Data Protection (Amendment) (Hansard, 12 June 2002)

§ Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide exemptions in respect of Members of Parliament seeking information on behalf of their constituents; and for related purposes. I believe that this Bill touches on an issue that is of current interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House; indeed, it was touched on during Prime Minister's questions only a few minutes ago. The background to the Bill is the gradual coming into force of the Data Protection Act 1998. As a result of that legislation, some organisations and companies, and public bodies such as local authorities and NHS trusts, are beginning to respond negatively to individual casework inquiries by Members of Parliament on the grounds of access to confidential personal data under the Data Protection Act. Moreover, some organisations are developing a general policy of writing to hon. Members asking them to obtain written consent from constituents before they will discuss any aspect of a constituent's case.

However, even obtaining subsequent written consent is not as straightforward as it might appear, as it entails deciding from whom the consent should be sought, such as in cases affecting children. For example, one colleague wrote to me recently about a mother who is the legal appointee of her disabled son. That is recognised by the social security commissioners and the ombudsman, but her county council still refuses to recognise her under the Data Protection Act.

Simple common sense dictates that our constituents have already given us their consent to seek such information by personally requesting us to take up their case in the first instance. People very often approach their Member of Parliament because they have experienced some frustration or perceived injustice from the system, which they request that we help to resolve on their behalf. In such circumstances, the last thing that our constituents need is another letter, this time from us, asking them to fill in yet another form so that we can even begin to look into something about which they specifically asked us to inquire in the first place.

Some organisations with which we deal also appreciate the problem, but feel bound to operate within the Act as it is currently drafted, as that is the legal advice that they have received. For example, I have a letter on the subject from Mr. Stewart Ashurst, chief executive of Essex county council—and before anyone asks me, I do have his personal consent to cite it in this context. On 21 March, he wrote to me: Many thanks for your letter … letting me know of your intention to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill to amend the Data Protection Act. Although the Data Protection Act has many advantages, in particular giving people the opportunity to see information recorded upon themselves, it has also created many barriers to sharing information which can be unnecessary and unhelpful. An MP representing a constituent's interests is an obvious example but there are many others. I am pleased that this issue will be aired on the floor of the House of Commons as a result of the steps which you are taking. At best, this new impediment is a bureaucratic waste of time; at worst, it could provide an opportunity for some organisations to try to hide behind the Data Protection Act and withhold information on the treatment or 869 maltreatment of individuals, which could place the organisation in a bad light if it were revealed to Members of Parliament.

The issue has been raised in the House several times in recent months, including, on a number of occasions, during business questions. In fairness, the Government have intimated that they would like to take some action on the matter, but to date, despite various discussions, no specific proposals have been forthcoming. That is why I proposed this brief Bill in early May and am seeking to advance it today. It would remedy the situation by amending the Data Protection Act to make allowance for Members of Parliament who are pursuing casework inquiries. Specifically, it would amend part IV of the Act, which deals with exemptions—of which there are already quite a number—to provide a new general exemption for Members of Parliament who are seeking information in pursuit of a casework inquiry on behalf of a named constituent or constituents. Such an exemption would then be promulgated so that organisations would be aware that in future they could not continue to hide behind the Data Protection Act when in receipt of an inquiry from a Member.

In summary, the problem affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and represents an unnecessary bureaucratic impediment to our ability to do our job on behalf of the people who send us here. The Bill seeks to remove that impediment in order to allow Members to continue to assist their constituents as they always have done. For that reason, I believe that the Bill is worth while, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Francois, Mr. Paul Goodman, Chris Grayling, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Mark Prisk, Andrew Selous, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Bill Wiggin and David Wright.