Claire
Ward: It might be useful to put the discussion into the
context that the scheme has been operating since 1999, albeit with less
information than we currently propose to give. Indeed, the idea for the
scheme came from the fact that many Members of Parliament wanted to
have access to such information in advance of learning about the
release of an offender into their constituency through the local or
national press. The scheme allows Members of Parliament to have
information to determine for themselves whether the arrangements being
made are appropriate, necessary and secure in the interests of their
constituents. It has practical use, because Members of Parliament can
reassure themselves, in their duty to protect their constituents, about
the information given.
Mr.
Garnier: May I ask the Minister a small question about
that? How can the Member of Parliament possibly reach a rational or
sensible conclusion about that? The MP will not have the OASys report
or the reports from
the psychiatric or medical staff within the prison from which the
prisoner was released. Nor will he or she have a host of necessary
information that might be in the possession of the people supervising
under the MAPPA arrangements. As I understand this statutory
instrument, the MP will get a limited amount of information, albeit
that I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge that the
order itself is quite vague. We will not be in the same position as a
probation officer, a police officer or a prison governor, so we will
not be able to make the same rational decisions. We are simply being
fed limited information for no good practical
purpose.
Claire
Ward: I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. and
learned Gentleman. The information that MPs are being given will allow
them to enter into discussions with the chief constable or the chief
probation officer, and perhaps to look into more detail about any
concerns that they might have. Should it be required, there is scope to
give more extensive information than simply name, address, where the
individual is being released to and, perhaps, other arrangements that
are being
made.
Mr.
Garnier: With respect, if I may interrupt, the scope is
not there. The explanatory note
says: “The
information that will be released to the MP will be restricted to
certain high risk offenders and will include the name of the prisoner,
the offence they committed, details of the release date and details of
any licence conditions to which the prisoner is to be
subject.” The
implication behind that is that the information will be limited to
those details, rather than anything
wider.
Claire
Ward: We would expect to give MPs the offenders’
names, their licence conditions, where they are released subject to
licence provision, their release address and whether there is a victim
of their previous offences who has elected to receive information under
the statutory victim contact scheme, but as the hon. Member for
Cambridge has stated, those specific details are not contained in the
order. That is what we would anticipate and expect, in normal
circumstances, to be able to give to MPs. However, MPs are being
encouraged, in the letters they receive from NOMS, to enter into
further discussions with the local chief constable or chief probation
officer should they have any
concerns. Again,
290 MPs signed up to the scheme that was in operation from 1999. As of
last week, and since the Minister of State sent out the letter
mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, 101 MPs have
signed up to the scheme, including the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Therefore, there is a great desire and interest from many MPs to have
such information in
advance. In
respect of the number of cases per year, last year 96 prisoners were
released under the CPPC scheme. The numbers will vary from year to
year, but that gives an idea of the number of cases that we might
expect. I had even forgotten that I had signed up to the scheme until I
read through the list, simply because, to my recollection, I have not
received any details of such an offender being released into my
constituency. I suspect that that is the case for many
MPs.
Mr.
Garnier: The Minister says that she forgot that she signed
the letter. That suggests to me that she received the letter some time
ago. I signed the letter about 10 days
ago.
Claire
Ward: I am talking about the previous
letter.
Mr.
Garnier: I am unaware of this previous letter. Perhaps the
Minister would care to deposit a copy of it in the Library and send me
one.
Claire
Ward: Perhaps I have not made the issue clear. The reason
that we are undertaking this scheme is precisely to clarify, and to
give greater certainty under the law for, a scheme that has been in
existence from 1999. Since then, Members of Parliament have been
informed when such people have been released into their
constituency. The
hon. and learned Gentleman looks slightly baffled, and perhaps he is in
exactly the situation that I found myself in when I was preparing for
this statutory instrument debate. I had assumed, having not received
any details of such a person being released, that I had probably not
signed up to the scheme. It appears that I had signed up to the scheme,
but I probably did so within the first couple of years of being a
Member of Parliament. I suspect that most of us had forgotten about it.
If members of the Committee would like me to remind them exactly which
of them signed up to the scheme, I am sure that I can find their names
on my
list. I
am more than happy to ensure that the original documentation relating
to the existing scheme—prior to the letter from my ministerial
colleague, which I believe was dated 10 June—is made available
to the hon. and learned Gentleman and that a copy is placed in the
Library.
David
Howarth: As I understand it, the previous scheme did not
include names, and therefore did not constitute sensitive personal
data. I cannot follow the argument that the order is required to add
legal certainty to the previous scheme, because the previous scheme did
not involve any legal difficulty in terms of data protection. However,
the scheme that the Minister has in mind has that problem simply
because names are going to be included. What is the point of including
the names?
Claire
Ward: Many Members of Parliament indicated that they wish
to have the names and further details. The Government have taken legal
advice, and providing names could be in breach of the Data Protection
Act. That is why we are seeking to clarify the scheme that was in
operation by providing under this scheme more details of the names and
addresses of offenders to MPs. The order will allow us to do that. I
realise that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough forgot that he
joined up to the previous scheme.
Mr.
Garnier: I had not forgotten; I was wholly unaware of it.
If the Minister wishes to tell me the date on which I joined up to the
scheme, I would be prepared to accept
that I did so. However, it is not the sort of thing that one would
forget, because it is not every day of the week that a serious offender
is released into one’s constituency, as the figure of 96 that
she gave a moment ago indicates.
Mr.
David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) (Lab): Will my hon.
Friend clarify the situation? From 1999, details were released for
those who signed up, but the majority of MPs did not do so. Quite a lot
of people apparently did not know that they had signed up, because they
did not receive any information, because no one was released into their
constituency. Now that the information will be more detailed, more
people are deciding to sign up, because they have just found out that a
scheme exists that they did not previously know of. Would my hon.
Friend confirm that she and I are probably in exactly the same
situation?
Claire
Ward: My right hon. Friend has perhaps explained the
situation better than I have. I believe that he was signed up to the
1999 scheme. Indeed, he has signed up to the current scheme in the past
two
weeks. I
hope I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman and members of the
Committee that the scheme is not as controversial as they may have been
led to believe. In reality, it has been operating because MPs wanted
access to information. Precisely because they want access to a little
more information, we need to ensure that we are legally protected, so
that we do not breach data protection legislation when we provide it.
That is the reason for the order. It will allow MPs who wish to access
those details to do so. Although I do not have the date on which the
hon. and learned Gentleman signed up to the scheme in 1999, I am happy
to check on that and write to him, as I am told that he was a
member of
it. I
hope that I have made it a little clearer why we have introduced the
order and what the scheme is for. The fact that 101 MPs have signed up
to it within a fortnight suggests that it is a scheme that MPs would
like to be part of and that they would like the information that is
available. It is very clear that that information is confidential and
must be restricted, with regard to whom it is given to, and that is
precisely why we have asked members to sign a confidentiality clause.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what would happen to MPs who
breached that clause, and my understanding is that they would simply be
removed from the scheme and given no further information. I am
confident that MPs in the scheme that has been operating since 1999
have shown to date that they have been able to use that information
responsibly and that there are no serious concerns about them breaching
the confidentiality clause. I therefore hope that the Committee will
agree to the scheme and that those MPs who are interested in signing up
to it will do so as soon as
possible. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Data Protection (Processing of
Sensitive Personal Data) Order
2009. 5.2
pm Committee
rose.
| 
