Part of Access to Personal Files Bill – in the House of Commons at 1:15 pm on 24 April 1987.
Mr David Waddington
, Ribble Valley
1:15,
24 April 1987
The Government have already set a precedent for access to personal information in the form of the Data Protection Act 1984, for whose passage I was responsible. I do not want to make a party political speech, but those who have been prone to criticise the Government for not moving fast enough on the subject of manual records should be reminded that a Labour Government had ample opportunity to introduce a Bill similar to the Data Protection Act but took no steps to do so. The leader of one of the alliance parties was a prominent member of that Labour Government, but was a tacit supporter of the decision to make no progress in giving people greater access to their personal records. Therefore, it ill behoves Opposition Members to complain about progress being too slow now.
The Conservative Government took the crucial step and gave the citizen access to records about himself that were held on computer. Today we congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on having gone a long way towards putting on the statute book a Bill that extends the right of access to manual records.
On Second Reading I made it clear that the Government did not need persuading of the benefits that can accrue to an individual if he can obtain access to records of personal information. We are also conscious, as any prudent Government must be, of the fact that benefits of that kind have implications for resources of manpower and money. As they say in Lancashire, "You can't get summat for nowt." Extending the right of access to personal information costs money and resources. Let no one be fooled by propaganda that suggests otherwise. If we are extending the right of personal access, we are making a conscious choice to spend resources in that area and to deprive other areas of those resources.
At the beginning of the exercise — the hon. Gentleman could not have been more helpful and could not have been more ready to recognise the difficulty of the Government—we had to be careful about putting new burdens on employers, for example. One becomes sick and tired of those who voice concern about unemployment and yet are prepared to place new burdens on private employers that might have the effect of increasing unemployment. As a Government we had to consider the matter in the round, being anxious to extend the rights of individuals to access to their personal records, but being mindful all the time that too swift progress could impose intolerable burdens. There is no doubt that the practicalities of granting access to manual records are of a different scale from those involved in granting access to computerised records.
In reaching our agreement with the hon. Gentleman we came to the conclusion that the authorities and classes of information to be made accessible should be as they now appear in the schedules. I made it clear on Second Reading that the Government believed that the best approach would be to wait to gain some experience of the operation of the subject access provisions in the Data Protection Act 1984, which come into force in November, before we consider giving wide rights of access to manual records. It was for this reason that we reached agreement with the promoter and sponsors that the scope of the Bill should be narrowed.
In effect, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was asking, "What is wrong with putting into the Bill an order-making power that does not have to be used? A decision could be made later." Perhaps the machinery within the Bill is appropriate for the sort of records that are mentioned in the schedule, but not the preferred machinery to provide an extension of personal access to other records. I do not know about that, but what is certain is that it seems odd to rush ahead and provide a power to increase the scope of the Bill before we have even seen whether the machinery in the Data Protection Act is the right sort, and before we have experimented to ascertain whether the machinery in the Bill to deal with manual records is the right sort.
The hon. Member for Erdington made an important point about medical records. We found in our useful discussions in Committee that there emerged clear concern about medical records. Many people would like to see progress made in this area. It was the view of Ministers responsible for health policy and myself that greater progress was likely to be achieved on providing access to personal information in medical records — there is no disagreement between the Government and the promoter and sponsors about the desirability of that happening—by following the voluntary rather than the statutory route.
I think that I was able to give an undertaking in Committee that was of comfort to those who have expressed a wish to see swift progress made towards personal access to medical records. I repeat the undertaking that I gave on behalf of my colleagues with responsibilities for health
that they will enter into talks with the medical profession at an early stage with a view to achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records further on a non-statutory basis."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 1 April 1987; c. 60.]
The undertaking will open the way to important further progress. The principle of access to personal information having been established in respect of computerised data by the Data Protection Act 1984 and in respect of manual records by the Bill is important. There is a need to see how it works out in practice.
1.30 pm
Extension to other areas is best left, the Government believe, for consideration when we have digested what we have done and after due consideration by Parliament. From the tone of his speech, I know that the hon. Member for Erdington does not propose to press the new Clause to a Division but I thank him and his colleagues for having tabled it. It is important that the matter should be ventilated on the Floor of the House, so that the public may know of our concern.
In a normal session there are up to ten standing committees on bills. Each has a chair and from 16 to 50 members. Standing committee members on bills are appointed afresh for each new bill by the Committee of Selection which is required to take account of the composition of the House of Commons (ie. party proportions) as well as the qualification of members to be nominated. The committees are chaired by a member of the Chairmen's Panel (whose members are appointed by the Speaker). In standing committees the Chairman has much the same function as the Speaker in the House of Commons. Like the Speaker, a chairman votes only in the event of a tie, and then usually in accordance with precedent. The committees consider each bill clause by clause and may make amendments. There are no standing committees in the House of Lords.
The Second Reading is the most important stage for a Bill. It is when the main purpose of a Bill is discussed and voted on. If the Bill passes it moves on to the Committee Stage. Further information can be obtained from factsheet L1 on the UK Parliament website.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
