§ Mr. Andrew GeorgeI beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 20, line 7, at end insert—
'(9A) Where the parent with care has complied with obligations imposed by section 6 of the 1991 Act, the Secretary of State shall be legally responsible for the confidentiality of information relating to the parent with care.'.This takes us back to a debate that we had on amendment No. 76, and touches on the issue of good cause. I appreciate that in her responses on this matter the Minister has thus far demonstrated a sincere acceptance of its seriousness. Secretaries of State change, but under the Bill as it stands, we have to trust the Secretary of State to observe an appropriately precautionary principle when dealing with cases involving domestic violence and violence against women. Despite all the assurances, which I believe are genuine, the matter depends in part on the 419 Secretary of State's discretion, and in part on an unclear provision about the basis of the evidence for the threat of violence.
8.45 pm
I shall provide an example of a failure, not by the CSA, but by ourselves as legislators, which demonstrates the need for caution in the Bill. It is the case of a constituent of mine, formerly Dina Russell of Torquay, but known as Georgina McCarthy when, tragically, in May 1998, she was horrifically murdered by her former husband, Paul Russell. The crime occurred in her home in Penzance, in the presence of her one-and-a-half-year-old son, who was subsequently abducted. Her former husband was convicted of the crime in June last year.
That case demonstrates the failure of the system, because everything was done that could have been done in the face of a known and recorded threat. There were witnesses to the fact that Paul Russell intended to murder that poor woman. Every means available within the system and under the law was employed to protect her, but the system itself failed, with tragic results. Paul Russell used family law—section 8 of the Children Act 1989—to obtain a seek-and-find order from the court. The legal process was quashed, but not before it had already provided him with sufficient information to establish in which part of the country his former wife lived. The case exposed weaknesses in court procedure, the Children Act and family law, and flaws in the interplay between civil and criminal law. Court procedures were observed and the police and social services did everything according to the law in order to protect that women, but, ultimately, they and the system failed.
The CSA does not come into that case; Paul Russell did not use it to track down his former wife. However, there is a fear that the provisions of the Bill as it stands might enable women who have been subjected to domestic violence to be tracked down. About 100 women are murdered every year, and about half know their murderer. Far too many women suffer domestic violence; whether that ultimately leads to murder or severe harm, it is obviously not in the best interests of women or children for the system to permit information to be made available to husbands, partners, former husbands and former partners who might use the information to track them down.
I accept that the clause provides a reasonable belt around this issue, and earlier responses from the Minister have reassured me that she and her Department have a genuine intention to ensure that everything is done to protect women who are liable to be threatened with abuse and violence. The purpose of the amendment is to provide braces—I apologise for the use of a male gender metaphor—as well as the belt of the clause. The amendment lays responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure that information relating to the parent carer remains confidential. That would put an added pressure on the Secretary of State to be extremely circumspect about the circumstances in which information is divulged.
As Members of Parliament, we all have a heavy burden to bear in voting through legislation that could have a damaging effect on people's lives. I appreciate that the amendment would impose a heavy burden on the Secretary of State. Serious concerns surround this issue and I know that the Minister is aware of them. Many 420 organisations have written to Ministers about the clause and about the evidence that the Secretary of State may require to justify that there is good cause not to disclose information. It is not clear at this stage at what level that evidence is required. One way of providing some assurance is to lay a legal responsibility on the Secretary of State to ensure, in cast iron terms, that the information is protected and that women are protected also within the system.
In the earlier debate on this matter, the Minister maintained that the CSA had improved its service. She said that it gathers information discreetly and informs people who come into contact with it of all the available options and the consequences of certain actions. However, that did not add up to a detailed explanation of how the CSA would fully assess the risk to the parent with care, or the child, in each case. The amendment seeks to place pressure for such an explanation to be made by proposing that the Secretary of State—effectively the CSA—should be liable if the confidentiality of information is breached. We fear most that that breach of confidentiality will result in danger to women.
On that basis, we believe that the amendment properly reflects the seriousness with which the relevant information is to be gathered and protected by the CSA. I hope that the Government will accept it. It provides the necessary assurances to many women who fear acts of violence, which none of us wants to see perpetrated as a result of leaked information.
§ Angela EagleI start by assuring the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) that we take extremely seriously issues of violence against women. I hope that I can reassure him that protections are already in place that adequately ensure that we can make good our concern and minimise any risk to women who may be subject to violence.
Before dealing with that, I shall say a little about the tragic case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, involving Georgina McCarthy. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department are considering the issues surrounding the court processes for contact proceedings, which led to that individual being able to track down his ex-partner, with the consequences that the hon. Gentleman described to the House. I know that, when conclusions have been reached, the hon. Gentleman will be informed of them. However, as he said, the CSA was not involved in that instance in the breach of confidentiality that led to such a tragic result.
Amendment No. 81 would create a legal obligation for the CSA to protect the confidentiality of information provided by parents with care on benefit who are treated as applying for a child support calculation. That is an important matter and raises the question of what guarantees can be given to any client of the CSA.
Parents with care are treated as applying for child support under section 6 of the Child Support Act 1991 if they are claiming income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. There is a right to opt out of child support action, but opting out can attract a benefit penalty, as we discussed earlier. The benefit penalty is applied if the parent cannot show that child support action would lead to a risk of harm or undue distress.
A benefit penalty may also be imposed if the parent with care refuses without good reason to provide sufficient information to enable the non-resident parent to 421 be traced. Given that she has limited choice in the matter, it is important that she can feel confident that her confidentiality will be protected.
I must emphasise that, if there is a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent with care or her children, she is not required to provide information to the agency at all—she can opt out of the process before it begins, without any penalty being imposed.
There is an important second line of protection—the absolute duty on the CSA to protect personal information. The Government attach considerable weight to that duty, both because we are committed to the proper handling of personal information, and because we want people to be confident in using the CSA.
To assess and collect child support, we inevitably need to know a lot about the parents and their families. Much of the information is very personal, and no one else should be able to gain access to it through the CSA.
I can assure hon. Members that the CSA takes seriously its obligations to protect the confidentiality of personal information about its clients. That is why anyone working for the CSA is guilty of a criminal offence if, without lawful authority, he or she discloses information, acquired in the course of that employment, that relates to a particular person. Such an offence can, on conviction, result in a prison sentence of up to two years. I can tell the House that, since 1995, three employees of the agency have been dismissed from that employment for making information available.
Clearly, information must be disclosed to the other parent to allow him or her to understand how maintenance liability has been assessed. That information includes, for example, details of the non-resident parent's net income and the relevant qualifying children. Legislation permits, and carefully specifies, such disclosure.
However, the CSA must never disclose a parent's address or any other information that may lead to that person being located. Parents also have a right to refuse to allow a tribunal or court to reveal such details.
That is an important safeguard. It protects the whereabouts of parents, in particular women who may be at risk of abuse from their ex-partners if their address becomes known. I am pleased to say that the CSA has an excellent record in that area. It also reassures parents with care who are treated as applying for child support when they claim benefit, but their whereabouts will remain confidential.
Amendment No. 81 is unnecessary because child support legislation already provides adequate and robust protection for personal information provided by clients to the CSA. The amendment provides protection to parents with care who are treated as applying for child support under section 6 of the 1991 Act. However, the existing legislative safeguards in the 1991 Act prevent unauthorised disclosure of information for all CSA clients, not just those who qualify under section 6.
With those reassurances that we have in place a robust system that has been proved to work, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. Andrew GeorgeI am encouraged by the Minister's response, by the sympathetic and helpful response that I received from each of the three Departments involved indirectly in the case that I raised, and by the fact that an interdepartmental body on domestic violence has been set up to ensure a joined-up approach from Government. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, the Department of Social Security will be involved in that body.
The Minister referred earlier to Mr. Justice Wall who, I understand, following the case to which I referred, will be leading a short inquiry into the treatment of domestic violence cases in the courts. I appreciate that the Government now accept that that is a matter of great concern, and, I hope, if necessary, to push the matter further.
The Ministers response to amendment No. 81 was partially reassuring. It is reassuring that there have been three scalps from the CSA staff as a result of action taken to ensure that confidential information is not divulged. However, I and my hon. Friends are concerned not only with human error on the front line, but with whether the system is sufficiently robust and rigorous.
Given our debate on amendment No. 76, although I am partially reassured by the Minister, we shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 81 in the hope that there will be another opportunity to reflect on both aspects of the matter as raised in amendments Nos. 76 and 81 in another place. On that basis, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn