Clause
28
National
Statistician: advisory
functions
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe
Bill.
Mrs.
Villiers:
I had hoped to press for a vote on amendments
Nos. 97 and 98, but because of time constraints, I will not. However,
we will seek to return to the role and functions of the National
Statistician on Report. For the reasons that we gave earlier, we feel
that it is a flaw in the Bill that the National Statistician’s
functions are insufficiently outlined. It is crucial to ensure that
that role is heavyweight and has credibility and authority, which is
why we will return to
it.
John
Healey:
I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s reference
to time constraints. The Committee accepted the programme motion
proposed for its sittings, and my hon. Friends and I are ready to sit
for as long as it takes if she wants to keep us here. I note that she
reserves her position, and I look forward to the debate if she decides
to return to the matter on
Report.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 28
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
32
Committees
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe
Bill.
Dr.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I have a
question for my hon. Friend the Minister. Is it the board’s
intention to form a sub-committee specifically to consider
strengthening and deepening public understanding of statistics? The
concerns in all parts of the Committee about possible misuses of
official statistics might be alleviated somewhat if the public had
greater understanding of their purpose, how they are used and how they
are collected. It is necessary to encourage people to participate in
official surveys, which might be easier if the public understood why
the surveys were being carried out and their importance to the policy
making process.
Like
Opposition Members, I have been making international comparisons. A
number of countries set a lot of store by increasing public
understanding of the use of statistics, most notably Japan. There is
evidence that that encourages the public to participate in Government
surveys. Interestingly, there is also a national statistics day in
Japan, although I am not sure whether I advocate that idea. I have not
tabled an amendment, but I would be grateful for information on Report
about how we might encourage the development of greater public
understanding. I refer the Minister to a recent article in the
Public Understanding of Science journal that makes the point
that statistical misunderstandings occur and that we should attempt to
tackle the problem. I would be grateful if that was
done.
John
Healey:
My hon. Friend has obviously been doing her
research. I was unaware that Japan holds a national statistics day,
which is not something that I am inclined to write into the Bill,
although we will bear it in mind. As she will understand, I cannot
answer for the board’s intentions as she asks me to. She is
right that there is widespread concern about the difficulty of
maintaining high response rates to certain important surveys and that
better understanding of statistics and their use may well help. I
anticipate that as the board becomes established and starts to
undertake its duties, it will study the points made during our
proceedings and that it will want to consider the
matter.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 32
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
35
Use
of information by the
Board
Alun
Michael:
I beg to move amendment No. 198, in
clause 35, page 14, line 25, at
end insert—
‘(1A)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 36, below, in determining or
promoting the use of statistics the Board shall have a duty to consider
the benefits to public policy of sharing
information.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 131, in
clause 36, page 14, line 37, leave
out paragraphs (a)and
(b).
Amendment No.
118, in clause 36, page 14, line 40, at end
insert—
‘(1A) Personal
information under subsection (1) shall not be used except in relation
to the exercise of any of the Board’s and National
Statistician’s
functions.’.
Amendment
No. 119, in clause 36, page 14, line 40, at end
insert—
‘(1B) Personal data
may be disclosed by the National Statistician under subsection
(1)—
(a) to approved
researchers;
(b) to other
authorities for uses consistent with the functions of the
Board;
(c) to the National
Statistician under sections 48, 49 and
50;
(d) with the consent of the
person to whom it relates;
(e)
under a European Community obligation for statistical purposes;
and
(f) to service providers
under section
38.’.
Amendment
No. 185, in clause 36, page 15, line 11, leave out subsection
(4).
Amendment No.
153, in clause 36, page 15, line 12, leave out paragraph
(a).
Amendment No.
154, in clause 36, page 15, line 14, leave out paragraph
(c).
Amendment No.
155, in clause 36, page 15, line 21, leave out paragraph
(h).
Amendment No.
156, in clause 36, page 15, line 22, leave out subsection
(5).
Amendment No.
199, in clause 36, page 15, line 24, at end insert
‘, whether that
researcher is employed by an academic institution or by an appropriate
public or non-government
organisation’.
Amendment
No. 157, in clause 36, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection
(6).
Amendment No.
158, in clause 36, page 15, line 27, leave out subsection
(7).
Amendment No.
159, in clause 36, page 15, line 30, leave out subsection
(8).
Amendment No.
160, in clause 36, page 16, line 1, leave out paragraph
(c).
Amendment No.
162, in clause 38, page 16, line 26, at end
insert—
‘(2) In exercising
its power under subsection (1) the Board must consider whether the
service provider is a fit and proper person and must require that he
signs a declaration, in such form as the Board may determine, that he
understands the requirements of section 36 before any information is
disclosed.’.
New
clause 1—Disclosure of personal
data—
‘Personal data,
disclosed to the Board or the National Statistician and disclosed to
other authorities for statistical purposes, is subject to section
36.’.
Alun
Michael:
On amendments Nos. 198 and 199, there is a point
of principle about sharing data to provide a public benefit. On
occasions, there have been problems with sharing data. Lazy
bureaucrats, aided and abetted by lazy data protection advisers and
lazy legal advisers, far too often respond to the possibility
of sharing information with others by acting as if it were safer not to
share data. They often claim that they are doing so on so-called data
protection grounds, but that is wrong. They ought to follow best
practice in data management, which involves balancing the benefits to
sharing data with the disbenefits. I am pleased that the amendment is
supported by the Association of Regional Observatories and
others.
Amendment No.
199 is intended to tease out what I believe to be the intention of the
drafting—that is, to ensure that access to statistics is as easy
and quick as possible for those who will use them for practical
purposes, such as to inform service delivery, develop local policies or
analyse the needs of groups in society or local communities. That is
what makes it essential for researchers in local government and in
non-governmental organisations or charities to have quick and easy
access, provided that they meet the criteria set out in the
Bill.
Access must not
be restricted to statisticians and researchers in universities when
such access is vital for those who work for the betterment of the lives
of those who are represented in the figures, through local authorities,
charities, NGOs and other agencies. I hope that my hon. Friend the
Financial Secretary will not only agree with me about that, but confirm
that what I am saying is the correct legal interpretation of the
clause. It is important for those people to have access to the
statistics with the minimum of
bureaucracy.
I learned
of an excellent example of the value of that only today, in discussing
housing complaints with representatives of the National Association of
Citizens Advice Bureaux, although I did not know that it would
illuminate this debate as effectively as I hope it will. Nowadays, 70
per cent. of citizens advice bureaux record their cases electronically,
on a system called Case. They can quickly analyse cases by age,
ethnicity, household size or income level, as well as the nature of the
complaints that lead people to seek advice. Citizens advice bureaux
have some 5.2 million client interfaces each year, whether on the
telephone or in interviews, so the system is of significance. To meet
their second aim of informing public policy, it is vital to overlie
those client statistics on official statistics, to provide an accurate
framework for comparison and analysis. The example of housing is an
excellent one, but similar examples can also be found that inform the
work of people at the local authority level in improving the quality of
life for our
people.
Some academics
work with policy makers to improve the quality of local life. I have
referred to some of them. They include Professor John Shepherd of
Birkbeck college and his work on rural statistics; Professor Jonathan
Shepherd at the University Hospital in Wales, whose work on reducing
violence was seminal; and Professor Howard Williams, who analysed local
data in the Ely area of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member
for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan).
I also acknowledge the fact
that people working in the Office for National Statistics, Ministers
and Treasury officials have shown real commitment to enabling us to
drill down to the most local level of analysis. I hope that the
Minister will assure me on both points: that that is the
Government’s intention and that the capacity to use information
properly to
improve people’s quality of life, which will be the focus of the
board’s activities, is what the Bill is intended to bring
about.
Dr.
Cable:
There is an obvious link between clause 35
on the use of statistical information and the confidentiality
provisions of clause 36. The amendments that my colleague and I have
tabled relate to the confidentiality provisions. We want doubly to
ensure that there is no misuse, as provided in clause 35. The key point
is to be aware of the overriding purpose of statistics. The right hon.
Gentleman was absolutely right: both professionally and in our current
jobs, we all encounter examples of pettiness and restrictiveness in the
use of figures. There is often a box-ticking approach to regulation,
which is not very
helpful.
6.45
pm
We
need to focus on the central objective, which is to build public
confidence—both corporate and individual—in statistics.
Businesses will not collaborate in giving accurate and honest
information if they have any suspicion that their data will be made
available to their competitors, unwittingly or otherwise. Similarly,
individuals are not likely to contribute to statistical surveys,
particularly in highly sensitive areas like the census, if there is any
suspicion that data might be misused. We therefore take the view shared
by the Royal Statistical Society and others that the confidentiality
provisions of the Bill need to be sharpened, although the Bill clearly
provides for some protection. We have suggested various routes in the
group of amendments.
A
new clause, which is brief and to the point, says that personal data
disclosed to the board or National Statistician is subject to the
provisions of clause 36. In other words, the use of data as described
in clause 35 is subject to all the penalties and protections of clause
36. Clause 36 should be sharpened and clarified. We have suggested two
amendments, amendments Nos. 118and 119, which are designed to
achieve that aim, particularly via a chapeau, a phrase, that covers
various groups of people by
saying:
“Personal
information...shall not be used except in relation to the exercise
of any of the Board’s and National Statistician’s
functions.”
The next
amendment then defines the groups of individuals to which it would be
legitimate and appropriate to release statistical
information.
Like the
Government, our broad objective is to show that confidentiality is
protected, for public confidence reasons. There is a view, certainly in
the statistical community, that the Bill could be stronger and clearer.
That is why we have tabled our
amendments.
Mr.
Hoban:
I should like to speak first to amendment No. 153,
which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping
Barnet. We picked up on the point made by the hon. Member for
Twickenham at the outset of his remarks. The amendments are seeking to
probe the nature of the clause, with a view to establishing a greater
confidence in the security and confidentiality of data collected by the
board for the preparation of statistics. If we are to achieve some of
the benefits of the Bill—greater access to administrative data,
for example, to reduce the cost
of preparation—then we need to make sure that people are
comfortable that when data are supplied to the board their use is
protected and
safeguarded.
First,
amendment No. 153 deletes subsection (4)(a), which states that
disclosure can take place where there has been a legislative enactment
to override the duty of confidentiality. My concern is that data are
collected for one purpose by the ONS—statistical
output—but the Government then seek access for a different
purpose, which is almost using the ONS as a conduit for acquiring
information. We should be very clear that the information gateway
should not be through the ONS but between the two end users, which is
why I am concerned about subsection
(4)(a).
Amendment No.
154 leaves out subsection (4)(c). In clarification, given that
information is provided to the board to enable it in clause 36(1) to
undertake any of its functions, why is there an override in clause
36(4)(c)? I should have thought that the provisions of subsection (1)
would be adequate to cover
that.
Amendments Nos.
155 to 159 are on approved research and access to data. Amendment No.
155 would delete clause 36(4)(h), and the other amendments are
consequential on that. I am concerned about why approved researchers
might need access to information that would enable them to identify
somebody. Why cannot that information be provided to them in an
anonymous form so that they cannot trace which individuals supplied it?
I would welcome clarification of that
point.
Clause 36(10)
contains exemptions on the use of data in cases where a person did not
reasonably believe that they could have identified a person from the
data that they used. On paragraph (c), I shall return to the example of
the 2001 census to illustrate the ease with which it is possible to
identify a person from data collected from different sources.
Information was collected at postcode level, so data were collected,
for example, for SO31 6NL, where I live. There are22 houses
covered by that postcode. I do not know the domestic circumstances of
all the residents of The Vale, but an analysis of the data might be
sufficient to identify which individuals supplied which data, based on
the number of children in a household, people’s occupations and
qualifications and so on. We should be careful in giving carve-outs
exempting people from prosecution because the granularity of the data
provided, in conjunction with other publicly available information,
could mean that people inadvertently or even deliberately find personal
information.
Amendment
No. 162 would amend clause 38, which enables the disclosure of
information to service providers. A third party might be involved in
the census, for example, or data collection and analysis might be
subcontracted to service providers as part of the commercial
arrangements that the board might make. The clause states that the
board must consider whether it
is
“necessary or
appropriate to do so”.
It
is interesting to compare that with clause 36(8), which states that
approved researchers must sign a declaration to demonstrate that they
have understood the requirements of that clause. No similar obligation
is placed on third-party service providers. There should be a degree of
consistency between the provisions for approved researchers and service
providers.
John
Healey:
The amendments bring us to the part of the Bill
that is concerned with confidentiality and data access. I suspect that
we shall return in more detail to some of the points that have been
raised when we consider subsequent clauses.
The ONS and the government
statistical service have a long history of maintaining data
confidentiality. They already hold securely sensitive data including
census returns, employee earnings and businesses’ profits. We
are taking steps, not only in the Bill, to allow the continuation of
data sharing and to extendit under certain tightly controlled
circumstances, increasing the safeguards as we do so. The hon. Member
for Twickenham said that they need to be sharper: I say that they will
be stronger protections. The Bill introduces a criminal sanction
against the unlawful disclosure of information concerning both
individuals and businesses, whether held by board members and employees
or anyone to whom the board has passed data that identify an individual
or business or allow someone to deduce that
identity.
We are
conscious of the human rights implications of the proposals and we are
sensitive to the need to strike an appropriate balance between the
wider public interest in data sharing and the rights of individuals.
The data sharing and confidentiality clauses are considered compatible
with the convention on human rights.
My right hon. Friend the Member
for Cardiff, South and Penarth rightly recognises the benefits to
statistics and public policy of data sharing, as do the Government and
I. He is concerned about the definition of “approved
researcher” in the Bill, which
was why he tabled amendment No. 199. I want to make it clear on the
record that the definition is not limited to individuals in academic
institutions, which was his principal concern. Amendments Nos. 153 to 162
would all limit the board’s ability to carry out the functions
that it is required by the Bill to discharge. With regard to amendment
No. 162, the board needs to be able to disclose information to service
providers. I think that the hon. Member for Fareham would accept, for
example, that the board must be able to pass data to an external IT
provider that has been contracted to undertake crucial data processing
on behalf of the board, as the ONS did when carrying out the 2001
census. I hope that after those remarks, right hon. and hon. Members
will be content not to press their amendments, although they may wish
to return to some of the points and examine them, together with the
principal case underlying our approach, in more detail as our
deliberations
continue.
Alun
Michael:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response.
It would perhaps be useful to follow up in correspondence some of the
detailed legal advice that he has taken, but I am happy with the
strength of the response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Kevin
Brennan.]
Adjourned
accordingly at two minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 25
January at Nine
o’clock.
| 
