| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 2
Liability of directors etc.
'.--(1) If an offence under section 3 committed by a body corporate is shown--
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(2) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body.
(3) "Officer", in relation to a body corporate, means a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.'.--[Janet Anderson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
1.7 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
No. 15, in page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).
Janet Anderson: I am pleased that we have finally reached consideration of this Bill. There was a lengthy debate on the guillotine motion, but I hope that, in the short time available to us, we shall be able to cover some of the Bill's substance.
The new clause and amendments cover three elements: who can commit an offence under the Bill; the nature of the offence; and the penalty for committing the offence. The Government tabled new clause 2 in response to concerns expressed in Committee by the official Opposition. I hope that the House will accept that as an illustration of the consensual approach that most Members have taken towards the Bill.
Concern was expressed about the current formulation of the offence of unlawful disclosure of personal information supplied to the BBC under clause 3. Some members of the Standing Committee were troubled that, as the offence stands, it would not catch the directors of a company that disclosed such information. Hon. Members--particularly the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who raised the subject in Committee--will know that the new clause is similar to a clause in the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill that fulfils the same purpose.
The Committee thought that the deterrent effect would be enhanced if there were a possibility of directors facing personal criminal liability. Therefore, as Conservative
Members have acknowledged, I undertook to consider the possibility of extending the offence of unlawful disclosure to cover company directors and to introduce a Government new clause on Report. That is what we have done.Having considered the matter, the Government concluded that it was right to extend the offence in order to catch directors of companies handling such sensitive information. As I said in Committee, we accept that personal information supplied by the Department of Social Security to the BBC or its contractors under the Bill should be as safe as it is in the hands of the DSS or its contractors. That is one of our main concerns and we are confident that the new clause will achieve our aim. The draft new clause was submitted to the official Opposition before it was tabled, and I understand that the hon. Member for Ryedale agrees with it. Subsection (1) states:
- If an offence . . . by a body corporate is shown . . . to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, or . . . to be attributable to any neglect on his part,
- If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body.
- a director, member of the committee of management, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.
If company directors negligently failed to provide proper instructions to staff on the need to keep information provided by the DSS secure, or permitted working practices that led to unlawful disclosure of such information, they could find themselves charged with an offence.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Clearly, "neglect" applies to a failure to perform duties. To what extent does the Bill impose a duty on a director to monitor the performance of the officials in the company?
Janet Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to hear that a similar point
was made in Committee. I note that several hon. Members have complained about the short time for which the Bill was in Committee; it is a pity that they did not seek to be members of that Committee.I said in a letter to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who is no longer in his place, that to facilitate the provisions the BBC would tighten up its contracts. In response to another point by the hon. Gentleman, I said that we did not
- envisage the contractors incurring hefty legal costs as a result.
While providing for limited personal information to be given to the BBC and its contractors to facilitate the administration of free or reduced-fee television licences, the Bill preserves the crucial principle that personal information should be protected from disclosure, including negligent or reckless disclosure. The new clause will strengthen the protection afforded to such information.
I ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 14 and 15, and I shall explain why.
1.15 am
Amendment No. 14 would mean that it was an offence to publish material in the form of a summary or information that had already been lawfully disclosed to the public. The effect of amendment No. 15 would be that the offence of unlawful disclosure could not be tried in a magistrates court.
Amendment No. 14 is illogical. If information has been made public with lawful authority--for instance, if it has been read out in open court or has been made public with the consent of the person who is the subject of the information--why should a BBC employee, for example, be guilty of an offence if he or she simply repeats information received under clause 1 that is already in the public domain? Similarly, why should it be an offence to disclose information in the form of a summary for, say, statistical purposes, provided that, as is the case with clause 3(3)(a), individuals cannot be identified?
Several hon. Members have tabled questions in recent months about the number of people in their constituencies who will benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. I recall one Opposition Member referring to a specific number in his constituency. I do not know where he got the number from. It is difficult for us to calculate the figures. In many cases, we have not been able to answer those questions as openly as we would like because the information requested is not available.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I am grateful to the Minister. It was I who said that 11,000 people in the Christchurch constituency would benefit. Where did I
get the information? From none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking at the Dispatch Box during questions.
Janet Anderson: I understand that the figures may have been based on a census that took place some years ago. We want to be as accurate as possible. The amendments would make that difficult.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Oh, yes.
Janet Anderson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is indeed the case. Once the concession is up and running and key statistics can readily be extracted, I am sure that hon. Members would find it unsatisfactory if such information could not be provided because the legislation prevented its disclosure, even in summary form. I am sure that Opposition Members would appreciate the ability to tell how many of their constituents were benefiting from the concession. I hope that they will remind them that it was introduced by a Labour Government.
Of course, we must ensure that personal information is protected. The Bill aims to preserve that important principle. It protects personal information in the same way as it would be protected under section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. That section makes it an offence for an employee or former employee of the Department of Social Security to release personal information obtained in the course of his or her employment.
The Government believe that clause 3 strikes the right balance. It provides a firm sanction against thoughtless disclosure, but provides a defence in cases where the disclosure follows a rational process of consideration of the lawfulness of that disclosure. That was raised in Committee, and I hope that Opposition Members--of those who are present, only the hon. Member for Ryedale, I believe, served on the Committee--will be reassured. We believe that the clause balances individuals' right to have their personal information protected and their right not to be treated as criminals without proper cause.
On amendment No. 15, clause 3(6) specifies the penalties available in the event of unlawful disclosure of information supplied to the BBC by the DSS. If a person is tried and convicted in a magistrates court, he or she is liable to be imprisoned for up to six months, or to pay a fine of up to £5,000, or both. If convicted in the Crown court, he or she may be imprisoned for up to two years or be liable to an unlimited fine, or both.
Opposition Members said on Second Reading that some of the penalties were too draconian. However, the official Opposition in Committee said that they had been persuaded that the penalties were necessary and were not draconian, as there was a need to protect the information as much as possible.
The seriousness of offences under the Bill will vary from malicious to accidental disclosure. The amount of information disclosed may also be relevant. It is therefore appropriate to provide for proceedings in a magistrates court and in the Crown court, depending on the seriousness of the case. Hon. Members will appreciate that not all offences will be sufficiently serious to merit prosecution. However, we must make both modes of trial available, and leave it to the courts to determine the cases
that can be tried in the magistrates court, if the defendant agrees, and those that are so serious that they must go to the Crown court. I therefore commend new clause 2 to the House and ask the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) not to press amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |