Mike
Penning: I want to speak specifically to amendment 161,
with regard to dentists and dentistry. I am sure that the Minister is
aware that if one is a commissioned dentist rather than a salaried
dentist, one’s practice operates completely differently from the
way that other NHS practices work, particularly GP
surgeries. The
amendment ensures that no information about a particular person could
be ascertained from the disclosure of information. That is important,
given that the information about individuals under these circumstances
would be somewhat sensitive. To tease the Minister slightly, the HMRC
does not have a good track record when it comes to losing data. I am
not making a silly point: that concern exists and people are frightened
by the fact that the details of about half the population were
released, accidentally we assume, by HMRC.
I hope that
the Minister will respond. This is a probing amendment and I do not
intend to press it. However, there is a special case for dentists in
that their role within the NHS is different. They are very much the
entrepreneurs in their field. Under the present system, they are paid
by areas of dental activity. They buy or rent their surgery and they
have all their bills upfront. It is completely different from the way
in which the NHS operates in other areas. With that in mind, I am
concerned that, in a time of openness, private information, which would
be very personal to the individuals involved, could be released under
this clause. Will the Minister address those
concerns—specifically on
dentistry?
Mr.
Mike O'Brien: I appreciate the intention behind these
amendments and I share the commitment to safeguarding taxpayer
confidentiality to the greatest extent possible. Confidentiality is a
defining principle of the clause and the measures in place are there
precisely to ensure that information shared by HMRC cannot be
associated with any particular person, whether a dentist or
not.
It may be
helpful if I clarify what the clause, as currently drafted, permits. It
goes further than simply anonymising the information that HMRC may
disclose. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury pointed out, HMRC must also
summarise the anonymised data and may disclose anonymised information
only in such a summarised form. As the identification of a particular
practice would risk identifying a particular individual, which is
already prohibited under the clause, such data could not be disclosed.
HMRC does not release aggregated, anonymised statistics based on fewer
than 30 cases. That figure would be increased if the resulting
statistics were thought to be potentially disclosive.
The hon.
Member for Eddisbury asked what “anonymised” means. The
safeguards mean that there is no possibility whatsoever of any details
or information being linked to any individual or practice, whether
dentistry or
not. Amendment
84 seeks to make HMRC, whenever it discloses any information to any
person providing services to or exercising functions on behalf of UK
Health Ministers, publicise such disclosures, along with reasons
for the disclosure. It is right and proper that we are transparent about
the disclosure of information relating to the earnings and expenses of
GPs and dentists. It is currently only the NHS information centre for
health and social care that receives this anonymised and summarised
information from HMRC. If that changed in the future, the information
would still need to be passed to some appropriate body that was doing
such statistical work. In addition, the information could only ever be
disclosed for one reason, as set out in subsection (2), so there is no
need to specify that in each case. The purpose of the disclosures is
clearly understood by the bodies that represent dentists and GPs, as
both they and the UK Health Ministers use the data to ensure that the
pay of practitioners remains at an appropriate
level. It
is also worth noting that the tax self-assessment forms, which HMRC
provides to dental practitioners and GPs, clearly state that the
information that they submit to HMRC is subject to being used for the
purposes of the earnings and expenses inquiries. When the earnings and
expenses reports on GP and dentist earnings are eventually published by
the NHS information centre, they clearly state that the source of the
data is HMRC and that only aggregate non-disclosive information is
supplied to the NHS information centre. In a sense, there is a cordon
sanitaire between those who supply the information and those who
receive and use it. I do not believe, therefore, that such publication
would provide sufficiently beneficial information on the activities of
HMRC to justify the amendments proposed. I hope that, with those
reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I have listened carefully to the
Minister. He has been categorical in his assurances; he clearly regards
taxpayer confidentiality as paramount to the extent possible. He also
used the phrase “no possibility whatsoever” in relation
to inappropriate information getting
out. There
is no purpose in pressing the amendment to a Division, but it is
important to recognise the issue, in terms of any potential problem
that could arise in the future. We all recognise that any manipulation
of and transactions with information always carry some risk. There have
been plenty of examples in which there has been disclosure, on memory
sticks and other things, which can easily get out, or on a laptop
rather foolishly left in the boot of a car and the car gets stolen.
Those things can cause problems, although it never ceases to amaze me
how people get through the password. There is always that terrible
risk. Once information is used or created for any purpose and taken out
of the cordon that surrounds HMRC, there is a risk.
The Minister
used the phrase “no possibility whatsoever”. That will
provide genuine reassurance but, most importantly, it will be referred
to by anyone who feels that their information has got out. That
commitment on the part of the Government was a significant statement.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move amendment 195, in
clause 35, page 33, line 24, at
end insert— ‘(4A) A person
who discloses information in subsection (1) to persons other than those
listed at section (3) or for purposes other than in subsection (2),
commits an offence.
(4B) An offence under subsection (4A) may in
particular extend
to— (a) Her
Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs; (b) any person listed
under subsection (2); (c) any
employee of any person listed under subsection
(2). (4C) A person guilty of an
offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not
exceeding level 4 on the standard
scale. (4D) A person or persons
to whom the information is disclosed in circumstances under subsection
(4A) has a cause of action for damages, including penalty damages,
against the
discloser.’. The
amendment would ensure that a breach of the terms set out in the Bill
by anyone involved in the information-sharing process is regarded as a
criminal offence. It builds on the matter that we have just discussed.
Any person who shares the information specified under the clause with
people other than those listed should be held to account for their
actions. Given that the Government have managed to share
information—we have to use the word
“illegally”—for four years without facing the
legal ramifications of doing so, but now wish to put the matter right,
it is logical to want the Minister to reinforce that assurance by
saying that any breaches of the new legislation will result in
appropriate legal action. In other words, it would show that what is
being put in place by the Committee is earnest and
genuine. If
employees or other persons in HMRC with information-sharing privileges
feel at liberty to share information in an unprescribed fashion,
knowing that they will not face consequences for their action,
information on doctors on dentists could easily be abused and
exploited. I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let
us know what precautions are being taken to ensure that those who
breach the terms of the clause are held to account. Our amendment gives
him the opportunity to ensure that such a provision is both real and
serious.
Mr.
Mike O'Brien: It is worth noting that section 19 of the
Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 already provides the
sanctions that might be applied for the wrong disclosure of information
by HMRC, including imprisonment or a fine. The clause applies to the
disclosure of information relating to persons whose identity is
specified or can be deduced from the
disclosure. However,
the amendment goes much further. As I have said, the information that
HMRC transferred to the NHS information centre comprises aggregated and
anonymised analyses. Importantly, the whole point of transferring the
information is so that it can be disseminated as set out under clause
35(2)—the purpose of the provision. The most important
safeguards are those restricting the type of data that may be
disclosed, which I have outlined, not to whom it may be subsequently
disseminated. When
the NHS information centre published the data in its anonymised,
summarised form in the earnings and expenses report, it inevitably made
it more widely available than to those persons listed under clause
35(3). The amendment would throw into question the whole dissemination
of the information provided by the NHS information centre, which is the
basis of the negotiations on which salaries are conducted between
dentists, GPs and the Government. It would thwart the whole point of
the clause and prevent the earnings and expenses
report from being made available. Not only would the amendment do
something that I am sure was not intended by the hon. Gentleman, but it
would go too far. We already have safeguards and protections that
prevent non-anonymised data from being disclosed, which include
imprisonment or fine, so the amendment would not be necessary even if
it focused merely on the mischief with which the hon. Gentleman wishes
to
deal. Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: The Minister is right to observe that the
amendment would go beyond what is already in place, but he was
extremely helpful to draw attention to section 19 of the 2005 Act. As I
clearly do not have a copy of the Act on my person, I am grateful to
him for that. The provision contains the sanction that is required. The
amendment is indeed widely drafted, and I accept that it would go too
far. Breaches should have serious consequences and ultimate sanctions
should lie behind the provision to make sure that it keeps
people’s feet to the fire and that they are honest and practice
well rather than sharply or badly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6Repeals
and
revocations 1.45
pm Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Sixth schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: There is little to say other than that
this schedule lists repeals and revocations to eight Acts in addition
to the countless Acts amended through the Bill. Of those eight, six
were passed by the current Government. We are spending a lot of time
correcting previous Acts; I hope that we will have the opportunity to
get them right once and for all, so that we do not have to keep coming
back to them. I would like to place that point on the
record. Question
put and agreed
to. Schedule
6 accordingly agreed
to. Clauses
38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
40Short
title Amendment
proposed: 194, in
clause 40, page 36, leave out lines 30 to
33.—(Mr. Mike
O’Brien.) This amendment leaves out the
common-form provision inserted by the House of Lords at Third Reading
to avoid infringing the financial privileges of the House of
Commons.
Mr.
Stephen O'Brien: Why was the Bill introduced in the upper
House, thus necessitating this amendment? My understanding is that
particularly controversial or detailed Bills may start in the upper
House when it is necessary to bring specialist knowledge to amend their
detail. This Bill is neither controversial—we have had some
points of controversy, but in broad terms it is not regarded as
controversial—nor does it contain detail requiring expert
knowledge. It seems strange that the Bill was introduced in the upper
House, thus we find ourselves faced with this Government amendment. I
look forward to the
explanation.
Mr.
Mike O'Brien: The explanation is simple—the
objective of this Bill is to implement the review set out by my noble
Friend Lord Darzi. He was able to lead the introduction of the Bill,
which was a helpful way of ensuring the smooth passage of, as the
Opposition have indicated, a broadly uncontroversial Bill. In the other
place my noble Friend was in a position to set out the case in broad
terms for the implementation of a review that he
championed.
Mike
Penning: Could the Minister clarify where the ban on the
display of tobacco appears in Lord Darzi’s
review?
Mr.
Mike O'Brien: There are some other issues that have also
been included in the Bill, but most of my noble Friend’s key
provisions and recommendations are included in the Bill and were led by
him in the upper House. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my noble
Friend supports the provisions concerning
tobacco. Amendment
194 agreed
to. Clause
40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
1Purchase
of tobacco on behalf of
children ‘After section 7(2)
of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (sale of tobacco,
etc, to persons under (eighteen))
insert— “(2A) A
person commits an offence if he buys or attempts to buy tobacco on
behalf of an individual aged under
18. (2B) Where a person is
charged with an offence under subsection (2A), it is a defence that he
had taken all reasonable steps to establish the individual’s
age, or that from the individual’s appearance nobody could have
reasonably suspected that the individual was aged under
18. (2C) A person guilty of an
offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine
not exceeding level 5 on the standard
scale.”’.—(Mike
Penning.) Brought
up, and read the First
time.
| 
