HC Deb 16 February 1998 vol 306 cc470-1W
Sir Brian Mawhinney

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if (1) the Advertising Standards Authority, (2) the Association of British Travel Agents, (3) the Automobile Association, (4) the Bar Council, (5) the BBC, (6) the Broadcasting Standards Council, (7) British Airways, (8) the British Medical Association, (9) British Midland, (10) British Railways Board, (11) the British Tourist Authority, (12) BT, (13) Cable and Wireless, (14) Cambridge Water Company, (15) the Charity Commission, (16) the Church of England, (17) the Church of Scotland, (18) the Confederation of British Industry, (19) the Defence Research Agency, (20) the Financial Services Authority, (21) the Football Association, (22) the Gaming Board for Great Britain, (23) the General Dental Council, (24) Great Western Trains, (25) the Independent Television Commission, (26) the Law Society, (27) the London Stock Exchange, (28) London Weekend Television, (29) the Millennium Commission, (30) National Express, (31) the National Heritage Memorial Fund, (32) National Power, (33) National Savings, (34) the National Trust, (35) the Newspaper Society, (36) the Office for Standards in Education, (37) the Office of Electricity Regulation, (38) the Office of Telecommunications, (39) the Press Complaints Commission, (40) the Prince's Trust, (41) PowerGen, (42) the Radio Authority, (43) Railtrack, (44) Ridge Parish Council, (45) the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster, (46) the Royal Opera House, (47) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, (48) the Rugby Football Union, (49) Southern Electric, (50) the Sports Council, (51) Stagecoach, (52) Transco, (53) United Utilities, (54) the Universities and Colleges Admissions Scheme, (55) the University of Cambridge, (56) Virgin Trains and (57) Yorkshire Water are organisations(a) whose acts or omissions it is intended should be able to be challenged and (b) which perform functions of a public nature under the Human Rights Bill [Lords]. [29529]

Mr. Mike O'Brien

[holding answer 13 February 1998]: Clause 7(1) of the Human Rights Bill enables an act of a public authority to be challenged on the ground that it is unlawful under clause 6(1) of the Bill because it is incompatible with a Convention right. As to the definition of "public authority" under clause 6 of the Bill, I refer the right hon. Member to the replies I am giving today to his earlier Questions on this matter. It would be for a court or tribunal to decide in individual cases whether an organisation is obviously a public authority or, if it is not, whether it is nevertheless to be regarded as a public authority because it performs functions certain of which are of a public nature. In the latter case, it would also be for the court to determine whether the particular act or omission which it was sought to challenge was of a private nature.

Sir Brian Mawhinney

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if, to constitute a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill[Lords], a body must (a) receive public money and/or (b) fulfil a statutory responsibility and/or (c) have on the governing body one or more persons appointed by the Government; [29171]

(2) if a body which (a) receives public money, and/or (b) fulfils a statutory responsibility and/or (c) has on its governing body one or more persons appointed by the Government is automatically a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill [Lords]. [29172]

Mr. Mike O'Brien

[holding answer 12 February 1998]: Clause 6 provides for a non-exhaustive definition of "public authority" for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill. The term includes (i) organisations, such as central government and the police, which are so obviously public authorities that it is not necessary expressly to define them as such; (ii) a court or tribunal; and (iii) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, except where the nature of the act is private. The definition specifically excludes either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. Following amendments to the Bill in Another place, the definitions in (ii) and (iii) above are currently qualified by clauses 6(5) and 6(6) respectively.

It will be for a court or tribunal to decide in individual cases which come before it whether a person falls within the above definition.