Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 — Will write letters: Letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe to Lord Watson of Invergowrie regarding Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill: PSC register

.w
• Department
for Business
Innovation & Skills
The Lord Watson of lnvergowrie
House of Lords
London
SW1AOAA
Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG
Minister for Intellectual Property
Parliamentary Under-Secretary-of-State
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H OET
T +44 (0) 20 7215 5000
E enquiries@bis.gov.uk
www.gov.uk/bis
Our ref:
II March 2015
SMALL BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYMENT BILL: PSC REGISTER
I would like to thank you again for your contributions to the Report stage debates on the
register of people with significant control ('PSC register') on gth March.
I undertook to write to you as to whether a public interest test will be available to
challenge applications for protection of an individual's information from public disclosure,
and whether we will publish a broad list of categories under which protection may be
granted.
As you are aware, our intention is to allow protection from public disclosure of
information in exceptional circumstances, where an individual is at serious risk of
violence or intimidation. We have thought carefully about how prescriptive regulations
on this point should be, following consultation on the protec;;tion regime generally and the
question of eligibility specifically. That discussion paper, and our proposed next steps,
may be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/company-ownership­
and-control-discussion-paper-on-a-public-central-register.
On balance, we are not minded to set out categories of risk in the secondary legislation.
This is because we could not possibly account for every eventuality, and the very real
harm resulting from overly narrow legislative provision in this area is clear.
I hope I may however reassure you by noting that every applicant will need to provide
evidence that supports the grounds on which their application is made. This will be
assessed by
the registrar, who may seek input from another authority - such as the
police- in making a decision. The potential for abuse will therefore be very low, and we
intend to provide clear guidance in due course on the operation of the regime.
As I said during Committee debates, given the circumstances in which protection will be
granted I do not think it would ever be in the public interest to override the registrar's
decision outside the parameters of the formal appeal process.

As a result, we do not to intend to make provision in secondary legislation allowing third
parties to challenge the registrar's decision. That is not however to say that a person
could not
bring a judicial review if they felt the registrar's decision had been unlawful -
although it is difficult to see how this would work in practice, given the applications and
supporting evidence must necessarily remain confidential.
I would however note that, as it is an offence to provide false information to the registrar,
any allegation about a false application would be carefully examined and could result in
criminal proceedings against the individual in question.
Finally, as I said in response to one of Lord Barwick's questions on the protection regime
during Report debates, I do intend the statutory review of the PSC register to consider
the impact and efficacy of the protection regime as a whole. That will provide an
appropriate point to determine whether any changes to the secondary legislation are
required.
I hope this information is helpful. I am sending a copy of this letter to Lord Stevenson of
Balmacara, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Popat and placing copies in the House Libraries.
BARONESS NEVILLE-ROLFE DBE CMG
2