 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Pensions |
Pensions Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Mark Hutton, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 February 2008(Afternoon)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Pensions BillNew Clause 7Role
of the Information
Commissioner
‘(1) The
Information Commissioner shall have full jurisdiction over the workings
of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority and the Pensions
Regulator.
(2) The Secretary of
State must prepare, and keep under review, a code of practice with
respect to the disclosure of information relating to pensions by public
authorities.
(3) Before
preparing or altering the code, the Secretary of State must
consult—
(a) any
specified public authority;
(b)
the Information Commissioner;
and
(c) such other persons as
the Secretary of State considers
appropriate.
(4) A public
authority must have regard to the code in (or in connection with)
disclosing information relating to
pensions.
(5) Nothing in this
section applies in relation to any disclosure by a relevant public
authority of information whose subject-matter is a matter about which
provision would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish
Parliament if it were included in an Act of the Scottish
Parliament.
(6) The Secretary
of State must—
(a) lay a
copy of the code, and of any alterations to it, before Parliament;
and
(b) from time to time
publish the code as for the time being in
force.’.—[Paul
Rowen.]
Motion
made [this day], That the clause be read a Second
Time.
1
pm
“We will
give the Information Commissioner the power to spot-check Departments,
to do everything in his power and our power to secure the protection of
data. In other words, we will do everything in our power to make sure
data are safe.”
That was
the statement he made following the very shocking loss of information
from HMRC.
What this
new clause does is to set up a mechanism for ensuring that the
Information Commissioner has a role in protecting data. Over 6 million
people will be signing up for personal accounts. The pensions
authorities will therefore have a considerable number of personal
details about these people, and it is quite important that this
information is protected. The code
of practice that this clause sets up will enable a dialogue to take
place between the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner
on what sort of changes in attitude the Information Commissioner wishes
to see from Departments like the DWP to ensure that data are
protected.
Perhaps I
should remind members what the House of Commons Justice Committee had
to say in its report earlier this year. They pointed out that the Data
Protection Act 1998 applies to private organisations and individuals
and they can be held criminally liable if data are lost. But it does
not currently apply to Government Departments. On 3 January, the
Information Commissioner, Sir Richard Thomas, said in response to this
that losing data should be a criminal offence. New clause 7 does not
introduce that: that presumably will come when the reviews by the
chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Information Commissioner,
set up by the Prime Minister, are
published.
What this
new clause does do—and I think it is an important clause and the
sort of clause that should apply to all public bills which grant
Government Departments more access to private individuals’
information—is require the Department and other bodies it sets
up to think very clearly how that data should be handled. I think that
is a fair and reasonable
point.
To quote from
the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), about the scale of the
problem at the
moment:
“The
scale of the data loss by Government bodies and contractors is truly
shocking. But the evidence we have had points to further hidden
problems. It is frankly incredible, for example, that the measures
Revenue and Customs has put in place were not already standard
procedure.”
This particular new clause has
a requirement that there is a set of standard procedures for handling
data loss relating to personal accounts before the pensions authorities
actually begin to collect that data. So we are saying very clearly at
the beginning that we regard this as vital and so important that we
have sought to include the clause in the Bill. I do not see why the
Minister cannot support that.
I hope that the review will
introduce criminal charges for Departments that lose data, but we are
proposing setting a standard and saying that, in future, when the DWP
is collecting data—in this case about pensions—there will
be clear guidance. People, including the Information Commissioner, will
be involved in setting out that guidance, and it will follow from the
review that there will be consequences if that personal data is not
adequately protected. By having a code of practice, following up the
review that the Prime Minister has commissioned and having legislation
that makes data loss a criminal offence for Departments, we can provide
people with a level of security for their personal data which they are
not getting at the moment, and to which I believe they are
entitled.
The
Minister for Pensions Reform (Mr. Mike
O'Brien):
I have no problem with the broad thrust of the
hon. Gentleman’s proposal: that the Information Commissioner
should be able to cover this, and that the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and data protection
provisions will apply in the normal way. They already do. We do not need
this. That is the problem. The Government already have the necessary
provisions in place. Indeed, section 44 of the Bill strengthens the
sanctions for unlawful disclosure of personal data by staff of the
Pensions Regulator. These sanctions will extend to the delivery
authority in the event that it is required to handle personal data on
the regulator’s behalf. Our view is that the measures in the
hon. Gentleman’s amendment will generally replicate safeguards
already in place. The Information Commissioner already has powers to
oversee the data handling of all present and future data controllers
including the regulator, the scheme, and also the delivery authority if
it becomes responsible for any personal
data.
Under section 51
of the 2000 Act, it is the duty of the Information Commissioner
to
“promote the following
of good practice by data controllers and in particular so to perform
his functions under the Act as to promote the observance of the
requirements of this Act by data
controllers.”
The
commissioner has a legal duty which involves promoting the use of codes
of practice for data protection, and is keen to be involved in further
developing and amending them. It is in fact the commissioner who will
do a lot of work to develop those
codes.
Paul
Rowen:
I was listening with interest to what the Minister
said. Is he aware of clause 71 of the Serious Crime Act 2007? It is
relevant because my new clause is modelled on it. In other words, in a
Bill that has just gone through the House, the Government have put in
place very clear and explicit arrangements—in this case the code
of practice for disclosures of information to prevent fraud. The Home
Office has said very clearly that it will draw up a clear code of
practice in conjunction with the Information Commissioner. It is not
just relying on existing legislation, it is actually making a clear
statement. If that is Government policy in the Home Office, does the
Minister not accept that there is a very clear case for doing it here,
which is what our amendment seeks to
do?
Mr.
O'Brien:
The problem is that in respect of the area we are
now covering—the pensions legislation and the bodies it is
setting up—the Pensions Regulator and the DWP already have
documents which are effective codes of practice. We work closely with
the Information Commissioner in ensuring that they give full coverage.
I say very clearly to the hon. Gentleman that we are satisfied, and the
advice I have been given is, that PADA, the Personal Accounts Board
that we are setting up, the Pensions Regulator and the Department are
already covered. We do not need the new clause. Further, we have
consulted the Information Commissioner; he has indicated that he is not
seeking a statutory code of practice on the matter in addition to what
he already has.
In
effect, the Liberal Democrats are offering something that is not only
covered by existing legislation but is not particularly wanted by the
Information Commissioner. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman
is duly reassured that what he is seeking to do is not in
dispute—in the broad thrust at
least, although I might quarrel with some of the detail. The broad
thrust is not in dispute and is already covered. If the hon. Gentleman
looks at the detail, he will find that what he seeks is already,
generally, going to
happen.
Paul
Rowen:
I listened carefully to the Minister and cannot say
that I am reassured, because the DWP’s record in the area is
hardly
exemplary.
Mr.
O'Brien:
What record is the hon. Gentleman referring to?
HMRC is not part of the DWP, but of a different Department. I am not
sure what his “record” of the DWP specifically is. There
have been one or two issues, but they have not been on the scale that
he seems to be alluding
to.
Paul
Rowen:
The Minister is aware of the data found on the
roundabout in Torbay. I regard any loss of data, whether on 1 million
people or on 10, as a serious issue. My view is that, yes, there are
codes of practice across Government as a whole that are not operating
to the level of security that they should be. Accepting that, I am more
reassured by what the Information Commissioner said and I am sure that
when we get the Prime Minister’s review we will have a further
opportunity to pursue the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New Clause 17Terminally
ill claimants and the Pension Protection
Fund
‘(1) Where the Board is
satisfied that a qualifying member is “terminally ill”,
that member, regardless of whether they have reached normal pension
age, shall be entitled to a lump sum payment of an amount equal to
twice what would be their annual entitlement under the scheme if they
retired at normal pension
age.
(2) A person is
“terminally ill” at any time if at that time they suffer
from a progressive disease and their death in consequence of that
disease can reasonably be expected within 6
months.’.—[Mr.
Borrow.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
The clause is a
modest one, which aims to deal with an anomaly in the Pension
Protection Fund legislation. The issue was first raised by my hon.
Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who is my own
Member of Parliament, in a ten-minute Bill debate in the House on 17
October last year. He raised the issue of members whose pension schemes
have become insolvent and who are therefore reliant on the Pension
Protection Fund for their future pensions but who, because they are
under the age of 50, are barred by the rules from access to the funds
in that fund. A small group of individuals, under their schemes that
went insolvent, therefore necessitating the use of the Pension
Protection Fund, had a provision that would have sometimes allowed them
to have access to funds prior to the age of 50, particularly in those
instances where they were terminally ill.
Generally the provision is for
individuals who are medically certificated as having less than six
months to live to have access to a lump sum. A similar provision exists
within the financial assistance scheme, which was set up for those
pension schemes that went insolvent prior to the Pension Protection
Fund being set up. However, the provision is not at the moment in place
for the Pension Protection Fund. A small number of individuals
unfortunately reliant on the fund will find themselves to be terminally
ill but unable to access any funds at all. Most final salary schemes
recognise that, in such circumstances, it is reasonable to make a lump
sum payment to help with the additional costs—heating, lighting,
special food or diet and even that special family holiday that the
individual would want in the final months of
life.
1.15
pm
The provision
would enable the board of the Pension Protection Fund to make a payment
of two years’ worth of the pension that the individual would
have been entitled to had he or she retired at the normal retirement
age. It is a modest and not very expensive provision. It has been
difficult to work out the number of individuals who have claimed such a
provision within the financial assistance scheme because the numbers
are so small. The issue has been overlooked, and I hope that my hon.
and learned Friend will look favourably on the new
clause.
Mr.
O'Brien:
I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is the
important issue of a small number of people who are terminally ill and
for whom the sort of financial security that might have been available
from their pension scheme is not available from the PPF. It was
raised—as he said—in a ten-minute Bill last October by
our hon. Friend the Member for Preston. There are strong arguments for
change and I welcome discussion of the
issue.
Since the
matter was first raised, my officials and I have been considering
whether it would be possible to ensure early access to some of an
individual’s compensation entitlement should they fall
terminally ill before they reach normal retirement age or normal
pension age. We still need to address some issues before we can make
such a change to the PPF. We would need to ensure that changes that
increased liabilities for the PPF were sensible and affordable. It is
vital that the PPF maintain the confidence of other schemes that fund
it through the levies. Any increased costs would need to be justifiable
and not lead to disproportionate increases in the
levies.
We also need
to ensure that any changes do not place inappropriate burdens on the
PPF, for example by requiring it to make difficult decisions about
entitlements, which could lead to disputes or to a protracted
decision-making process. Currently, eligibility for PPF compensation
does not require the PPF to make those sorts of decisions and the
Government believe that it is important for the good running of the
fund that that should not
change.
I therefore
see merit in the proposals set out in new clause 17, because the test
for entitlement could be applied using existing mechanisms to quickly
and
effectively make decisions on terminal illness; also because the small
number of people who might become terminally ill would receive a
significant sum—an average of around £10,000—while
limiting the cost to the PPF, and therefore the impact on levy payers.
The scheme envisaged by the new clause therefore appears to have found
a suitable
balance.
There are,
however, some additional details that need to be considered, for
example the impact on possible future compensation paid to survivors. I
therefore welcome the opportunity to consider in more detail the
proposals in the new clause with a view, I hope, to returning to the
issue at a later stage of the Bill. At that point, I hope we will be in
a position to bring forward a clear clause that ensures that we are
able to deal with this lacuna, this gap in provision. I want to see
that gap filled in due course. I hope that we will have a more positive
response at a later
stage.
Mr.
Borrow:
I am grateful for the comments of my hon. and
learned Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston
will raise the issue later in the proceedings, possibly on the floor of
the House where he can participate fully in the discussions. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause
, by leave,
withdraw.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 22 February 2008 |