HL Deb 13 December 1972 vol 337 cc601-3

2.36 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the fresh instructions on confidentiality of personal information in Government Departments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on June 20, are not being observed.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, the Government are not aware that the instructions are not being generally observed. We are. however, considering whether any steps, in addition to periodic recirculation of the instructions to staff, should be taken to keep them in mind. If the noble Lord knows of any specific cases and will inform me, I shall be glad to look into them.

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl's attention has been drawn to the survey which was described in the Sunday People at the end of November, in which the journalists concerned telephoned to 33 different offices—not all of them Government Departments: some were banks, building societies, and so on, but the Department of Health and Social Security, the Supplementary Benefits and the Prison Departments were mentioned by name, and in none of those 33 cases did the journalists have the slightest difficulty in extracting information by pretending to be officials of some other Department. Does not the noble Earl think this is a serious situation which requires investigation so that he can ascertain whether the instructions mentioned previously by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have in fact been observed at the grass roots of the Departments?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, as an assiduous reader of the British Sunday Press, I of course read the article in the Sunday People, but I should like to remind your Lordships that of the 33 cases, fairly instanced by the noble Lord. only three referred to Government Departments. However, I do not wish to hide behind statistics, because the facts of the matter are that the allegations made in the article are now under examination by the police and, secondly, inquiries are being made in the three Departments concerned.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, what on earth are the "grass roots" of the Departments?

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, will the noble Earl extend the inquiries somewhat and not confine them to the three Departments specifically mentioned by name in the article?—because if it is as easy as it appears to be to get information out of those three Departments presumably the same thing applies, for example, to the Inland Revenue Department. I wonder whether the noble Earl also noticed that the rating departments of two local authorities had no difficulty in giving out information to the supposed officials acting on behalf of the Sunday People? Has he recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he had no reason to think that local authorities were not capable of looking after privacy in their own organisations? Therefore if he declines my suggestion that a circular should be issued to them, while he is in the process of the investigation will he look at that suggestion again?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend had declined the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I think he said that he would look into this matter, and I shall be glad to look into it again so far as local authorities are concerned. I must confess that the noble Lord's supplementary questions went on so long that I have forgotten the others.

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, I asked about other Departments, apart from those mentioned in the article.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think the Inland Revenue was one of the three. If it was not, I will certainly see that the suggestion that investigation should be made is followed up.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, does the noble Earl know how many Departments in relation to this somewhat deceitful approach refused to give information? In the light of the assiduous nature of the approach, would he agree that it is possible sometimes for people to act in a tricky and dishonest way? Would the noble Earl also agree that it really is rather unfortunate that the Civil Service should be blamed for what was a trick?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary question, because it gives me the opportunity to say that while there is always the possibility of human error in these cases—and this is a serious matter and the instructions are quite firm—it is my general belief that staff as a whole in Government offices concerned are carrying out to the letter the instructions which have been issued to them.