COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 19 July 1999)

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. It requires the commission to produce a list of organisations it has consulted and make it publicly available.
This amendment was tabled by the Government in response to concerns raised by Opposition Members in another place. In framing it, we considered carefully the administrative burden it would place on the commission 739 and sought to minimise this where it was practical to do so. We have, after all, said that the commission will not tie itself up in red tape; nor will it waste resources.
The list should be useful as a point of reference and provide transparency about whom the commission consults. It is intended to cover organisations only and should not therefore include contacts with particular individuals—such as general practitioners—in response to a particular case.
The key features of this amendment are that the list would be publicly available on demand. The commission would decide the best way to make it available which could, for example, include posting it on the Internet. The list will need updating to get rid of "dead wood", for example organisations which no longer exist. The amendment allows the commission to take organisations off the list if they have not been consulted in the previous 12 months, but does not require it to do so. That would mean that the commission was neither obliged to start from scratch every year nor to keep the list under continuous review, both of which might be rather administratively burdensome. Organisations would not be included in the list if they had been consulted only for the purposes of a formal investigation or in relation to the DRC giving an individual assistance in relation to the proceedings. I do not believe that would be desirable given the confidential nature of such contact.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am slightly puzzled. I understand the arguments for removing "dead wood" from the list. The amendment states that the commission, shall maintain a list of the organisations". The list will in the first instance comprise organisations that the commission believes that it should consult generally. Presumably, given that there is provision for removing organisations from the list, there ought to be provision to add organisations to the list. Just as organisations cease to exist new ones come into existence. I assume that although the Government have seen fit to include a specific power to remove organisations from the list, there is no specific requirement continually to add to the list and keep it current and relevant as regards those who should be consulted on an issue. I imagine, too, that some organisations should be consulted on a particular issue and others should be consulted on other issues. I seek some assurance that it is as important to add to the list as to delete organisations from it.

§ Lord Addington
My Lords, once again the noble Baroness has made a valuable point. Generally speaking it will be helpful to have a list and to encourage the flow of information. Parliament is in a self-congratulatory mood as this is a good piece of legislation, but the next struggle will involve enforcement. Organisations need to have access to the full information available. Without the co-operation of those organisations it will be much 740 more difficult to make this legislation work. I welcome the provision although, as I say, I believe that the noble Baroness has made a relevant point.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their welcome of the measure. I confirm that we shall expect the commission to update the list from time to time. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that new organisations are formed, and that old ones sometimes die off.