Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I, too, welcome your return to the Chair, Mr. Hood. In the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, I wish also to comment on the fact that we could use the words of Louis de Leon, a lecturer at Salamanca university who had tangled with the inquisition. He was imprisoned for five years and, on his return, he started his lecture, “As we were saying yesterday”, although he did say it in Latin.

On that basis, I am sure that I, too, might be allowed to make a short personal statement to the Committee although, during the interregnum, I have not been subject to a period of imprisonment or, indeed, cruel and unusual punishment. However, I have retired from the Opposition Front Bench and I assure avid Labour Members that I have not done so from a desire for a policy disagreement or even a particular sanguinary coup, but, as they say, it is to spend more—

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend allow me to say on behalf of all his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench that we hope he comes back soon?

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

That is ingratiating and delightful. It may not be an offer that I would be entirely pleased to accept after 16 years, but there we are. I simply want to say that the Bill covers a hugely interesting subject. I welcome the Committee, the tone of which has been positive. Now let me get on with the points that I am anxious to make.

Given that we have moved on to the exchange of personal information, it is right that the Committee should pause for a moment to reflect on some issues. I have a strong interest in human rights and civil liberties, which I shall not rehearse at length. In fact, it is shared by many members of the Committee and we just need to get the provisions right.

For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to say that it is not wrong to provide for better data sharing in relevant areas subject to the appropriate safeguards. That is not the issue. The assurances that we seek from the Ministers are whether those safeguards are appropriate or sufficient. I wish to pick out three points that are, in a sense, generic to clauses 38 to 41. I want to receive the right assurances from the Under-Secretary about the lowest common multiple or the highest common factor. I notice that the hon. Lady is wrinkling her eyebrows. I shall explain what I mean.

Several different regimes are coming together, such as local authorities and different Government Departments, in a way that is set out coherently and clearly under the Bill. I am not arguing about that. They will all have different cultures and traditions about information sharing and protocols. Let us consider protection for people on benefits, many of whom will be vulnerable and who should not be put upon through their involvement with the benefit system. Whenever there is a meeting of protocols or doctrines, the solution that is selected must provide the highest possible degree of confidentiality and protection to the citizen, rather than the lowest common factor on which they can all agree. I would therefore like the Minister to say that we now need a regime where safeguards are, if anything, enhanced and there is no weak link in the system.

The next point is that we should ensure that the system is looked at as a whole, in terms of training and the exchange of information about practices—I am not talking about individual cases—between the various participants. Misunderstandings arise when there is a central doctrine and access to central computer system and other people are outside that but may have access to the gateway for specific reasons. It is important that the local authorities talk.

The Under-Secretary will be familiar with the fact, through the Department’s own practice in local benefit payment reviews that are reported to this House, that there is already a dialogue. I am simply saying that, first, we do not want any weak links in the system of protection for the individual in terms of the formal safeguard set out in these clauses. Secondly, we want as far as possible for everybody to adopt a similar and protective approach.

The Under-Secretary will reasonably say that all this is within data protection rules. She will also draw attention to the clause that imposes criminal sanctions on the misapplication of information. I take the view that the criminal law is not something that should be invoked unless there are extreme reasons for it. There are cases where public officials misuse information for malign and corrupt purposes but they are not by any means common or typical. It is far more likely that there is a great deal of over-enthusiasm or cutting of corners under pressure of work, but the law is equally important in protecting the citizen in that.

The criminal law is an important sanction and it should be there. But on top of that is the question of operation in practice. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has given any thought to this, and I have not rehearsed it with my Front-Bench colleagues, who may take a different view, but it may be useful if someone kept an eye on the process as it works in practice—someone outside the system, outside the Department and outside the payment of benefits.It may be a natural role for the Information Commissioner to look at how it works, to ensure that nobody is abusing the system and that it is not being stretched beyond the purposes that are tied down in these clauses. If we can have those assurances, the Committee will not have wasted its time. These changes should be made and it is equally wrong that they should not be safeguarded.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I am seeking your guidance at the moment because there has been some confusion. I am prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I suspect that he is talking about old clause 38, which is now clause 40. I am struggling with what I should do and whether or not you will offer me appropriate advice.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood, I understand. It became clear to me when I picked up the wrong copy of the Bill. There were reasons for that, which I need not go into now but I am indeed talking exactly on those points and I am happy, with your guidance, to receive a response from the Under-Secretary—either now or at the appropriate moment.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

If it will help hon. Members, we will deal with clause 38 stand part now, and if we want to vote on clause 40 stand part when we get to it, we shall do so.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. Hood. The hon. Gentleman does not normally flummox me but he did today and I thought that perhaps this was not the clause that I was about to speak to.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

I have to apologise to the Under-Secretary. I will now put the question on clause 38 and later she can reply to the stand part debate onclause 40.