| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment requires the deletion of two provisions contained in subsection (4) of new Section 122 of the Social Security Administration Act, introduced by Clause 1, and replaces them with a different provision. The deletions and the insertion have different consequences. The new Section 122 of that Act provides for the disclosure of information by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to the DSS, or the DHSS of Northern Ireland, for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of offences relating to social security or for use in checking the accuracy of information relating to benefits, to contributions, to national insurance numbers or to any matter relating to social security--and, where appropriate, amending or
supplementing such information. Subsection (4) of that section provides that, where information supplied to the department is used to amend or supplement existing social security records, the amended records can be used in the same way as the original social security records could have been used--no more and no less. That covers both the use of those records by the DSS itself and the supply of the information in them to another authority.The purpose of the provision is to make transparent and explicit the status of the information in our records once they have been amended. Let us take, for example, the case where the address of a claimant held by the DSS was incorrect. Information from another department can, under subsection (2), be supplied for use in the detection of fraud and in checking the accuracy of existing social security information. The check reveals the incorrectness of the data the DSS already holds and in those circumstances it would be appropriate, under the provision in subsection (2), to amend the social security records. The provision in subsection (4) makes it clear that the new address information can be used in just the same way as the old, incorrect address. For instance, there are existing powers for the DSS to supply social security information to local authorities for the purposes of the administration of housing benefit. If the address is normally part of the information supplied, then the DSS can supply the new address, not the old one. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that that is only right and proper. Similarly, the Benefits Agency could use the new address and not the old address for benefit payments and other correspondence.
I now turn to what the amendment inserts. It appears to be intended to allow, but not require, the Department of Social Security or the Northern Ireland department to inform the Inland Revenue or HM Customs and Excise if, as a result of comparing the data they have supplied with the data the DSS already hold, it appears that it is their information that is incorrect. The Finance Bill, currently under consideration in another place, contains a provision which would, in these circumstances and a limited number of others, make it lawful to allow the DSS to supply information to the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise. So, if information that they have given us is wrong, the Finance Bill will allow us to tell them so--and tell them what the correct information is. Therefore, an amendment to this Bill, which would in effect be permitting a disclosure of information for purposes unrelated to social security, is unnecessary. The amendment in the Finance Bill deals with the point raised. I should add that the information of most use to the DSS in checking its records is information which is likely to be more accurate than that which we already hold. I suppose that that is probably a self-evident truth.
I turn now to the difficult questions as regards the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Recommendation R(86)1 deals with the passing on of social security information for other than social security purposes. That is not actually relevant to the Bill because Clauses 1 and 2 are concerned with the gathering of non-social security information from other government departments for social security purposes rather than the passing on of social security information.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, it is correct to say that this is only a recommendation and it does not have the force of law within the United Kingdom. However, that is another matter.If we take, for example, local authorities, any information passed under Clause 3 to a local authority administering housing benefit is, of course, clearly for social security purposes because it is for administering housing benefit or council tax benefit. I hope that I have explained the position clearly and that I have also explained the interrelationship between this Bill and the Finance Bill which is going through its paces in another place. I suspect that shortly it will make a brief appearance in this Chamber, as is the way with such Bills·
Earl Russell: Perhaps the Minister could give me a few words of clarification. He said that information under Clause 1 was to be supplied only for social security purposes. I take the Minister's point about housing benefit, but what about information relating to contributions or national insurance numbers? There must be case law in that respect. Is that a social security purpose?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I imagine that it is because the collection of social security contributions, the NICs, by the Contributions Agency is indeed a social security purpose. I cannot imagine that anyone would think that it is anything other than a social security purpose. Indeed, it is to help fund the system for a start and it is also to help build up each of our records so that our entitlement to benefit at some day in the future is established and on the record.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read his comments in Hansard with interest to ensure that he responded fully to all the points that I raised. Once I have read his reply, I shall be able to make a decision as to whether to bring the amendment back at a later stage. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 9:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 9 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 38 and 42 which are the same amendment inserted into different parts of the Bill. I wish to unlink Amendment No. 16 from this group which deals with a different aspect of the issue of correct information. I am sure it will be pleasurable for the Committee to hear that I shall speak briefly.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the data subject is protected from the supply by the DSS to other bodies of inaccurate information. It requires that the DSS keeps records of those to whom that personal data is disclosed so that should there be any subsequent correction needed that can then be disclosed to other bodies. I believe that this matter will be covered in due course by the EU data protection directive, but as that has a three-year lead time we felt it was wrong to wait for so long.
We believe that people should not be vulnerable to a situation where bodies to which the DSS has passed inaccurate or--this is more likely--out of date information do not have that information subsequently corrected or updated because the DSS has not kept records of where that information went. We do not envisage that this amendment would present any practical problems as one of the design features of new systems is that they can keep a log on who has been supplied with what. We must put mechanisms in place to ensure that individuals are protected from the adverse effects of the exchange of inaccurate data. This is obviously a probing amendment but can the Minister tell us what he has in mind to avoid such a situation occurring? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I once unwisely took a mortgage from an American bank--
Earl Russell: No, it was not in dollars. It is a bank we are informed never sleeps. To my certain knowledge that information is incorrect. I subsequently paid off that mortgage. Fortunately I did so through my lawyer. I then received a threat of proceedings for not having paid the next instalment on the mortgage which I had paid off. My lawyer within the limits of his skill attempted to put this right. I then received a further threat of proceedings and despite all the skills of which my lawyer was possessed--and they were considerable--we received another three demands threatening proceedings before he could get it into the head of that bank that the mortgage was no longer in existence. I do not suggest that the Department of Social Security is in the habit of making mistakes along that line but no one is infallible. Inaccurate information can be spread around and by electronic means it can be spread very fast.
If information that I was risking proceedings for not paying my due debts had been spread around to various quarters--suppose, for example, it had come into the hands of the national press--it would not have caused me great pleasure, to put it no higher. If information that someone is cheating the benefits system comes into the hands of, say, potential employers among others, it might cause a great deal of damage. People should know to whom such inaccurate information has been supplied.
There have been plenty of cases of people who have put in applications for credit--people who are perfectly credit worthy with a perfectly clean record--and who have been refused without a moment's explanation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If my store of historical stories was anything like as good as that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I have no doubt I could dig up an historical story about the foolish Earl. Suffice to say that putting one's money in an American bank when one could have found a perfectly good Scottish one does not seem a sensible thing to do.
However, I turn to the amendments. The effect of these amendments appears to be to require that where departments--either my own or the Northern Ireland department, or an authority administering housing benefit, or a contractor to any of these--have been supplied with personal data and that information is later found to be incorrect, the subject of that information should have a right to know to whom that incorrect data has been supplied, and to require corrections to be made to that data.
As the noble Baroness has explained, the intention behind this amendment is that if an error is found in personal information held by one body, then the individual concerned should be able to know which other body or bodies might have received the incorrect personal details. The aggrieved individual would also have the right to require any corrections to be supplied to anybody who had received the incorrect data (or indeed had provided it in the first place).
I am sure that it is common ground that as far as possible inconvenience or distress to an individual arising from the use of incorrect information should be avoided. But most of what is sought can be achieved by existing means. Of course, no government department or local authority would deliberately hold or use or disclose information knowing it to be incorrect. To do so would not be sensible and would in any event be a breach of the fifth data protection principle which we discussed earlier and which states:
If an error is discovered, in many cases the correction will be automatic. Within the department many of our computer systems send a copy of any change of information to those of our other computer systems which have previously indicated that they are relying on the original information to pay a claim. A correction of previously incorrect information is simply a change, which can be promulgated through our systems in the normal way. Depending on the outcome of the studies now under way into an IT strategy for housing benefit, it is possible that local authority housing benefit administration would be treated in a similar way, and the powers in new Section 122C are designed to enable that to happen.
However, backtracing--if I may describe it in that way--the path of a single piece of information through the social security system--both the computerised parts and the clerical parts--would be a mammoth undertaking. To do so for every individual piece of information which is found to be incorrect would simply be impractical and certainly immensely costly. In practice there is a range of safeguards available already which mean that the vast majority of such cases will be found and corrected any way.
First, the claimant can simply ask the DSS or the local authority to check that the information is right. Secondly, a claimant can appeal if he believes that his benefit assessment is wrong or has been based on incorrect information--and if there is any change in benefit entitlement the adjudication officer must inform the claimant of the decisions and the reasons for it.
Thirdly, the Data Protection Act gives an individual the right to ask to see the information which is held about him. He can then ask for it to be corrected and if the data holder refuses to do so the individual can complain to the Data Protection Registrar on the grounds of a breach of the fifth principle or ask a court to order the data to be corrected under the provisions in Section 24 of the Data Protection Act. Fourthly, changes to information--whether they are correcting a past mistake or simply a change of circumstances--are in many cases already promulgated to other parts of the social security system with a need to know. In addition, Section 22 of the Data Protection Act gives data subjects a right to claim compensation for damage or distress as a result of inaccurate data.
I understand the noble Baroness's concern and the concern expressed by the noble Earl that individuals should not be disadvantaged because incorrect information has been passed. We share that concern. I hope that what I have said will show that when we have these corrections of data we do as much as we possibly can to pass them on, and that the additional provision which the noble Baroness seeks would add little; and that backtracking, perhaps on data which had been held for some time, would be difficult. It would be difficult to find out where that data had gone during the course of their life on our files.
I remind the Committee that one of the uses of information technology set out in the Bill is to check records and amend them as necessary. As a result of the measures in the Bill, I believe that our records will become much more accurate. I am confident that any problems arising from incorrect social security records will decrease over time. Where exceptionally a customer is disadvantaged, existing arrangements will continue to allow matters to be put right quickly in one, or perhaps more, of the four ways that I illustrated in my response.
With that explanation of how we deal with incorrect information currently and how we shall continue to deal with it, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw the amendment.
Page 2, line 25, at end insert--
("(6) Where inaccurate information has been supplied to any person or body under this section, and where such information is also personal data (as defined in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1984), the data subject (as defined in section 1 of that Act) shall have the right to know the identity of that person or body to whom the inaccurate data have been supplied, and to require any correction to the data to be supplied to that person or body.").
7.15 p.m.
"Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date."
Despite the discussions we had earlier about the two principal reasons or justifications for the Bill--if I can express it that way--I think we are probably all agreed that personal data should be accurate and kept up to date. Indeed, the provisions in the Bill which will allow information to be used to check the accuracy of social security records already held should lead to more complete and up to date information being used
throughout the social security system. Genuine claimants will benefit; the taxpayer will benefit; only the fraudster will lose.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page