|
Column Number: 277
Standing Committee E
Thursday 1 July 2004
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Victims Bill [Lords]
Clause 31
Disclosure of information
Amendment moved [this day]: No. 53, in clause 31, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
'(e) a Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the victim, witness or other person affected by the offences is resident'.—[Mr. Heath.]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 23, in
clause 31, page 18, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
'(7) Nothing in this section authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29).
(7A) Notwithstanding subsection (7), any disclosure or processing of information under subsection (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) in performance of functions referred to in section 13 shall be deemed to be necessary to be processed for the exercise of any such functions for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular Section 35 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc) and schedules 1 (data protection principles), 2 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of any personal data) and 3 (conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: Processing of sensitive personal data) of that Act'.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Welcome to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. Benton. When we broke off this morning, I was about to complete my comments on the amendment.
I feel that the law should not introduce a barrier between a constituent and their Member of Parliament. Secondly, public policy issues often arise from cases. Given that cases of the kind in question can often take many years to resolve, by way of different hearings and proceedings, it cannot be right that the public policy issues that arise cannot be shared with Members of Parliament and, thereby, the House.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government are dealing with those issues and will present sensible proposals for dealing with them in due course.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Benton.
I have great sympathy with the case that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made. Major issues have been raised recently about what a Member of Parliament can or cannot do about information brought to him or her by a constituent. I, too, look forward to the Minister's comments, because the amendment seems to be a perfect vehicle for a fuller exploration of the matter. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling it.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting amendment No. 23, to which I shall speak.
Column Number: 278
Victim Support particularly wants it to be considered, because it wants to ensure that all victims of crime obtain services for which they are eligible under the victims code. Victim Support is concerned to ensure clarity about the disclosure of information, and data protection in particular.
The debate is not a new one, because it was conducted in another place. However, Victim Support feels strongly about clause 31, and the amendment is intended to make it clear that nothing that a service provider does that complies with the victims code will put it in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
During the Grand Committee debate in the House of Lords, Baroness Scotland stated that she was confident that the current arrangements for passing information to Victim Support complied with the Data Protection Act 1998. That is a reassuring statement because it confirms, for example, that the police can pass on to Victim Support information about victims, who will then receive support. However, there have been misunderstandings in the past about the freedom to pass on such information, and I am sure that the Minister will understand why Victim Support hopes to have the correct situation put on the record in the House of Commons.
There is a justification for the amendment and a need for the Bill to reassure all service providers that compliance with the code will not put them in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The experience of Victim Support has shown that it is not sufficient for the practical implications of the Act to be tackled through protocols for information sharing and further guidance. Concerns are bound to remain in the minds of some data protection officers in view of the overriding requirements of the Act.
Amendment No. 23 is intended to assure the necessary flow of information to Victim Support to enable it to continue to provide services to victims. The Minister could easily accept the amendment, not least because there appears to be agreement across Government. I would have thought that the Government wanted to give assurances to organisations such as Victim Support by adding this small amendment to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will find favour with it and not reject it, as he has done with all other amendments bar one.
Paul Goggins: I reassure the hon. Lady that although I keep urging hon. Members not to press amendments, that does not mean that we are not listening to the points being made. I shall continue to do that.
I understand why the hon. Lady has tabled amendment No. 23: to put it beyond doubt that compliance with the victims code of practice will not put individuals in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. However, I am concerned that making an explicit link between that Act and the disclosure of information for this purpose, however important it appears to be, is likely to lead to further confusion. It could, for example, lead other public authorities to believe that such a provision is required of them before they have to make their own disclosures, rather than
Column Number: 279
relying on compliance with the general principles of the Data Protection Act.
The amendment is unnecessary and would cast doubt on the legality of existing arrangements and data sharing in other contexts.
Mrs. Gillan: Most police forces operate the agreed process for making referrals to Victim Support. Is the Minister satisfied that the relevant Home Office circular—44/2001, I think—is sufficient, or are there plans to amend it in the light of the Bill?
Paul Goggins: I was about to come to that very point. I am aware of the hon. Lady's and Victim Support's anxieties about the effect of data protection legislation on their work with victims. However, administrative protocols, which have been approved by the Information Commissioner, are in place for passing victims' personal details from the police to Victim Support. We are aware that there are sometimes breakdowns in the arrangements and that considerable efforts then have to be made by Victim Support to put matters rights. We acknowledge that the protocols are in need of review, and we intend to work with Victim Support, the police and the Information Commissioner to establish how guidance can be improved.
Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into data protection issues arising from the tragic events in Soham recommends the development of a new and separate code of practice to help drive up standards and supersede all existing guidance on data protection. The Government have accepted that recommendation, and it would provide an ideal vehicle to address Victim Support's concerns. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Lady.
Amendment No. 53 is designed to include Members of Parliament in the list of relevant authorities for disclosure of information. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spent quite a chunk of his remarks discussing the Mumby judgment and related issues. We recognise and understand the difficulties that that judgment raised for MPs and how they help constituents involved in family proceedings. The disclosure of information in family proceedings is an issue not only for Members of Parliament, but for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other professional agencies. During the passage of the Children Bill in the other place, my hon. Friend Baroness Ashton agreed to consider those matters further and return to Members during this House's consideration of that Bill. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, far from being complacent and inactive, we are considering such issues very carefully, although we will not address them in this Bill; we will do it in the Children Bill.
We must remember that the purpose of the clause is to facilitate compliance with the victims code, not investigations into its breach. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 provides the legislative framework for dealing with complaints, and as that legislation does not give MPs the power to get information, there is no reason why we should
Column Number: 280
introduce that power. Similarly, should colleagues wish to bring to the attention of the commissioner for victims and witnesses the wider issues raised by a particular case—and, of course, for the commissioner to provide a response—we do not need to legislate for that to happen. Members will be able to communicate with the commissioner in the same way they do now with other public authorities.
I hope that I have addressed hon. Members concerns.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I did not suggest that he was being complacent or inaccurate. I merely wanted to know what progress had been made. I have now heard from him that there will be amendments to the Children Bill. I assume that that will happen within a reasonably short time, because I think that the Children Bill is about to return to this House, although I have forgotten the exact sequence of events.
I would be grateful if someone in the Minister's Department or the Department for Education and Skills wrote to give an outline of what will be proposed—perhaps not the precise amendments, but their scope. There is a great deal of disquiet about this matter, not among Members because the impact is not on us, but on the people who come to see us; it is they who are in contempt of court. It is serious for our constituents that they may inadvertently find themselves on the wrong side of the law by doing something that they believe to be their right, which is to consult their MP about an issue of great importance to them. One hopes that the change will be sufficiently comprehensive to deal with the range of issues that may emerge; once that is the case, people will feel much easier.
I understand the Minister's point on amendment No. 23. I hope that his words will reassure the sponsors of the amendment, but I suspect that they will still have concerns about the impact of the proposals.
| 
