 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Statistics and Registration Service Bill |
Statistics and Registration Service Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 25 January 2007(Morning)[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]Statistics and Registration Service BillClause 36Confidentiality
of personal
information
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
9
am
The
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey):
We now
come to the second, complementary side of arrangements for greater data
sharing of administrative information and the confidentiality rather
than the disclosure side of the equation. The clause is important
because it sets out some of the safeguards for privacy rights that are
fundamental to ensuring that people who provide their information can
have confidence that the data will be held
securely.
The clause
specifies that personal information—information identifying
individuals or businesses, whether held by the board or passed by the
board to others, directly or indirectly—is confidential, with
criminal sanctions for anyone found to have unlawfully passed personal
information to others or to have revealed personal
information.
We
discussed in earlier sittings the benefits to be gained from data
sharing, and we will return to it in more detail from clause 44
onwards. I shall concentrate on the protections that we need to put in
place. Although there is strong public interest in the greater sharing
of administrative data, there is an equally important public interest
in ensuring that the confidentiality of such data is properly
protected. We have attempted to ensure that the Bill strikes an
appropriate balance between those two
objectives.
As the
Government move to a greater era of data sharing—an era, rather,
of greater data sharing—to deliver better, more
responsive—[Interruption.] There is a little scoff from
the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. If one wants better, more responsive and
more personalised public services, an element of greater personal data
sharing is required and inevitable. What is important in the matter of
statistics is the safeguarding and disclosure of those
data.
Mr.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): I hope that the Minister
did not misinterpret my scoff. It was not at the principle of data
sharing but at his reference to entry into a greater era. I think those
things are probably best left to
historians.
John
Healey:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He picked
me up on a slip of the tongue; rather than a greater era, I meant to
say—I think I did correct
myself—an era of greater information sharing. I am grateful to
the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make that crystal
clear to the
Committee.
In the
future, in such an era—greater or otherwise—it will be
essential that people are confident that their personal data will be
handled appropriately. Statistical surveys often rely on people giving
their information voluntarily and even when that is not the case,
statisticians need complete and truthful responses on which they can
rely and, indeed, on which we can all rely for further
analysis.
A
statistical system, therefore, needs strong confidentiality safeguards
to give individuals and businesses confidence that their personal
information will not be disclosed improperly to other
partiesfor other purposes. A crucial part of the
board’s maintaining its credibility in collecting, analysing and
publishing data is that there is the highest protection of such
personal
information.
The
Office for National Statistics—indeed, the Government’s
statistical service generally—has a long history of maintaining
data confidentiality and already securely holds information including
that from census returns, information on employees’ earnings and
data on businesses’ profits. However, we are taking the
opportunity in the Bill to increase the confidentiality safeguards and
sanctions on personal data. On safeguards, the data-sharing
arrangements that we propose will be permitted only for statistical
purposes, only where they are judged in the public interest and only
where permitted by the Bill, including the specific exemptions in
clause 36, or by orders under theBill. Any proposed extensions
by order must havethe agreement of Ministers and, most
importantly,the further scrutiny and agreement of Parliament
or the devolved
Administrations.
The
Bill introduces a criminal sanction for the unlawful disclosure of
information concerning both individuals and businesses—whether
held by the board, on members and employees, or by anyone to whom the
board has passed the data on—where that information identifies
an individual or business or where it might allow someone to deduce
their identity. The criminal sanction, which could be up to
twoyears’ imprisonment, is an important addition to the
confidentiality regime for personal information collected by the board.
The confidentiality provisions are structured to allow both the sharing
provided for within the clause—whether current or new
flows—and the necessary exceptions in subsection
(4).
Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): I
strongly support my hon. Friend’s argument and the provisions in
the Bill for the protection of individual data. They are absolutely
right, as is the strengthening of the sanctions, but will the Minister
confirm that it would not be right for people looking at the sharing of
data in the public interest or for statistical purposes to say,
“Oh, I was scared by the sanctions, so I thought it was safest
not to bother considering how to share that information. It was safer
to say no.”? Their obligation will be to balance the pros and
cons and to consider the public interest adequately. The balance needs
to be there, and should be tough on both sides of the
equation.
John
Healey:
My right hon. Friend is right. A balanced judgment
and a tough examination of both sides of the equation, as he put it, is
required from the board, from Departments with which the board is
discussing potential future administrative data-sharing arrangements
and, ultimately, from Ministers. Parliament will have to scrutinise and
agree any proposed extension of data-sharing arrangements, as well as
make judgments on such arrangements and hold to account the cumulative
decisions of Ministers and the proposals and operation of the
board.
My right hon.
Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has brought me neatly
on to consideration of the exceptions in subsection (4). We have heard
in Committee and beyond the House arguments for restricting the
exceptions, such as removing exceptions for court orders or in criminal
investigations, as was proposed in some earlier amendments. I hope that
hon. Members will see such proposals as unrealistic and wrong, but I
appreciate that they may have been confused and misled by some of the
briefings that they have received.
For instance, the Royal
Statistical Society seems to have altered its position at different
stages. When we first published the Bill, the society suggested that
the confidentiality clause should be substantially reduced and
simplified:
“so that all
personal information collected under the authority of the
Board...or transferred to the Board...must not be disclosed
nor used for other
purposes.”
That clearly
does not strike the right balance. It probably then reviewed and
refined its position when it commented on the Opposition amendments.
The Society’s view was that data transfers were essential to
support an efficient and effective statistical system. The key is to
allow such transfers while ensuring that no breach of confidentiality
will occur and that the data will be used only for statistical
purposes. However, it
said:
“amendments 155-174
will have some undesirable
consequences.”
I think
that the society has come now to a better, balanced judgment that I
hope the Committee will want to take into
account.
Clause 36(4)
contains a list of exceptions, which draws on experience of existing
practice, in the case of the Office for National Statistics, and on
experience with confidentiality clauses in other legislation—for
instance, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act
2005.
Julia
Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): Will the
Financial Secretary confirm that there are extensions to the exemptions
list that go beyond the existing
situation?
John
Healey:
It is not clear which exceptions or exemptions the
hon. Lady is concerned about. We have made that list to strike the
right balance, as I have described, between encouraging greater
administrative data sharing, where that is in the public interest, and
ensuring that the proper safeguards are in place, because that will
also be a matter of public concern and interest. The list is drawn from
the experience of the arrangements that the ONS already has in place
and, as I have cited, in respect of our approach in other legislation.
If the hon. Lady has specific concerns about particular exceptions, I
hope that she will contribute to this
debate.
The
confidentiality clause works with the data-sharing provisions later in
the Bill to ensure, first, that our existing data flows can continue,
secondly, that specific extensions can be granted, subject to the
strict safeguards that I have already outlined, and, thirdly, that
there are stronger sanctions for disclosure, meaning that breaches of
the confidentiality obligation are punishable by up to two years
imprisonment. We have designed the clause to get a balanced approach
that takes account of the need for flexibility in future data sharing
and the need for reassurance about the basis on which any personal data
might be used by the
board.
In doing this,
we were, as the Committee would expect, conscious of the human rights
implications of our proposals and sensitive to the need to strike an
appropriate balance between the wider public interest in data sharing
and the rights of the individual. The data-sharing clauses and the
confidentiality clauses are considered, as has been confirmed, to be
compatible with convention rights. The board will be subject to section
6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that public authorities
should act in a way that is compatible with convention rights. In
making any disclosure permitted by provisions of the Bill, the board
will have to consider the compatibility of such disclosures with
convention
rights.
Since the
publication of the Bill, the Information Commissioner’s office
has told the Treasury that the Information Commissioner, who now also
deals with data protection matters—which may formally have been
the responsibility of the Data Protection Registrar—welcomes the
creation of a criminal offence for the illegal disclosure of personal
information under this clause, which he believes should act as a
significant deterrent. He also welcomes the measures in the Bill that
aim to ensure that any personal information required by the board for
the production of statistics is tightly controlled and used only for
the purposes required to exercise its functions. Overall, I understand
that the Information Commissioner welcomes the recognition in the Bill
of the importance of ensuring that personal information is used only
where necessary and that confidentiality is respected. That is, as I
explained at the start, the very essence of the balance that we are
trying to strike.
I
hope that I have given a helpful explanation of our principled approach
in framing the Bill in general and clause 36 in particular. I commend
the clause to the
Committee.
9.15
am
Rob
Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): I urge my hon.
Friend to look at clause 36(5), as I think that it is infelicitously
worded. It says:
“for the
purposes of statistical
research.”
Grammatically,
that
qualifies—
Rob
Marris:
I am asking my hon. Friend tolook again
at subsection (5) because its wording is infelicitous. The phrase
grammatically qualifies the verb “held”, but I think that
it was intended to qualify the noun
“access”.
John
Healey:
As my hon. Friend knows, I always try to avoid
being infelicitous. If he feels that I have been, I am perfectly
prepared to consider his point. It does not strike me immediately as
apt, but I will reflect on
it.
Mr.
Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): Welcome to the Chair, Sir
John. I shall respond to a couple of the Financial Secretary’s
comments. The Conservatives have not sought to press any of the
amendments to this clause that we debated—rather
unsatisfactorily, because of time constraints—on Tuesday
evening.
I return to
one of the exemptions in clause 36 to probe the Financial
Secretary’s thinking a bit more. He set out clearly the
sanctions and safeguards that will give people who pass on personal
information to the board confidence about its use, and listed three
circumstances in which that personal information could be used. One use
is for statistical purposes. I think that we all agree that that is why
the data will be collected in the first place, but I was concerned
about the third exemption. After due parliamentary process, the data
collected by the board could be used by another Department under the
exemption in subsection (4)(a). It concerns me to wonder for what
purpose such data might be used. If subsection (4)(a) were qualified by
the words “for statistical purposes”, I could understand
and accept it, but the exemption is broad. It applies to
disclosures
“required or
permitted by any
enactment”.
I shall give
a scenario to which I should like the Financial Secretary to say how
subsection (4)(a) will
apply.
In the 2011
census, data will be collected on the population of the UK—their
address, personal data and date of birth. In theory, that census data
could be used by enactment as a cross-check against the national
identity database to see whether the database is complete. If people
knew that that was the case, they might be rather reluctant to provide
data for the purpose of the census.
I do not see anything in
subsection (4)(a) that would preclude, subject to parliamentary
scrutiny, the cross-checking of census data against the national
identity database. What limits will apply to that provision? It is
quite broad in its potential use and could apply toany future
enactment or allow data to be released retrospectively without the
consent of the individuals concerned. Will he explain a bit more about
how he foresees the provision being used? There are later exemptions in
the Bill that will allow information to be passed on to Departments for
specific reasons, but it would be useful for the Committee to have
greater clarity about the extent to which he believes subsection (4)(a)
will be
used.
Julia
Goldsworthy:
My first concern is retrospection and whether
information provided on the assumption that it will be confidential
could be used for different purposes under a subsequent enactment. Can
the provision be used for such purposes, or will there be no
retrospection in that respect?
John
Healey:
The hon. Lady’s concern will be dealt with
by the requirements in the Bill to strike the appropriate balance
between greater data sharing and protection of individual
confidentiality and data. Both of these will be ensured by the
safeguards and sanctions contained in the Bill. Any extension of data
sharing arrangements will have to be set out very clearly in any
subsequently proposed order and will be scrutinised by Parliament under
the affirmative procedure—I have ensured that such matters will
be dealt with that way. I expect that such arrangements will be
carefully monitored by the board and, indeed, by the House as they are
implemented. That should give the hon. Lady the reassurance she seeks
and allay the concerns that may lie behind her question.
To the hon. Member for Fareham,
I repeat what I said at the end of our last sitting, which is that
there are no time constraints on consideration of the Bill in
Committee. Happily, the parties reached a shared view on programming
the Committee stage. As I explained on Tuesday evening, Government
Members were prepared to stay as long as necessary to give proper
scrutiny to the clauses we were then considering. Of course, if the
hon. Gentleman thinks that he has not when debating previous amendments
made points that in general terms relate to clause 36, it seems to me
appropriate, with your indulgence, Sir John, that they debated now. I
do not understand his reiteration that time constraints are an
issue.
Subsection
(4)(a) is in the clause simply to take into account other Acts of
Parliament that this House may pass that may affect the arrangements in
the Bill. The limits on the extent of subsection (4)(a) are, in simple
terms, the limits that are set by this House under other Acts of
Parliament. I think if the hon. Gentleman pauses he will recognise that
that is necessary in the context of the Bill; otherwise it could have
legal precedence over any other Act of Parliament and intent of this
House expressed in legislation. When we consider some of the clauses
that relate to the Registrar General, we will examine an example of
existing legislation that sets out certain conditions in which data may
be shared between the Registrar General and, for example, the health
service—in that case, patient records. The purpose of subsection
(4)(a) is to accommodate the circumstances that arise if Parliament
passes legislation that is relevant to the data sharing arrangements in
the Bill but that the Bill is not designed to
override.
I hope with
that explanation all hon. Memberswill be prepared to allow
this clause to stand part of the Bill.
Mr.
Hoban:
Briefly, my concern is that the board and the
statistical process might be used as a conduit for information to pass
to Government Departments in a way that the people who supplied the
data would not expect. The board may be used as a conduit for
information to flow that may be inappropriate in the light of the
reasons why the data were collected in the first place. I still have
concerns about that and it may be an issue that we return to on
Report.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 36
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 26 January 2007 |