Part of Access to Personal Files Bill – in the House of Commons at 2:08 pm on 24 April 1987.
Mrs Virginia Bottomley
, South West Surrey
2:08,
24 April 1987
I support the Bill with greater confidence than I did on Second Reading. Bills such as this tend to be supported only by those who see the matter in black and white. I have always had deep reservations about steaming ahead with wholesale open access to all personal files and I must ask the Minister to oversee the introduction of regulations carefully, particularly those involving exceptions.
The disparaging remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) about the difficulties facing UCCA suggested that he had little understanding of how difficult it is to make a full and frank personal assessment of an individual. Anybody who is trying to make an assessment or keep a record must strike a balance between acting on his own judgment based on evidence and merely producing a document that is full of bromides and inanities. The danger is that open access to personal files can result in the use of the telephone euphemisms or a failure to record sensitive information.
The sector about which I am most concerned is that of the social services with regard to child abuse, potential suicide attempts or any other manner of human behaviour where there seems to be a perfectly straightforward explanation, but the professional involved, on the basis of his or her experience, training and judgment, has reason to have grave reservations about the explanation that he or she has been given by the individual involved. Inevitably, in such cases confronting the individual with the professional's reservations is fraught with problems.
None of us would dispute that good practice means openness, but in some cases anybody involved in these decisions will experience difficulties and the thought that inevitably files will be opened and available could too easily lead to euphemisms and a failure to make proper records.
The modifications that have occurred are an improvement. However, I recognise that there is another side to the argument. In Committee examples were given of inaccurate information being incorporated in reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) spoke of 18 per cent. of medical records in Oxford being found to have some sort of omission or inaccuracy. In Leicester 1·5 per cent. of the medical records were found to have the sex of the individual wrongly recorded. We all know how easy it is for assertions to be made, for example, by school teachers in the preparation of court reports on the basis of hearsay and reputation. I am not arguing that this is a black and white matter, but it is right and proper to proceed with caution and carefully to monitor the progress.
Much has been made of the possible financial costs of the legislation : there are arguments which I find plausible that there has been an overstatement of the extent to which people will make use of these rights. I take the financial implications with a pinch of salt.
Another important point which has emerged, with regard to the subversion of freedom of information is the way in which some authorities have charged exorbitant prices for making information available. That seems a thoroughly unsatisfactory outcome, but it is what happens to over-idealistic legislation which has not been thought through as to the difficulties and detailed problems of implementing it. In all of my dealings with local authorities the constant refrain is, "Why does Parliament have so many good ideas that we must implement and carry out which require more training and manpower and changing practices?" Recently the police force has had to change its way of working with regard to the information that is at its disposal. I am concerned that if we had proceeded with this Bill on the original basis, the unintended consequences of the well-intentioned aims and aspirations of the sponsors of the Bill would have had effects about which I would have had great reservations.
In supporting the Bill on Third Reading arid congratulating all those who have worked so hard to negotiate it as far as this stage, I should like to reiterate once more that the changes and modifications that have occurred along the way are, in my view, improvements.
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 proposal for new legislation that is debated by Parliament.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.