| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Page 14, line 10, leave out from 'whether' to 'and' in line 11 and insert 'any of the processing to which the notification relates is assessable processing'.
Page 14, line 12, leave out 'proposed' and insert 'assessable'.
Page 14, line 16, leave out 'processing to which this section applies or would apply' and insert 'assessable processing'.
Page 14, line 18, leave out 'proposed'.
Page 14, line 24, leave out from 'No' to 'shall' and insert 'assessable processing in respect of which a notification
Page 14, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'either' in line 27.
Page 14, line 35, leave out from 'controller' to end of line 37 and insert 'is guilty of an offence'.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 46 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 46.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Clause 26, page 16, line 25, leave out from 'means' to first 'to' in line 26 and insert 'the provisions specified in subsection (3A)'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 narrow the definition of the non-disclosure provisions. Disclosures of personal data are processing for the purposes of the Bill. They must therefore be made in conformity with the data protection principles. The directive and the Bill recognise that it may be necessary to make disclosures in certain circumstances where it is not possible to comply with the principles. The purpose of the non-disclosure exemptions in Part IV is to ensure that such disclosures may be made.
Clause 26(3) as it left this House defined the "non-disclosure provisions" as including all the data protection principles except the seventh principle--which relates to security--to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the disclosure in question. We realised that this went rather too far and meant that we would be providing exemptions from parts of the regime where the directive does not permit us to do so. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 is to bring the definition into line with the directive.
The other amendments in this group do a different, although related, job. Amendment No. 48 refers at paragraph (c) to Clause 12(1) to (3). This means that the non-disclosure exemptions are available in respect of Clause 12(1) to (3) but not Clause 12(4).
Clause 12(1) to (3) provides what amounts to a free-standing right to rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of personal data on the ground of their inaccuracy. In that respect it complements the fourth data protection principle. Where exemptions are provided from the fourth principle, it is necessary also to provide exemption from Clause 12(1) to (3).
But Clause 12(4) does something different. It provides a general remedy of rectification etc., where damage has been suffered and there is a substantial risk of further contravention. In this respect, it complements the general remedial provisions of Clause 11.
At present the Bill provides a number of exemptions from the whole of Clause 12. Where it does so, it is intended only to complement exemption from the fourth principle. There is no basis for disapplying the remedial provisions of Clause 12(4) in these cases.
The effect of these amendments is to remove Clause 12(4) from the scope of the exemption provided by a number of provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
48 Clause 26, page 16, line 27, at end insert--
'(3A) The provisions referred to in subsection (3) are--
(a) the first data protection principle, except to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3,
(b) the second, third, fourth and fifth data protection principles, and
(c) sections 9 and 12(1) to (3).'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
49 Clause 28, page 18, line 7, at end insert--
'(4) Personal data in respect of which the data controller is a relevant authority and which--
(a) consist of a classification applied to the data subject as part of a system of risk assessment which is operated by that authority for either of the following purposes--
(i) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or any imposition of a similar nature, or
(ii) the prevention or detection of crime, or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, where the offence concerned involves any unlawful claim for any payment out of, or any unlawful application of, public funds, and
(b) are processed for either of those purposes,
are exempt from section 7 to the extent to which the exemption is required in the interests of the operation of the system.
(5) In subsection (4)--
"public funds" includes funds provided by any Community institution;
"relevant authority" means--
(a) a government department,
(b) a local authority, or
(c) any other authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit.'.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group which all deal with changes to the subject information exemptions in Part IV and Schedule 7.
The House will recall that at Third Reading it decided to remove from the Bill, against the Government's advice, what was Clause 28(4). That provision would have allowed the Secretary of State by order to specify exemptions from the subject information and non-disclosure provisions. It was included to meet the particular needs of the Inland Revenue. However, the House felt that this provision was insufficiently precise, and lacking in transparency.
The noble Lord will be glad to hear that Amendment No. 49 introduces a narrower exemption, specifically to protect the public purse and hence taxpayers, in place of the former Clause 28(4). I believe that it takes full account of the concerns which were expressed about the previous version.
Since that earlier debate, the Government have done what we said we would do. First, we have carefully reviewed the particular needs of the Inland Revenue and how they might best be met. Secondly, we have reviewed what similar needs exist elsewhere in the public sector--so that we could give a clearer explanation to Parliament of the practical need for the class exemption, and so that we could consider whether the exemption could be set out wholly on the face of the Bill.
As a result, we have decided not to pursue further in this Bill the non-disclosure exemption. On reflection, we accept that, where systematic disclosure of information to government departments is appropriate, we should seek specific statutory powers within the relevant departmental legislation.
On risk assessment, we have concluded that we can deal with this on the face of the Bill in a way that should reassure the House about our intentions. Amendment No. 49 introduces a new, narrowly focused, exemption applying solely to subject access. It applies only to government departments, local authorities and other authorities administering particular benefits and payments. It applies only when they are using risk assessment systems to help collect or protect public funds. Its aim is solely to protect honest taxpayers from fraud and tax evasion.
This exemption is necessary solely to avoid a serious and adverse impact on government departments' work to prevent and detect fraudulent claims for money and to collect sums owed to the Exchequer. We must protect honest taxpayers against the depredations of the dishonest. Moreover, we propose to do so through an amendment which is narrow and clearly targeted: it exempts only risk assessment material not information on the data subject generally. Subject access to other material will continue.
I hope that the House will agree that, in bringing forward this amendment, the Government have had proper regard to the concerns of this House which led it to delete the earlier provision.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 52 to 56. This group of amendments clarifies the subject information exemption which Clause 30 provides for certain regulatory activity in respect of the relevant functions of statutory public sector ombudsmen.
The clause as it stood when it left this House already applied in general terms to the functions of the ombudsmen. But there is a measure of doubt about whether it covered all of their functions which need to be covered. In particular, it is uncertain whether it covered the ombudsmen's functions in relation to deficiencies in the provision of services by public bodies. The purpose of the amendments is to put the matter beyond doubt.
A reference to the new Welsh administration ombudsman has also been introduced in line with developments in the Government of Wales Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page