Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authority and Amendment) Order 2018 Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Rosser

Main Page: Lord Rosser (Labour - Life peer)

Freedom of Information (Designation as Public Authority and Amendment) Order 2018

Lord Rosser Excerpts
Tuesday 6th November 2018

(5 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Rosser Portrait Lord Rosser (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I too thank the noble Baroness for explaining the content and purpose of the draft statutory instrument. It is straightforward in its objective of designating the National Police Chiefs’ Council as a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have a few questions but if necessary, I am happy to accept a written response; we do support the draft order.

Article 2 of the draft SI sets out the functions of the NPCC for which it is designated a public authority under the 2000 Act. Do the functions include the NPCC’s finances and administration, and correspondence between the NPCC and the Government, as being covered by the provisions of the Act? What functions of the NPCC, if any, are not covered under this draft order by the Act? Is the relevant body for police and crime commissioners also designated a public authority under the Act? If so, in respect of what functions? In a way, that follows on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the College of Policing.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“it appears to the Secretary of State that the NPCC exercises functions of a public nature in relation to all its functions”.

That is subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Does being subject to those provisions apply in relation to the NPCC, or indeed any other designated public authority, in respect of designated functions that it then outsources to an outside private firm or organisation? Is outsourcing part of its function—a means for anybody designated a public authority under the 2000 Act to get around or reduce the extent of the provisions of the Act being applied?

Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the current revision of the agreement of 1 April 2015 that established the NPCC. What is the purpose of that revision? How extensive will it be? When will it be completed?

Paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“the average cost … of handling a request for information … for public authorities in the wider public sector”,

is £164. It goes on to say:

“There is no obligation for public authorities to comply with vexatious requests or those that exceed the costs threshold … Costs for disbursements can be recovered”.


What is the costs threshold and how regularly is it increased? Do increases in the threshold reflect increases in either the cost of living or pay? What is included in the “costs for disbursements” that can be recovered?

Finally, when this draft instrument was discussed in the Commons, the Minister for Policing in the Commons stated:

“There is no statutory obligation to publish statistics”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 30/10/18; col. 6.]


However, he said that he would check whether there had been any “specific requests” from the Home Office to the NPCC in that regard. What was the outcome of that?