INFORMATION OBTAINED BY OFFICERS (Hansard, 28 July 1998)

§ Mr. Ian McCartney
I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment. 269 The amendment touches on what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) alluded to on an earlier amendment. I thank him for co-operating with us on this matter.
The amendment is technical, and it affects clause 15(2) which deals with information exchange. The subsection provides that information that is covered by the clause is vested in the Secretary of State. The information in question is that which an enforcement officer has obtained, for example, from an employer or worker about working hours or pay.
The current formulation of clause 15(2) might be taken to affect the rights and title of other owners of that information. The amendment makes it clear that the vesting of the information in the Secretary of State for this purpose does not affect others with the title or rights to the information. That is to say, the ownership of the information does not change hands: it is exchanged only for the purposes of the minimum wage legislation. I hope that the amendment clarifies the facility in clause 15.

§ Mr. Boswell
I have one short question. If information is disclosed by the inspectorate or by the Secretary of State in an unauthorised way that is outwith the purposes of the statute—I do not suggest that that will occur, but accidents happen—will the office that is responsible for the disclosure, if it gives rise to legal action or a claim for damages, bear the cost even if the information is jointly owned by the two parties?

§ Mr. McCartney
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting debating point and I shall reflect on what he has said. The purpose of the measure is to ensure clarity in the process of obtaining information, the purposes of the information, who can use it and who has good title to it. If the clause is operated effectively, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises should not arise. However, the point is well made and I shall ensure in discussions and by regulation that there is good professional practice in all those matters.

§ Mr. Hammond
I welcome the amendment, which clearly improves the clause. The Minister may recall that in Committee we had a heated debate about precisely this matter. He assured us that, as the clause was originally drafted, there would be no doubt about who had title to the intellectual property in the information to be transferred. He rubbished our arguments, so I am pleased that he has had second thoughts. The provision will be welcomed, if only for the avoidance of doubt.
Will the Minister clarify whether the provision will give any additional cause of action to an employer who finds that information has been wrongly used and has been transferred outwith the provisions of the Bill? The clause provides that "any relevant authority" that obtains the information may use it for any purpose relating to this Act. Should officials of the Inland Revenue or of Customs and Excise be empowered to collect information for the purposes of the legislation, their organisations would have to have Chinese walls
. 270 On the face of it, the amendment would strengthen the position of the rightful owner of the information—the employer who had the information. Will the Minister confirm for the record that that would give the employer an additional cause of action or additional security?

§ Mr. Ian McCartney
I do not remember having a row on this matter. It must have been one of those early morning activities, so I apologise. I shall not go over ground that I cannot remember.
I was probably robust with the hon. Gentleman because it was never our intention that the clause would change the ownership of the information. The Bill sets down clearly the purpose for which the information can be used and who is responsible for it. Any action taken that is outside the scope of the legislation would be outside the employer's legal powers. I have no doubt that there would be a remedy in those circumstances. I am trying to clarify the position—to put it in an armlock—to ensure that the original intention of the clause is absolutely clear.

§ Mr. Hammond
I thank the Minister for that reply. May I press him on a further point? Information may be wrongfully supplied to another agency or used by an agency that had lawfully obtained it for a purpose beyond the scope of the Bill. Is it correct that such information could not be produced in court as evidence?

§ Mr. McCartney
That is a hypothetical case. I have made it absolutely clear that, under the Bill, information can be used only for the purposes of the national minimum wage. Anyone who used it in any other way would be acting outside the scope of the Bill and would be exceeding his powers. The answer that I gave a few moments ago is the same as the answer that I am giving the hon. Gentleman now.