ACCESS TO INFORMATION RELATING TO MEMBERS OF JOINT COMMITTEES ETC. (Hansard, 2 May 1986)

§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
'(4) On any occasion on which the Secretary of State is made aware that a joint committee has failed to carry any of the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above he shall forthwith publicly issue a directive to that joint committee requiring it to carry out that provision or those provisions as the case may be.'. Clause 3(1) states that a joint committee shall have an obligation to do one thing; subsection (2) states that it shall have an obligation to do something else; and subsection (3) states that a joint committee shall have an obligation to do yet another thing. However, the clause does not say what will happen if a joint committee does not do those things. There is no point in having a clause which places duties on bodies if there is no sanction against the non-fulfilment of those duties.
Of course, it is not easy to impose sanctions on a joint committee. Fines would simply remove money that it must use for other purposes. The only sanction that I could envisage was to say that if they do not do what they are supposed to do, the Secretary of State must tell them to do it. What is wrong with that?

§ Mr. Whitney
The amendment is not only defective but unnecessary. Clause 3 lays clear duties on joint committees and on constituent authorities. If a joint committee or constituent authority neglects to carry out those duties, any member of the public can draw attention to the omission and, in the last resort, although it is hardly 1259 likely to come to this, may have recourse to the courts. It is difficult to see what the amendment would achieve that is not already achieved by clause 3.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I cannot see it in the Bill, but if there is a remedy through the courts for someone who is aggrieved, of course I accept that the amendment is unnecessary. I shall engrave the Minister's words on tablets of stone to make sure that something happens as a result of them. To give me time to do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Squire
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My comments will be brief. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who initiated the process before he was elevated, so to speak, to a higher place on the Government Benches. I thank the community rights project and the Freedom of Information Campaign in general for their assistance. I thank hon. Members on both sides who have supported the Bill and have ensured that it passes to the statute book today. The Bill provides a small increase in access to information, and we should all be grateful for that.

§ Dr. Marek
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) who originally selected this subject for a Bill, having had the good fortune to be drawn high enough in the ballot. Fortunately for him, he joined the Government, so he could not proceed with the Bill. On behalf of the Opposition, I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who has looked after the Bill, and has brought it through Committee and a rather shortened Report stage.
The Bill will add significantly to information available to the public. Any member of the public will be able to find out the members of the joint committees in his local area and what they are discussing. It is a small piece of legislation, which well deserves to be on the statute book. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch on bringing the Bill to Third Reading.

§ Mr. Whitney
I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and who first had the foresight to introduce the Bill. I acknowledge the help received from the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The Government certainly support the concept of a greater degree of public awareness of the committees and their functions, and that is one of the essential achievements of the Bill. I hope that it will produce a greater awareness of information and a greater and better degree of all-round performance of the organisations. Therefore, the Government wholeheartedly support the Bill and renew their congratulations to our hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Mikardo
I, too, in just a moment or two, wish to express my appreciation of the Bill. It makes one more little dent—and we must keep denting away—in the obstinate carapace of secrecy in our public life. There are much wider, more serious areas of secrecy than that which is the subject of the Bill. I do not say that to denigrate the Bill or its sponsors. Indeed, those wider areas could not possibly be tackled in private Members' legislation. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) was wise to confine his Bill to an area which, while maintaining the important principle of openness in the conduct of public affairs, was sufficiently restricted to ensure that the Bill had a reasonable chance of reaching the statute book, as this one, happily, will do.
I hope that the Bill will set a precedent, and that all hon. Members who care about open government—one cannot care about democracy without caring about open government—will take a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman's book. If they draw a high place in the ballot next Session, I hope that they will find other similar areas of public life which are at present shrouded in secrecy and about which citizens cannot find out what is going on, and amend them. I am happy to give my full support to the Third Reading.