Clause
91
Action
by the
court
Mr.
Bellingham:
I beg to move amendment No. 146, in
clause 91, page 58, line 34, leave
out from ‘make’ to end of line 37 and insert
‘an information order in relation
to the
debtor.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 147, in
clause 91, page 58, line 41, leave
out ‘a request or’ and insert
‘an’.
No.
148, in
clause 91, page 59, line 1, leave
out subsection
(5).
No. 149, in
clause 91, page 59, line 7, leave
out ‘request
or’.
No. 150,
in
clause 91, page 59, line 11, leave
out ‘request
or’.
Clause
stand
part.
Mr.
Bellingham:
The group of amendments is about finding out
exactly what information can be gleaned from Departments. I am
concerned about clause 91(2), which
states:
“The
relevant court may make one or more of the following in relation to the
debtor...(a) a departmental information request; (b) an
information
order.”
Subsection (5)
states:
“The
relevant court may not make a departmental information request to the
Commissioners unless regulations are in
force”.
The clause
effectively states that requests for information can be put to a
Department, although it does not specify which
one.
1.15
pm
It is important
that we look more closely at what is entailed. I am concerned, as are
many people, that the tendency of all Governments in this age of
hi-tech and IT is to try to accumulate more information
abouttheir subjects and to centralise information. In that way
they can have more control over us. Looking forward to what will be
possible in future, with further technological advances, I envisage
many Departments holding a lot of information on
citizens.
Clause 91(2)
enables a creditor to ask a court to secure information from a
Department about the status—possibly even the financial
status—of the debtor. What protection is there for the debtor?
How much information can be released? What constraints will there be on
a Department in terms of releasing such information? What about
confidentiality of information and data? In the other place, Baroness
Ashton of Upholland addressed some of those
concerns and mentioned that specified pieces of information could be
made available, particularly from Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs. However, having read her response to the short debate in the
Houseof Lords, I am concerned about the paucity of the
evidence that she gave, which was able to satisfy the noble Lords that
this would not be an intruder’scharter and not an
opportunity for Departments to supply information on debtors that might
be highly
confidential. I am
greatly concerned about the principle ofbeing able to get such
information from a range of Departments. Our amendment would
removeclause 91(2)(a) and (b) and delete subsection (5) and
the references to Departments, because we believe that the clause is
going too far. I will not push your good will, Mr. Bercow,
by mentioning clause 92, which gives more information about what sort
of information can be released. We are looking at the
principle—
The
Chairman:
Order. I say to the hon. Gentlemanin a
spirit of good will that he is in no danger of exhausting my patience,
because clause 92 stand part falls within the group with which we are
dealing. Therefore, he is free to expatiate as he
wishes.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I like the word “expatiate”,
Mr. Bercow, but I will not push your good will to its
literal conclusion. You are right. I did not want to go into too much
detail on clause 92, because no specific amendments to it have been
tabled, but I take your point that we can discuss it in under this
group.
Clause 92 lists
the type of information that can be requested. The Minister may argue
that it is limited, simple and basic, but what is
“prescribed information”? Will that be made clear in the
regulations? Should we really give creditors this amount of power to go
to Departments? If we trusted the Government to play fair with
consumers, customers and citizens in respect of how information is
released already, I would be a great deal more content and relaxed.
However, I am not content and relaxed, which is why I have tabled the
amendments and moved my
amendment.
Jenny
Willott (Cardiff, Central) (LD): I want to comment on the
points raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. I share his
concerns about the requirement to ensure that information available is
well protected in order to safeguard people’s right to privacy.
However, I have a question, to which I would like him to respond, if
possible. The Conservatives have said that they would like to remove
entirely from the Bill departmental information requests, but also to
provide in clause 92 for extra information to be made available to
creditors—in particular, on driving licence numbers and vehicle
registrations. I am confused by the idea that at the same time as
wanting no information made available, there is a request for
additional information. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could
clarify that
point.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am happy to explain the situation to the
hon. Lady. If my amendments are accepted by the Government and the
ability to go to Departments is taken out of the Bill, clause 92 would
have a different
application. We suggest that the Committee accept my amendments, but if
it does not, and the provisions in clause 91 remain, I shall not
discuss driving licences and vehicle registration—at this stage.
However, such information is basic and could not be regardedas
confidential. I am concerned about Big Brother breathing down the necks
of citizens and obtaining more and more confidential data. I appreciate
the hon. Lady’s point. On the face of it, our stance might seem
illogical and I appreciate her giving me the chance to explain
it.
Jenny
Willott:
I shall come back to that point on the
next group of
amendments.
Simon
Hughes:
I want to make the sort of general points that the
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made and to ask the Minister some
questions.
Obviously,
we have welcome processes in place for data protection, as well as
legislation on freedom of information. I assume that if the Bill is
passed, the provisions before us will override the current
data-protection arrangements. I should be grateful to know whether they
go down the route that the hon. Gentleman suggested and will make
further inroads into what personal data is protected. Is this a change
in the law or is this retaining the current position? If it is a change
in the law on access to further data, what steps have the Government
taken to talk to the data protection authorities to ensure that the
Information Commissioner is comfortable with the new procedures? Will
the Minister reassure us that objective people outside Government have
looked at the matter and said that there is nothing to worry
about?
Vera
Baird:
A lot of objective people inside Government have
taken account of data protection. I know that the hon. Gentleman has
never been in Government, and I am only a lance corporal myself, but
such matters are discussed across Government. Legislative clearance
must be given by all Departments to all legislation. We do not go
sneaking things on to the statute book without telling our colleagues
in other Departments and then say, “Aha, we have got you
now!” Obviously, the provisions before us are a change in the
law. But are they quite as terrifying as people are suggesting? Look at
the information that can be requested—name, address, date of
birth and national insurance number of the debtor. That is not
terrifying stuff. One must be a judgment creditor before being entitled
to apply for such information. Palpably,the gateway provision
that I have just discussed with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk
deals with the difficulties of enforcement. Her Majesty’s
Revenue and Customs might possess information necessary just to click
things into place and permit the enforcement of a debt that the court
has said ought to be
enforced.
In such a
situation, the information would be disclosed not to the creditor, but
to the court. That is why the gateway provision is important. The
creditor could then ask the court, “How should I proceed from
here?”, and the court could say, “Well, why don’t
you go down the attachment-of-earnings route or some other
route?” It will have information to direct the
creditor.
Jenny
Willott:
What information does the Minister see as falling
under “prescribed information”, which is the general
catch-all at the
end?
Vera
Baird:
It is not a general catch-all. It
mustbe carefully dealt with. What we are looking at is
nomenclature changes in Government or some Government services. In
other words, changing the means by which information is requested. We
have no intention of asking for sensitive tax information, which may be
held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. There is a control
over the use of any power, which is that it must be compatible with the
purpose set out. There will be no conceivable purpose in disclosing
sensitive tax information to a court whose sole function is to
implement a judgment debt. Therefore, the court could not ask for it
and would not get
it.
Jenny
Willott:
The Minister may have misunderstood my
intention. I was not trying to make a stroppy point. I was asking what
sort of information would fall into that
category.
Vera
Baird:
I did not think for a moment that the hon.
Lady was being stroppy. However, I think that I have answered her
question. There are tough criminal sanctions for anybody who misuses
that kind of information, and I am sure that that is reassuring. Since
the information will go not to the creditor but to the court, I think
that all concerns about Big Brother can be set firmly aside. I have
made it clear that “prescribed information” will be for
the purposes that I have said—technical changes in how to
approach a Department or to access the way it stores its information. I
have also made it clear that there is a control over the use of any
power, according to its purpose. Given that the court is interested
only in accessing that information to enable the proper and due
obtaining of a debt, it cannot seek any sensitive information, and such
information would not and could not be disclosed. A judgment creditor
will make a request to the Department for information. The court will
process that request and then advise how to enforce the debt. The
information will go no further than the court; it will not go back to
the
creditor.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful to the Minister,
butI have two ancillary questions. First, once the application
has been made and the court has answered the question, how long does
the court then hold on to the information and, physically, what happens
to it? Is it destroyed? It is a question about the guarantee that the
debtor has that there is not a lot of information about them around the
place.
Secondly, does
the debtor have the right at every stage to ask for any information
held by the courts to be made available to them? I presume that they
do. How do they do that? Are they alerted to the factthat the
court has the information? Just as we are all entitled to pay our money
and get a credit reference print-out—I think that we can all do
that if we want to—does the same apply here? If someone wants
access to the information held by a court, or which they believe to be
held by a court, can they make an inquiry? Will the court give them an
accurate answer? Will it tell them whether it holds such information,
since when
and until when? Will the court tell them what the information is, if it
is asked? Does a debtor have to pay for such information. What is the
process if the debtor wants to know what is going
on?
Vera
Baird:
The hon. Gentleman has slipped back into pub
quiz mode again. The information that we are talking about is the
man’s name, address, date of birth and his national insurance
number, and that is it. We do not want to know the name of his latest
mistress or how much he owes the Inland Revenue or anything else at
all. There is nothing in this that changes the general law about the
information rights of an individual. The court will give them notice
that an order has been sought and the court will give them the
information that they ask for, but I cannot imagine anyone wasting
their time asking whether it has their name or not. The debtor will
already know that there has been a request. If they want to, they can
block such a request, but it will be very hard to block if someone
already has a judgment debt before them. What else can I tell the hon.
Gentleman so that he feels that he has had answers to his questions? If
the information is not to be used, it will be destroyed. If it is to be
used, it will not be destroyed; it will be used. Is that satisfactory?
Can I do
more?
Simon
Hughes:
I will ask one last question. Obviously, people
know what their name and address is. I was more concerned about the
more general information in the prescribed information category. Fine,
I understand that if the information is not to be used, it will be
destroyed, but I presume that the court keeps it for a period. Again, I
am not trying to elicit information that is difficult to find, but
there is a normal procedure whereby information is held by authorities
for a certain time. If the police have information, they are entitled
by law to hold it for a certain time—some information
indefinitely and some for a certain period. Does the Minister know
whether there is a one-year limit? Can she tell us or point me in the
right direction? Her compendious knowledge, with the help of her civil
servants, as to where all these bits of information are to be found is
greater than the compendious knowledge even of all of us on the
Opposition side of the
Committee.
1.30
pm
Vera
Baird:
Does the hon. Gentleman want my compendious
knowledge or that of my civil servants? There is no change to data
protection; there is no change for the Information Commissioner; there
is no change to all the things that we have grown used to in the
legislation. So that he has perhaps a better grasp of what
“prescribed information” means, let me set out what the
provision might also enable the court to request.
After careful consideration by
the Government, and with the agreement of Revenue and Customs, it might
be possible to use prescribed information as a category to request the
details of the owners of a limited company if something were standing
between, as it were, the creditor and the name and address of that
person. It would not simply follow that it was the
debtor’s name and address, because the name and address of the
debtor could be that of Smith and Brown Ltd, and perhaps under
prescribed information, in certain circumstances, people would want to
go beyond that to get the actual people whose money they wanted to get
at. That is, I think, the broadest category to which those who assist
me have considered that the application of prescribed information might
extend. We will set that out in regulations, of course, if it ever
comes to pass, and there is a retention schedule, apparently, which is
applicable to all information held by Her Majesty’s Courts
Service.
Mr.
Bellingham:
May I make a recommendation to the
Minister? Further references to pub quizzes might be slightly risky,
because I understand that in the unlikely event of there being a hung
Parliament and a coalition between the Labour party and the
LibDems, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey
might be the hon. and learned Lady’s boss in a future
Administration. I therefore strongly suggest that they do their level
best to ensure that relations from now on are as cordial as
possible—I know that I am digressing a little
bit.
The
Chairman:
Order. The relationship between those
observations and amendment No. 146 is at best tenuous, and more likely
non-existent.
Mr.
Bellingham:
Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I take the
light rap over the knuckles in the spirit in which it was
delivered.
We were
right to put on the record our concerns about the way in which future
Governments might abuse information and the fact that
Governmentshave a tendency to disseminate information across
Departments. Checks have to be in place and there has to be a
responsible attitude to the way in which that information is used in
future, but I am grateful to the Minister for the way she has explained
the provisions, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
91 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
