| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I believe I did say that the point we are talking about was after information has been collected but before prosecution may be instigated. At that point the person being investigated should have the right to comment on the accuracy of the data held.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness very much. That confirms me in my judgment that her amendment is better than mine and therefore I am happy to support it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment would modify new Section 116A of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act introduced by Clause 1 of this Bill. However, as we have heard, the issue goes a good deal wider than that.
The amendment would require that in each case where information has been supplied by the Inland Revenue, and after any necessary investigations have taken place, the person who is the subject of the information must be given a copy of the information for the purpose of allowing comments on its accuracy. As drafted, the amendment applies to the information supplied about any individual, whether or not use of the information for the purposes specified in the relevant section had actually resulted in an investigation. The proposition is a simple one: if relevant information about a person has been supplied to the Department of Social Security, a copy must also be supplied to that person.
The proposition is not only simple; it is also unnecessary and potentially very costly for the taxpayer. It is unnecessary because each individual already has a right, under the Data Protection Act, to ask for a copy of the details of personal data held about them on computers. The DSS provides print-outs of information held on all its computer systems on request. The requests are handled by the central Data Protection Unit, located in the Contributions Agency, which deals with all requests on behalf of the department. Individuals who want a copy of the information held about them may write to any DSS office. Although the Data Protection Act allows data users to levy a charge of up to £10 per request, the department makes the information available free of charge. The Act provides that the data user must respond to a request within 40 days of receipt. Similar arrangements apply in Northern Ireland.
The amendment is clearly concerned with the possibility that the information which has been supplied to the Department of Social Security might not be correct, and that the individual concerned should have an opportunity to comment on its accuracy. In the normal course of business we will normally contact individuals where there is an inconsistency or incompatibility of information which cannot easily be resolved; for example, where contributions have been paid at the wrong rate, or by a person who does not appear to be liable to pay contributions, or where the information from the tax authorities is inconsistent with the information given on a benefit claim. But to require a notification to the individual in every case where information was received--even in cases, which I suspect will be the vast majority, where the information is correct and is consistent with social security information already held--would be exceptionally expensive and, I would suggest, in many cases be just an irritation to contributors and claimants. For instance, the vast majority of information passed to the DSS and Northern Ireland department for use in relation to contributions is information about the amount of contributions which the individual's employer has deducted from their earnings under the PAYE arrangements along with income tax. For the UK as a whole, about 45 million items a year are posted to over 20 million individual NI accounts using information supplied by the Inland Revenue.
The amendment would require the DSS to notify each and every one of these individuals of the details provided by the Inland Revenue in order to enable them to check its accuracy. From the fact that the noble Baroness is shaking her head, I assume that the Opposition do not intend the amendment to do that, but I believe that that would be one of its unintended consequences. There is a problem because the Department of Social Security encompasses the national insurance contributions system. We get a lot of information from the revenue because we team up to collect the information. I do not think that that--
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am perfectly willing to concede that the amendment may be defective, but I did not think that it was quite as ambiguous as the Minister has suggested. The amendment refers to,
- "the person to whom it relates, after the completion of any investigation to which the information is relevant".
The amendment is very much focused on the point at which one might start a prosecution. We are seeking to ensure that before a prosecution is mounted, the person suspected of fraud should have the right to check the accuracy of the information. I should have thought that the Minister would say that that was a good idea.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly--
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the amendment did not convey that, I can only apologise because that was our intention.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly, we read the amendment rather wider than the noble Baroness had intended. I accept that, so I shall leave my points about the Contributions Agency and go on to say that we are, however, all agreed about the need to ensure that the data held is correct, and that it should be accessible in accordance with the Data Protection Act. I appreciate what the noble Baroness said and that it is in no way her intention to force us to tell somebody about their data when we are in the midst of an investigation into a possible fraud. I understand entirely the point which the noble Baroness made during her intervention.
However, I believe that the amendment would prove unnecessarily expensive. It would mean that we were writing to people to say that the investigation was fairly straightforward and that although an error was discovered, we know that there was no fraudulent intent. I am not entirely sure that it is a sensible use of our resources to insist that we send a notification to everyone who is investigated when inconsistent data is found after data matching. Where it is necessary to contact the individual concerned, we shall, of course, do that. In fact, many individuals may well be contacted because that will be the quickest and easiest way to check the data. However, most people will not hear anything from us, which will simply mean that their records are all square and that there are no problems other than perhaps a few minor spelling errors, about which we shall not bother them, but which we shall take into account when making corrections. I accept that the noble Baroness would not want to require us to inform people of that.
Although the numbers informed would be considerably lower than I thought initially, I still think that the amendment would add to the workload of the department. It could be costly to the taxpayer because it could mean that a fair number of people--it is difficult to say how many--would have to have a letter sent to them telling them that we have looked into their records because we had found a contradiction but that we are now satisfied that those are their proper records. I do not want to carry on if--
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise to the Minister. This is my fault--either in terms of the drafting of the amendment or my introduction of it. That was not the import of the amendment. As the Minister
is usually so much better than I am at explaining my amendments, it is unusual for there to be such a passing of ships in the night.The intent is that where the relevant authority--the DSS or the local authority--believes that the information that it has collected is sufficient to justify a prosecution but where the prosecution has not yet been formally instigated, the person suspected should have the right to review the information for accuracy. It may well be the case that there was a culpable or even a non-culpable error which can be explained and the prosecution may not need to be proceeded with, in which case a lot of fuss, bother and effort will be obviated.
However, this is a matter of simple natural justice. It is almost like the defence having the right to see the prosecution's information. However, local authorities want that revelation of information to occur only when the investigation has been fully completed and at the point when the prosecution would otherwise be about to be mounted. This would ensure that the person being investigated is not tipped off early because the information is shown to him incrementally, thus perhaps voiding the attempt at prosecution. I wonder whether the Minister accepts that what we are trying to do is virtuous. I think that he probably does.
Perhaps it might be sensible for me now to withdraw the amendment and perhaps the Minister will invite me to come back at a later stage with another amendment or he may prefer to return with an amendment of his own. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would like to contribute and invite the Minister to comment--
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page