|
Clause 22
Disclosure of information and holding of inquiries
The Chairman: We now come to amendment Nos. 101, 102 and 103.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Can you help me? Sometimes I do not wholly understand the details that I am given. Amendment No. 101 to clause 22 would leave out lines 10 to 13 exclusively on page 15. My eye goes to the Bill. Amendment No. 103 would leave out lines 20 to 30, which would make sense if read inclusively. If it meant lines 20 to 29, the amendment would not make sense. To make sense of our debate, if lines 10 to 13 inclusive is the correct proposal and lines 20 to 30 inclusive are correct, the first amendment does not make sense. If it refers to lines 10 to 12 and line 13 stays in, amendment No. 103 would not make sense—or have I misunderstood the amendments?
The Chairman: I accept the point. The best guidance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to allow the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to speak to the
Column Number: 146
amendment. If the matter is not clear to him after that, we will revisit it.
Mr. Mallon: I told you, Mr. Benton, that I was not happy with the drafting of the amendments. It is my fault and I take full responsibility for it. I informed you and the Minister that I would withdraw them in the interests of accuracy and speed.
The Chairman: The amendment is not moved.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Wilshire: When I read the clause, I was worried that the information that
''ought not to be disclosed''
was defined as ''sensitive personnel information''. I was rather surprised that the definition of personnel information was relatively restricted. That worries me, because I had assumed that included in that definition would use the word ''personal'' as distinct from ''personnel'', given that such information could be of a sensitive nature, too. It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister why ''personal'' information is not on the list.
Currently, the information relates to an individual holding a job, an application for it and the appointment. As I read it, it also relates to the qualifications that someone may or may not have for that job. I am not sure that that is something that needs to be excluded. There could be circumstances in which, if an inquiry is being held into the appropriateness of the delegation of something, then it becomes quite appropriate to know that person's qualifications or what was said and done when the person was appointed to that job. I can see what is meant by sensitive personal information, but I do not like the definition. Will the Minister comment on that?
We have said before that there is a very real risk that certain information about people—not necessarily about their jobs or their technical qualifications, but about the person they are—ought not to be disclosed, especially where that could put that person at some individual risk. Why is only personnel information contained in the clause rather than personnel and personal information? Why should personal information be included only because part of the job arrangements will sometimes be relevant?
On clause stand part, I am concerned that clause 22(2)(b) states that,
''any matter into which inquiry is to be made is a sensitive personnel matter''.
I suspect that the Minister can see where I am going. What does ''sensitive'' mean? That is a fairly subjective statement. Some people might think that something is sensitive and other people might think that it is not. Where is the arbiter to whom that would be referred? Is there a legal definition of sensitive? I keep saying that I am not a lawyer but on this occasion I hazard a guess that there is not a legal definition of sensitive and that it has yet to be settled.
The Minister might like to think about providing a definition of sensitive, or providing some mechanism whereby any doubt about whether the information is so sensitive that such it ought to be excluded can be
Column Number: 147
tested against an independent arbiter. Alternatively, the Minister could provide of a definition of her own understanding of sensitive. I am interested in her views on those matters.
Jane Kennedy: The original change from ''personal'' to ''personnel'' was introduced because it brings the wording of the law explicitly in line with the wording used by the Patten report. The hon. Gentleman's question is valid: what sensitive personnel information did we have in mind when drafting that subsection? I offer this example. The information disclosed in vetting applications includes detailed information on an individual's financial circumstances. It can even include information on an individual's sexual behaviour and other intimate details. That is the information that we had in mind when we discussed sensitive personnel information.
Such information is clearly very sensitive, and although it might not put an individual in danger, it does deserve to be protected. I do not mean that the board should not know whether an individual has been vetted or what the outcome of that was, but the board does not need to know all the information discussed in the vetting interview. The individual who would determine whether such information would be disclosed would be the Chief Constable. That relates to our earlier discussions, which I do not intend to revisit now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Approval of proposals relating to inquiries
by Board
Jane Kennedy: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 11, page 8, line 23, leave out '(2) and' and insert '(1A) to'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments Nos. 79 and 80.
Jane Kennedy: Having moved the amendments, I shall deal with comments on them later in the debate.
Mr. Wilshire: I am disappointed. It is difficult to comment on what the Minister means because she has not said anything about the amendments. Will she explain them, so that we can comment on them?
Jane Kennedy: In that case, I shall go into greater detail about the intentions of the amendments. I shall first explain the purpose of clause 11, while recognising that we will have a further opportunity to discuss it when we debate amendments Nos. 63 and 34. The clause will reduce the threshold of board members that is required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 of the 2000 Act from 10 to eight, provided that that is a majority of those present and voting.
The Government made a commitment in the revised implementation plan of August 2001 to bring forward such a change in response to concerns expressed by several quarters that the existing arrangements under the 2000 Act set too high a threshold. Some were
Column Number: 148
worried that, in effect, that gave a veto to groups that were in the majority on the board. I recognise that the issue is sensitive, and that it echoes a debate running throughout politics in Northern Ireland about the checks and balances between majorities and minorities in many contexts. I believe, however, that the amended threshold, taken with the various safeguards that accompany it, strikes the right balance.
It has been suggested that the reduction would pave the way for minority groups within the board to force through inquiries against the wishes of the majority of members of the board. That is not so. I shall spell out the safeguards. For a start, a proposal to initiate an inquiry cannot come out of the blue. The board must commission a report from the Chief Constable under section 59 of the Act. It is only when that report has been received that an inquiry can be contemplated. It is inconceivable that a proposal for an inquiry would take a board member by surprise.
However, even at that point, there are several safeguards under paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. First, a request for the board to consider a case for an inquiry must be made in writing to the chairman by at least three members of the board. Secondly, the chairman is required to call a meeting within three working days of receiving such a request and to notify each member of the board of the date and purpose of the meeting. That means that all members of the board will be aware of the meeting and of the proposal that will be before them at that meeting.
Thirdly, there must be a gap between the chairman convening the meeting and it taking place. Those of us who remember the Labour party in the bad old days of the 1980s will remember how important such rules are when making sure that issues are not bounced through by groups.
Amendment No. 79 would amend paragraph 18(3) of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act to put beyond doubt that a minimum of six working days must elapse between the board chairman calling a meeting to discuss a proposal to set up an inquiry and the meeting taking place. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 are consequential changes. At present, the provision is ambiguous. It could be read either in the way that I have described—which is appropriate—or it could be said that the effect of the reference to ''that day'' in paragraph 18(3) is that the six-day period starts from the day on which the chairman receives the request to call a meeting. I recognise that that is an important safeguard in enabling all board members to attend such a meeting. It is important that there should be no ambiguity on the time scales. I hope that my explanation has satisfied the hon. Gentleman. It may even mean that his contribution to the debate will not be necessary.
Mr. Wilshire: Wish on. I have one simple question about that explanation, for which I am most grateful and which covered the issues that, as the Minister knows, are controversial. The fact that I do not want to debate them with her does not mean that I agree with them. Near the beginning of her remarks, she said that the amendments were tabled as a result of pressure from some quarters. Which quarters?
Column Number: 149
| 
