Baroness Brinton (LD)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for his introduction to his amendment. I think I am probably not alone in being slightly surprised by his interpretation of what the effect of the Bill might be. My reading of the Bill is that, where somebody is caught by the Bill—which would include the Cabinet Secretary and other senior officials or chief executives of organisations fulfilling public duties—it is very clearly demonstrated what the boundaries are. Clause 5, on inquiries, talks about the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) being that the act that has been carried out must have “departed significantly from what is to be expected in the proper exercise of the person’s functions as a public authority or public official”. Clause 13, on “Seriously improper acts”, says that: “A person who holds public office commits an offence if”, and then gives the examples of using their office to “obtain a benefit” or that “they know, or ought to know, that doing so is a seriously improper act”, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to in his own contribution. It then goes on to explain exactly how that would work. The idea that random members of the public might start suing the Cabinet Secretary because they disagree with what he has done, or, conversely, with what a politician has said and the Cabinet Secretary has refused to do, is different. This is predicated on maleficence by individuals—and that is for everybody who is caught by this Bill, whether they are senior politicians, Ministers or senior officials. I would be very concerned if this amendment proceeded further. I am sure the Minister will have a response but, from my perspective, everything the noble Lord, Lord Young, said just does not ring true of the detail of the Bill we are about to examine in Committee.