Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Amendment No. 226AA seeks an additional requirement on persons authorised under Clause 165 to receive information, to destroy that information in no fewer than six months after the information has been disclosed. Amendment No. 226AB seeks an addition to Clause 166 to ensure that personal information is safeguarded from publication. The problem with Amendment No. 226AA is that it goes in the opposite direction to improving the transparency of public bodies. I am sure we all think that the public ought to be entitled to see information obtained by the Audit Commission about public bodies. By definition, the audit of public bodies ought to be transparent. People who control public money ought to be held to account. If public bodies act unlawfully, or persons in official positions in public bodies do not account for public money properly, I am not sure why the details should be destroyed after six months. The amendment would also create practical problems for organisations or individuals commissioned to conduct a study or review lasting more than six months, because the information provided would no longer be valid for use. I worry about this amendment, because it would make the process of disclosure and the use of information onerous and bureaucratic. I turn to Amendment No. 226AB. Clause 166 as it stands will allow the Audit Commission to publish any information provided that the publication will not prejudice the effective performance of its functions, or those of an auditor. Section 51 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 currently restricts the type of information the commission can publish. Since the commencement of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, individuals can request information from the commission, which it is happy to provide. But this clause makes it clear that the commission can publish any information except where publication may prejudice its functions, or those of an auditor. The main purpose of the clause is to bring more transparency to information about public bodies. It is very unlikely that the Audit Commission would release personal details in an irresponsible way. It would certainly damage its reputation by indicating that it was acting irresponsibly. I consider that the noble Baroness has moved the amendments in a responsible and genuine way. But the Data Protection Act 1998 also prevents the Audit Commission from releasing and publishing personal data in a report. For those three reasons, I hope that she will feel that there is sufficient protection to allay the concerns that she raised.