| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: I do not see any inconsistency in saying: "I accept an objective if it is legal but not if it is not". I asked the Minister a specific question, to which he ought to have an answer: under which head of Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights does he believe he has a good defence? If he can answer that, we can progress.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have already explained that I believe that we have our defences. If Liberty takes us to court eventually, we shall pray the defences then.
Earl Russell: Is the Minister admitting that he does not know under which head the defence is to be offered? If so, I do not see how he can get the drafting of the Bill right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: At the risk of going over it all again, the point about the two amendments has everything to do with data matching. The amendments say that you are not allowed to data match unless there is doubt, going back to the specific words, about the "individual's entitlement to benefit".
We do not know about that until the data matching is complete. I do not know how many times I shall have to make the point about the two amendments.I also made the point, which I repeat, that I am sure that the noble Earl is not trying to tell me that the European Court of Human Rights is going to challenge our right to collect contributions from Class 4 contributors and their taxes simultaneously and that the Inland Revenue will then give information to the Contributions Agency about the individual's Class 4 contributions. I hear nothing from the noble Earl to suggest that he does not agree with the proposition contained in his amendment.
We must address the amendments before the Committee and not go off on European Court of Human Rights issues. If the noble Earl wishes to put down amendments about that, he is free to do so and he ought to do so. However, I am trying to address the amendments and what they would do to the Bill. I have explained what they would do and I do not honestly think that the noble Earl would have much support if he wanted to limit data matching to a minor extent, to a small amount of data matching which would be allowed under the noble Earl's amendments.
On the more general point, Article 8(2) provides a number of justifications for any interference with privacy under paragraph (1) of the article. As I said earlier three times, we are satisfied that the activities under the Bill will meet the justifications. I do not think it is any secret that the prevention of crime seems to provide a pretty good justification. However, we may also in the DSS seek reliance on the economic well-being of the country and perhaps of others. I mentioned one other earlier. Those are the kind of grounds, and I shall not specify them further. The amendments before us would be extremely damaging to the principle of data matching.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me that reply. I am sorry that I had to prolong the time of the Committee in order to obtain it. Now that I have got it, I am happy to withdraw my amendment, and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Davidson): Before calling Amendment No. 5, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with a related point on which I shall not need to expand again. We are dealing with the question of whether what we are doing is in accord with Article 8 of the European convention, whether it is restricted to the purpose of fighting crime or whether, as the Minister suggested, it may be for the economic well-being of the country. I should be interested to hear him develop the case.
I am not convinced that matching the accuracy of data is a convention purpose. I am not an expert in the matter; I am ready to be corrected. If the Minister believes that I am wrong in not being so convinced, I should be grateful if he would tell me why. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendments seek to limit the uses which could be made of information supplied by the tax authorities or other government departments under provisions introduced by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. They would also limit the uses which could be made of the information supplied by one local authority to another, which is an important aspect in countering landlord and landlord and tenant joint benefit fraud.
The Government agree that it is important that, where information is supplied under the powers in the Bill, the uses to which it can be put should be explicit, precise and necessary. In the case of information supplied by the tax authorities or other government departments or from one local authority to another, the Bill specifies on the face of it that the information may be used for only two purposes: the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences relating to social security; and the checking of the accuracy of social security information and, where appropriate, amending or supplementing it. Where the use is by a local authority, the use is further and quite properly limited in the application of those purposes to housing benefit and council tax benefit, which are the only social security benefits administered by local authorities. The value of the first purpose is obvious and I have already explained that we believe that it makes it entirely consistent with the European convention. It enables relevant information from another source to be used to prevent and detect benefit fraud. By comparing the information used to calculate benefit entitlement with relevant information from another source, it is expected that some people who are committing fraud will be caught--and that many others who might contemplate fraud will be deterred.
However, the second purpose for which information supplied can be used is also important. There are three reasons. First, data matching does not itself detect fraud. All that it does is show that there is an inconsistency between two sets of data about the same subject. An inconsistency might be indicative of fraud; but it also might simply be that one of the sets of data is inaccurate, out of date or incomplete. Further manual checking, and where necessary investigation, will show which it is. Where the inconsistency is due to inaccurate or incomplete data, it seems to me clearly right that the data should be amended or supplemented so that they are correct. One of the important things about data held on all of us is that they should at least be correct. Many people worry that in fact they may not be correct. So I feel that it is absolutely sensible that when we find that the data are incorrect, we should have the power to correct
Secondly, even where there is no immediate suspicion of fraud, there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that social security records are accurate. They are used as the basis for payments amounting, as I said earlier, to around 30 per cent. of public expenditure and embody present and future entitlements for many millions of people. Accurate and reliable data make it much more likely that attempted frauds will be detected; conversely there are ways in which fraudsters can exploit incorrect or out-of-date social security records to perpetrate new frauds.
Thirdly, the ability to check and, where appropriate, amend or supplement social security information will help ensure that social security authorities conform with the fifth data protection principle set out in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act:
It is hard to believe that there is any legitimate interest in an individual having incorrect data in his or her social security record. Incorrect data can lead to errors in payments or in the handling of current or future claims if they are in a contributions record; and may lead to an individual wrongly coming under suspicion of fraud. We have heard much about the individual's right to privacy. But it is hard to believe that the man or woman in the street would place much value on "the right to have wrong information held about them". Indeed, other amendments tabled from the Benches opposite seek to extend the provisions for the correction of inaccurate information.
The noble Earl's amendments would leave social security authorities without the power to correct data that they knew to be wrong. That would be an absurd position and the public would regard it as nonsense. The amendments would prevent the use of data from tax authorities and other government departments to improve the accuracy of social security records, allowing opportunities for fraudsters and errors in handling the cases of bona fide claimants.
I hope that the noble Earl will see that the powers in the Bill are necessary, proportionate and in the public interest and--harking back to his theme--that these are protections under Article 8(2).
Earl Russell: More and more the Minister reminds me of me defending myself to the constable when I was speeding on the way to work. Facing an argument of legality, he comes back with an argument of convenience. I can see that it is convenient to be able to do what he suggests, just as it was convenient for me to get to work on time, if I could. But it does not make it legal. If he wishes, the Minister is
Page 1, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2.
"Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page