Protection of Freedoms Bill

My Lords, this amendment proposes that the commissioner should, within three years, prepare a report about the extension of the code to other operators. We have already touched on this in referring to Clause 33. My noble friend Lord Phillips, who has been taxing me with notes asking me to justify the drafting of this section, which is not my responsibility, asked under a previous amendment not about the extension of the code but about which operators were subject to it. He was asking why this chapter starts by appearing to be quite general and then becomes more restrictive once we get into the detail of Clause 33. He is nodding; I hope that I am interpreting him correctly. My understanding of this is that because, under Clause 33(5)(k), more persons can be added to those who come within the definition ““relevant authority””, Clause 29 and the succeeding clauses are drafted in that slightly wider way. I share my noble friend’s concern that ““relevant authorities”” should extend to a wider group of operators than are listed in Clause 33(5)(a) to (j). A similar question was asked during the Committee stage in the Commons, and the Minister, James Brokenshire, said: "““The report—" this is the regular report to the commissioner— "““will be an instructive and formal means for the commissioner to telegraph clear recommendations about the code, its application and whether it is achieving its intended objectives””.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 26/4/11; col. 364.]" My amendment takes the matter wider to those who operate the code. It occurred to me only during this debate that it will be helpful to have—and I am sorry to be technical, but the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will probably tell me that I am not accurate in this question—reassurance that the sui generis rule does not apply and that by having a list that is very specific we are not stuck to those organisations and persons who are similar to those listed in paragraphs (a) to (j) of Clause 33(5). Clearly there is concern that a much wider group of persons—private companies do not quite come within this—and all operators of CCTV, those who run shopping malls, for instance, should not be brought within the scope of the code. We know how the concerns have started, but the more we talk about it, some of us feel that there should be a code that is observed by all operators. While I understand that getting experience of the use of the code under one’s belt might be a good thing, I think that we would like to know that the position will be reviewed in fairly short order. I beg to move.