.

§ Mr. John Fraser
I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the following amendments:
No. 38, in page 5, line 40, at end insert 'or (e) for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to fulfil a Community obligation; or (f) in a prohibition notice, a notice to warn or a warning published as required by a notice to warn or a warning about goods which is published by the Secretary of State.'. Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 38, at end insert 'to the extent necessary to identify the goods in respect of which the prohibition notice, notice to warn or warning is published'. No. 84, in Schedule 2, page 19, line 10, after 'disclosure', insert 'was made for the purposes of proceedings for a breach of duty mentioned in section 5(1) of this Act and does not disclose a manufacturing process or trade secret or'. No. 85, in Schedule 2, page 19, line 11, leave out '(a) to (d)' and insert '(b) to (f)'.

§ Mr. Fraser
The effect of Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 is to delete the proviso which permits the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of Clause 3(1), with the consent of the person on whom 1907 the notice requiring the information was served, and to extend the purposes for which such information may be disclosed. That follows an assurance which I gave in Committee.
Amendment No. 38 enables one to use the information obtained for the purpose of fulfilling a Community obligation. This is a rather technical matter, and I do not suppose that the procedure will be used very often, but if we make a safety regulation which conflicts with a European directive, we have to give notice to the Commission of the reasons why it is done, and we might need to disclose information for that purpose.
Amendment No. 85 is consequential.

§ Mr. Neubert
I wish to direct attention to the point which the Minister has just made with reference to the Community. Earlier today, I expressed concern about duplication in Bills in relation to legislation already enacted. The Minister said that his amendment would enable the Secretary of State to fulfil a Community obligation, and I hope that he will expand on that.
As I see it, there will be many cases under other enactments which will require such a proviso to be entered. Is it particular to the present Bill that such a safeguard or fall-back provision must be inserted in relation to the European Economic Community, or is this likely to be a frequent feature of such legislation in the future?

§ Mr. John Fraser
I do not think that it will happen very often. Perhaps I explained the matter too briefly. Let us assume that the Minister decides to make a prohibition notice on, say, goods which are not safe—to use the new language—in respect of which action needs to be taken without delay, but it appears that prohibiting the supply of those goods on the market clashes with, say, an authorisation which has been given under a European directive.
In such circumstance, there is a conflict between the prohibition notice and the directive. As I understand it, in that case the EEC directive is not overruling—the safety of the subject comes first—but there would be an obligation on the Government to notify the Commission that we had made a prohibition notice which 1908 was in conflict with a general authorisation given in a directive.
I hope that that explains how the matter arises. As I say, I imagine that such circumstances would be pretty rare. The purpose of this new provision is to enable us to use the information obtained in order to fulfil our obligation to notify the Commission.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
May I press the Minister a little further on this question? I apologise for being out of the Chamber when he first presented the matter. Obviously, some of us have at the back of our minds the development of the product liability directive of the EEC and the extent to which that is germane to the matter under discussion.
I assume that what the Minister is endeavouring to do here is to set out in the Bill regulations which are easily adaptable to the generality of Commission legislation, but in the particular case of hazardous products I take the liability point to be crucial.
On this clause, therefore, does the Minister feel that the Government's present posture is correct on the product liability question? He has had the Pearson Report. Is he now considering the question of injury and so on? Is this something which has entered his mind during the drafting of his amendment? Are we here to foresee something of what the Government believe will be the case when they eventually settle their view on the product liability directive? I assume that that must affect all hazardous products. They will have to carry the onus of liability when that EEC directive is eventually agreed. Would the Minister care to make a few comments on that, in so far as it is relevant to the question of integration with EEC legislation?

§ Mr. John Fraser
The only comment that I should like to make is that there is no conflict. This is legislation which imposes a criminal penalty for breach of safety obligations. The product liability directive creates civil rights.