HL Deb 29 June 1988 vol 498 cc1597-603

Report received.

Clause 1 [The charges]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1: Page I, line 8, after ("Part") insert ("and subject to subsection (1A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the Notices and Orders of the Day this Report stage is starred, or flagged, as being set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages. Our agreement to that is evidence of the responsibility with which we have been taking not only this Bill but all other major Bills which have come before your Lordships' House.

Amendment No. 1 is to be taken, if the House agrees, with Amendments Nos. 3, 31 and 32. The purpose of these four amendments is to seek to secure the confidentiality of social work records and of all health records, not merely medical records, from the community register. In speaking to these amendments I recognise that the Government have already acknowledged that medical records themselves shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to the community charge registrar. I recognise also that the Government have always given assurances that the only information to be made available from the community charge registrar and made public will be the names and addresses of those concerned. I wish to persuade the House that this by no means goes far enough in protecting the necessary confidentiality of the records of social services departments, health authorities and other health organisations. Perhaps I may first of all deal with social services departments though the two cannot be fully taken together because of the interaction between the health and social services departments and the health and social services functions in our society.

Social workers are very often located in hospitals or attached to general practices as well as being located in social services departments. Every day they are collaborating with their medical and nursing colleagues to deal with the very grave social problems which confront them. When they are located in hospitals many of them are approved under the Mental Health Act, which requires them to be concerned, for example, with compulsory admissions to hospitals for people suffering from mental illness.

When this happens and though their main professional connections are with the health and hospital authorities, they are still professionally employed by the local authorities and their records are still the property of those bodies. I suggest to the House that under those circumstances, if they are required as employees of the local authorities to have their records made available to the community charge registrar, a coach and horses is being driven into the protection which the Government seek to provide for medical records. The two kinds of records cannot be adequately distinguished and the only way to provide good protection for medical records is to have the social work records provided as well.

I acknowledged a moment ago that the Government would ensure that only the names and addresses are made available. The names and addresses of those who are the clients of social workers is of itself highly sensitive information. Social workers tend to be involved with families where there are hostile individuals and where there is conflict which is causing social or mental problems. A mother could he at risk if information about her whereabouts was made available to the father who had been violent in the past or who could be violent again. Noble Lords who have been reading the pages of the popular press will be well aware that this is by no means a theoretical claim. It happens every day of the week and it is a matter of very grave concern to not only the social work and medical authorities but I believe to all of us in society.

If mothers at risk with children leave the matrimonial home, they will be followed around by the community charge registrar because that is his duty. He is required to do that if he is to maintain a proper register. I suggest to the House that unless the names and addresses themselves remain confidential in these circumstances, the confidentiality and the security of those people are not being adequately protected. The register is not yet in force and has not yet been published, but the evidence from Scotland shows that there are fears of this kind already surfacing. There is suspicion of social workers and the very fact of going to a social worker may lead to information which provides the name and address to someone who might be hostile and cause damage to the people concerned.

That brings me to another point, which is the relationship between the social worker and the client. In very many cases the name and address of the social work client will appear on the community charge register. It should appear on the register because that is the law which we are in the course of enacting at the moment. It will reduce the degree of confidence between the social worker and the client if the client believes that the information is only there because the social work records are not adequately confidential and they are not adequately protected from those who might misuse the information.

It has been suggested that the primary obligation of the social worker should be compliance with the law. Of course they wish to comply with the law, but they have professional obligations to the client which may be in conflict with their general obligations towards society as regards this law. I suggest that that conflict could cause difficulty to social workers. There are also legal reasons why social workers should not be required to contribute to the compilation of the community charge register. For example, social workers are subject, as we all are, to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Later on we have amendments to deal with that point.

There are particular regulations that require absolute confidentiality on the part of social workers if they are to do their job. I give as an example the adoption regulations where the confidentiality of the identity of the adopted child and of the adoptive family from the natural parents, and sometimes vice versa, is absolutely essential to the successful adoption process. If there is to be a breach of the confidentiality of the social work records and particularly those social work records which come under the adoption regulations, doubt must be cast on the ability of the social workers concerned to comply with the adoption regulations. For all those reasons it seems to us that social work records should not be available to the community charge registrar and there should be an absolute guarantee of confidentiality.

I now turn to Amendment No. 32, which deals with health records. This is a probing amendment because I believed, and I hope that I acknowledged, that the Government have made considerable progress in the protection of medical records generally. The Secretary of State said that the data held by family practitioner committees and district health authorities would not be required to be transferred to the community charge registrar. He said so in a Written Answer in another place on 5th May 1988 at col. 568 of the Official Report.

However, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in response to his noble friend Lord Auckland on 6th June, and perhaps unintentionally, appeared to cast doubt on that decision. In response to a question as regards the confidential nature of these records, he said: As regards the first point, I take note of what my noble friend said, but we will be issuing guidance on precisely that aspect".—[Officiai Report, 6/6/88; col. 1116.] I believe and hope that he will wish to set the record absolutely straight, and that is the purpose of this amendment. We wish to be sure that not only the medical records but all health records are confidential, that their confidentiality is maintained and that the original intention of the Government, as we understood it from the Secretary of State, is continued. We hope and believe that the regulations will reflect that without any doubt whatever. I know that the noble Earl will wish to set the record straight as regards that matter if he possibly can.

I believe that the substantive issue here above all others is the confidentiality of social work records. I hope that for all those reasons the House will feel that an amendment on these lines contributes to public confidence in the social services and also in the health services without in any way significantly damaging the ability of the community charge registrar to do his job effectively. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, the four amendments in this group are essentially more concentrated versions of amendments which we discussed at an earlier stage. Your Lordships will recall that we divided on one of those amendments, Amendment No. 58, and that it was defeated. I do not complain for one moment, however, about debating some of the issues again, since these are important matters which both your Lordships' House and the Government take very seriously.

The effect of these amendments would be to prevent the community charges registration officer from having access to two categories of information. The first category is information held by a local authority for social services purposes; the second is information held by or originating from a GP, a family practitioner committee or a health authority. Both of these proposals are unacceptable to the Government for reasons which I gave in full at an earlier stage. We do not believe that they are desirable, or necessary, or that they would achieve anything in relation to the Bill as it stands.

I should like to start with the prohibition on the use of health authority and GP records. This proposal is, quite simply, otiose because there is no provision in the Bill that would empower a registration officer to request information from these sources. In the Government's view, which will I am sure be shared by the House, it would be absurd to provide that a registration officer should be prevented from doing something he is already prevented from doing.

I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, concerning what I said to my noble friend Lord Auckland at Committee stage when he raised the question of health authority records. On reflection I fear that I may perhaps have given an answer which was less than entirely clear. I should therefore like to repeat in the interests of absolute clarity that no health authority records will be disclosed to any registration officer.

I turn therefore to the second part of this proposal—the prohibition on the use of social service information. It is the Government's firmly held belief that certain non-sensitive information, once it is held within a local authority, should be available to the registration officer for the purposes of compiling the register. It is vital to remember that this information will be restricted to that which the registration officer requires in order to carry out his functions—that is, the names and addresses of adults and, where relevant, the length of time the person has spent at that address. Registration officers will simply have no power, therefore, to require social services departments to supply any sensitive or personal data. The basic information will simply be names and addresses; not, for example, an individual's personal history or even the reason why he is known to the social services department.

I know that some people regard even the supply of names and addresses as in some way objectionable. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, clearly takes that view. The Government simply do not believe that it is objectionable to supply a person's name and address to the registration officer if that person is already required by law to register for the purposes of the community charge. I think it is clear that in arguing about the supply of names and addresses we are not talking about sensitive, personal information. We are in fact talking about the evasion of a statutory duty.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also raised as part of his argument the fear he had about those who might suffer violence—perhaps a wife who had left home because her husband had been attacking her. As he knows full well, under paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 2 there is a power for the Secretary of State to require community charge registration officers to compile and maintain an extract of prescribed information. We shall prescribe that the extract must not contain the names of people who are living under threat of violence. The concern of the noble Lord is taken care of under that part of the Bill.

I should like to add one final point which I made at an earlier stage on this subject. It relates to local income tax. When listening to the arguments that have been put forward about the community charge, it is essential to bear in mind that any system of local income tax would involve the collection and supply of information about everybody's income. I am sure the House will agree with me that that would pose a far greater threat to privacy and personal liberty than anything which the community charge will entail. In conclusion, I can only reiterate that, while some subsequent amendments deserve your Lordships' support, this one does not.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the assurances he has given about medical records. I am sure that those involved in the caring professions will be grateful that the record has been set absolutely straight. If the amendments were separated out I would certainly withdraw any amendment referring to medical records. However, the increased security of medical and health records, curiously enough, makes it all the more essential that there should be protection for social services records greater than is provided in the Bill. The arguments which the Minister rejected seem even stronger as a result of the clarification which he has just given.

The Minister said that all we were concerned with was non-sensitive records. He referred to the fact that this information would be restricted to the names and addresses. I thought I had made it quite clear that for many of these cases it is the names and addresses themselves which are the sensitive records. It is simply not enough for the Minister to say that he is prepared to provide by regulation for the names of people living under threat of violence to be excluded from this. In many examples, it is not the names of the individuals concerned on the register which are the significant ones. It could be the names of relatives.

One could have a case of child abuse where an important element in the detection of the abuse would be to know which adults were living in the house. If by any chance one or more of the adults living in the house were not on the community charge register, there could be some reluctance among people in the house or outside the house to come forward and report a case of child abuse for fear that they would be reporting a failure to appear on the community charge register and therefore it would rebound on the person reporting it. It is third parties who have to be considered; not merely the names and addresses of adults themselves.

The assurances which the Government have given on the social services records are simply not good enough. The noble Earl did not make an adequate attempt to answer the points which I made about social services workers who are based in hospitals and are authorised under the Mental Health Acts, those who are dealing with families with hostile individuals and those whose effectiveness as social workers depends on a degree of mutual confidence with their clients.

The noble Earl did not answer the point about social workers' obligations to their clients. Above all, he did not seek to answer my question about the absolute confidentiality required under regulations such as the adoption regulations which would be compromised by the requirements of the Bill. Under those circumstances, we cannot be satisfied that the Government have gone anything like as far as they ought to go. I think it is proper that I should seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.

3.38 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. John-Mackie, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Kennet, L.
Ardwick, L. Leatherland, L.
Birk, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Blease, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. McNair, L.
Bottomley, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Briginshaw, L. Mishcon, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Monson, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Chitnis, L. Mulley, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Northfield, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Oram, L.
David, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Rochester, L.
Ennals, L. Sainsbury, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Seebohm, L. [Teller.]
Ezra, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Fitt, L. Serota, B.
Flowers, L. Shackleton, L.
Foot, L. Shepherd, L.
Gallacher, L. Stallard, L.
Galpern, L. Stedman, B.
Gladwyn, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Glenamara, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L.
Grey, E. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Grimond, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hampton, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Hanworth, V. Underhill, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Walston, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Hooson, L. Whaddon, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. White, B.
Hughes, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Hunt, L. Willis, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Winstanley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Ampthill, L. Broxbourne, L.
Arran, E. Butterworth, L.
Bauer, L. Caccia, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Caithness, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Cameron of Lochbroom, L.
Beloff, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Belstead, L. Carnegy of Lour, B.
Bessborough, E. Carnock, L.
Bethell, L. Chelmer, L.
Blake, L. Colnbrook, L.
Blyth, L. Constantine of Stanmore, L.
Borthwick, L. Cork and Orrery, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Cowley, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Cox, B.
Brookes, L. Craigavon, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Marley, L.
Daventry, V. Marsh, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Merrivale, L.
De Freyne, L. Milverton, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Dulverton, L. Morris, L.
Dundee, E. Mottistone, L.
Eccles, V. Mountgarret, V.
Effingham, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Elibank, L. Munster, E.
Ellenborough, L. Nelson, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Norrie, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Elton, L. Orkney, E.
Erroll of Hale, L. Oxfuird, V.
Ferrers, E. Pender, L.
Ferrier, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Forbes, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Gainford, L.
Grantchester, L. Porritt, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Pym, L.
Greenway, L. Radnor, E.
Gridley, L. Reilly, L.
Halsbury, E. Renton, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Rochdale, V.
Hastings, L. Romney, E. St.
Henley, L. Davids, V.
Hesketh, L. Selkirk, E.
Hives, L. Sharples, B.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Hood, V. Somers, L.
Hooper, B. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Hunler of Newington, L. Swansea, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Swinton, E.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Terrington, L.
Kimball, L. Teviot, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Kinnaird, L. Thorneycroft, L.
Layton, L. Thurlow, L.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Trumpington, B.
Long, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lovat, L. Waldegrave, E.
Lytton, E. Whitelaw, V.
McFadzean, L. Windlesham, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Wise, L.
MacLehose of Beoch, L. Young of Graffham, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.