POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION (Hansard, 14 July 1978)

§ Mr. Trotter
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may discuss Lords amendments nos. 8 and 10.

§ Mr. Trotter
Lords amendment no. 7 makes it clear that disclosure of information that is obtained under clause 4 by anyone who receives it otherwise than for one of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) to (e) is prohibited.
It is important to ensure that the prohibition in subsection (3) of the disclosure of information provided in response to a notice served by the Secretary of State applies not only to the Government Department officials who first receive that information but to any other person to whom that information is made available.

§ Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)
Will my hon. Friend explain why the words "to another person" have been omitted in the Lords amendment? Subsection (3), as originally drafted, read: shall not disclose the information to another person except". The amendment simply states that No information obtained by virtue of this section shall be disclosed". It does not state in what circumstances disclosure could be made, or to whom, so I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will explain why those words have been left out.

§ Mr. Trotter
My hon. Friend has raised a question of the detail of the wording rather than the principle behind it. If I understand it correctly, he is saying that we are now widening the scope of the disclosure. Is that correct?

§ Mr. Rhodes James
No. I apologise to my hon. Friend. As I understand it, the result of the Lords amendment would be to make less precise the wording as it was originally, namely, "to another person". What we have now is the word "disclosed"." "Disclosed" could mean disclosed in terms of publicity. It could mean something disclosed to a group, or disclosed in a considerable number of ways. The original subsection (3) was fairly precise. I assure my hon. Friend that I am not making a major point about this matter, but I should like to know why this was done.

§ Mr. Trotter
I think that the opportunity has been taken, in perhaps the tightening of the drafting here, to widen the scope of the constraint. I hope that my hon. Friend takes that point.

§ Mr. Rhodes James
Yes.

§ Mr. Trotter
It would be possible to have a general disclosure rather than a disclosure to an individual. I believe that that was the substance of that amendment.

§ Mr. Body
There may be another explanation, because a Government Department is not a person. In considering Lords amendment no. 8, we are considering the insertion of the phrase or a Northern Ireland Department". If that must go in, quite obviously it would be even worse drafting if the subsection were to begin with the words "A person".
That brings me to a criticism of Lords amendment no. 8, which I really do not like. I hope that we shall have an explanation of it from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). As matters now stand, paragraph (d) creates an exception. The exception is phrased in this way: for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to fulfil a Community obligation". My first criticism is that I think that this whole thing is totally misconceived. It illustrates how in high places Community law is not yet understood. I should have thought that the Minister of State, who has had considerable experience of this matter in the last year or two, would know at once that article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is the only article that could create a Community obligation. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is well aware of the meaning of article 189, but I sometimes wonder whether my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and Tynemouth quite understand the full effect of that article. It prevails over anything that we may do.

§ Mr. John Fraser
May I explain? There may be a provision of the Community allowing for general circulation of goods throughout the Community and carrying with it the implication that those goods are safe. However—I am sure that this appeals to the hon. Gentleman—if we wish to prevent the circulation 2011 of those goods because we believe them to be dangerous and unsafe—if we wish to act in contravention of a permission for circulation given by the Community—we are empowered to do so. The Community obligation is simply to tell the Commission what we are proposing, that we intend to prohibit the goods. It is not an inhibition upon our powers. We can exercise our domestic powers notwithstanding what the EEC may say.

§ Mr. Body
I am graeful to the Minister for that explanation, but I do not think that it detracts from the point that I am making. In accordance with clause 4 the Secretary of State is given considerable powers to obtain information from individuals and companies. Obviously much of this information would be confidential, or at least those giving it would wish it to be so. For that reason we go on to subsection (3), which makes it a criminal offence for the person receiving the information—the Secretary of State—to disclose it to anyone else. If the Community requires that information, it can be given it only by regulation, and the Secretary of State or anyone acting on his behalf will be bound by the regulation. That must be within the knowledge of the Minister. In my opinion, clause 4(3)(d) is unnecessary. However, it is there, and we must accept it.
I would like to know why we have what appears to be an example of bad grammar. In Lords amendment no. 8 we are invited to insert: (`or a Northern Ireland Department') after the words "Secretary of State". I hope that we shall have a fairly clear explanation from the Minister why those words should be inserted.

§ Mr. Moate
I wish to make a brief intervention, primarily to ask for further information from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) or the Minister. My hon. Friend gave us an explanation about Lords amendment no. 7, but I am still not clear whether the amendment introduces a significant difference. My hon. Friend did not explain why we should accept the amendment. It states that No information obtained by virtue of this section shall be disclosed. 2012 This replaces the existing words, which are not unfamiliar. One wonders whether the normal disclosure provisions that we often find in legislation are inadequate. Reading the alternative wording, I cannot detect any significant difference. I am afraid that my hon. Friend did net explain clearly why the amendment was necessary and should be accepted.
My particular inquiries relate to Lords amendment no. 8. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has explained why that amendment, or Lords amendment no. 10, is necessary. Dealing with Lords amendment no. 8, may I ask him to explain the point about the Community obligation and the Northern Ireland Department? The first question that comes to my mind concerns devolution in Scotland. If we are including the Secretary of State for a Northern Ireland Department ought we to consider whether it is necessary to include a provision dealing with a devolved Scottish body?
I am concerned about the reply that the Minister gave on the question of the Community obligation to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). He seemed to suggest that it was necessary to have this proviso if we wished to furnish information to our Community partners to enable them to deal with dangerous goods that might be travelling round the Community. If that is so, I am sure that no one would wish to prevent the Government from imparting such information to assist in preventing the transport of dangerous goods.
3.45 p.m.
I am worried, however, by the Minister's suggestion that he would not have such powers were it not for this provision. The need to control the transport of dangerous goods extends far beyond the boundaries of the European Economic Community. Surely we are concerned with all international transit. Would we not have power, even under this Bill, to give the information to other international organisations? I hope that we would have such power and that it would not be restricted to the European Economic Community, because that would not be logical. We are entitled to a wider explanation on this point and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to help us.

§ Mr. Trotter
With the leave of the House, I shall reply to that point. The effect of devolution on the provisions of this Bill will have to be considered when devolution comes about, if it ever does. Some amendments may well be necessary, together with other very tedious consequences of that legislation.
I think that the situation is clear regarding the Common Market. I appreciate the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about further international bodies. As I understand it, there would be problems about our giving information to them under this legislation, but we may have to consider the point for the future.
I believe that if a British firm gives information, in confidence, to a Government Department, there should be a strict limit to how far that information can be passed on. I do not believe that the information should be bandied about the world merely because it has been given to one Department in Whitehall.

§ Mr. Moate
It is not logical to suggest that it would be right to give certain information to Brussels but not right to give that information—say, concerning dangerous chemicals—to Spain.

§ Mr. Trotter
The answer to that is that Spain will shortly be joining the Common Market.

§ Mr. Moate
Not for a few years.

§ Mr. Trotter
Under the constitution in Northern Ireland, the Department itself in Northern Ireland has the power to act rather than through its Minister. That is the explanation for the perhaps rather peculiar English in that regard.