EXCLUSION FROM REGISTERS OF CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (Hansard, 29 October 1990)

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 40.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
The key task in this exercise appears to be to keep one's eye on the amendment paper and to make sure that a crucial moment is not missed.
The amendments relate to the consequence for confidentiality of a determination under clause 22. Amendment No. 39 would add an implication that, if no determination had been made about a matter of confidentiality within 14 days, the information would automatically fall to be treated as confidential.
The logic of that is to make local authorities hurry up to determine whether something should be confidential. Does the Minister agree that 14 days is a tight deadline and, as he will appreciate in a local authority's cycle, often too tight a deadline? What will be the consequences if a local authority cannot meet a deadline? The best parallel that I can think of on the hoof is the allowed period in which to determine a planning application. If it is not determined by a deadline, it automatically goes to appeal for non-determination. Local authorities will often not be able to make a determination, or will not do so, and the consequence is that something will be held to be private when it should be public. If local authority staff are either incompetent or do not deal with the matter, or if they try to deal with it inadequately, we may end up with the wrong decision. That makes for bad law.
We should consider giving a longer time to local authorities so that the best principles of open local government are applied and we do not make confidential what should not be confidential. On environmental matters, the principle should be the availability of the maximum information possible. I am troubled that it is an 780 over-restrictive timetable and that it will result either in wrong decisions or in secret conclusions. Has the Minister a comment in response?

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Gentleman would be right if we had left the Bill in that way. Amendment No. 40 in particular deals with his concern. A variety of suggested times was trailed in Standing Committee. We discussed who will say whether the time is adequate. From memory, 14 days was just about in the middle. We thought that it was adequate. If we are wrong and the hon. Gentleman turns out to be right, amendment No. 40 enables that time scale to be altered by order. That is fair enough. It enables the hon. Gentleman's point to be met, and his concern can now be abated.