Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Jonathan Sellors MBE, Legal Counsel and Company Secretary, UK Biobank (DPDIB33)

I said that I would revert in writing on a question that Damian Collins MP raised during the session last week, which was on the definition of 'public health' in the draft bill.  I have set out my response below and would be happy to clarify as needed, best, Jonathan

 

1.      There is no definition of public health per se in the draft bill, but there is a reference to it in the definition of what constitutes "for the purposes of scientific research". 

 

2.      Section 2 of the draft bill addresses the meaning of scientific research, which is contained in three composite parts as insertions 3 and 4 after Article 4 para 2 into (the text of which is drawn from the relevant recital, 159, to the UK GDPR):

 

i )                 processing for the purposes of any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or private funded and whether carried out as a commercial or non-commercial activity; which includes

 

ii)               processing for the purposes of technological development or demonstration, fundamental research or applied, so far as those activities can reasonably be described as scientific; but only includes

 

iii)             processing for the purposes of a study in the area of public health that can reasonably be described as scientific where the study in conducted in the public interest.

 

3.      The following comments may be relevant:

 

-         The more expansive definition of "scientific" research is constructive in that it removes any dividing line between commercial and non-commercial activity – which is not an easy line to draw in practice and further commercial research has equivalent legitimacy and oversight to non-commercial research;

 

-         The definition is both "inclusive", such that particular types of research are not ruled out and expressed to be "can be reasonably described" which introduces an appropriate element of objectivity and pragmatism;

 

-         The caveat on a study in the area of public health that it needs to be in the public interest is already implicit in the area of public health, but there is no detriment to making it explicit (as it would for example preclude a study which – exaggerating to make a point – investigated making  smoking more addictive or a study which investigated stigmatizing certain sub-groups in a population, particularly using genetic markers). 

 

In summary, the expanded definition represents a positive example of constructive incremental change to the prevailing data protection legislation.

17 May 2023