Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1000-1008)
Mr Michael Wills MP and Ms Belinda Crowe
25 JUNE 2008
Q1000 Lord Rowlands: He is funded
from the fees?
Mr Wills: He is funded directly from
the fees and as far as I am aware he feels that is an adequate
resource. In my many discussions with the Information Commissioner
about his funding—I stress the word "many"—he
has never, from memory, complained about the data protection funding
which is separate from the FOI funding. He has frequently raised
issues about his FOI funding but all things to do with money are
slightly complicated and I would just say that we have found an
increase of over ten per cent in the last year at a time when
all government departments are finding their budgets very stretched
indeed, and this Department as well. There are other measures
that we have suggested he might want to take to help clear his
backlog, to do with different ways of running his office which
are under continuing discussion. We have also arranged secondments
from Whitehall departments to help with his human resource; indeed,
there is a secondee from the Ministry of Justice already there.
We recognise his views on this; we are trying to meet them. Freedom
of information is enormously important but that is where the issue
is, not in terms of data protection money.
Q1001 Lord Rowlands: Highlighting
the dual role he has reminds me that in our Canadian discussions
the Canadians were adamant that these roles were basically incompatible,
that there could be a conflict of interest between the FOI role
and the data protection role. They would not have an information
commissioner combining both those roles. Do you think there is
any case for splitting those as well?
Mr Wills: There is always an intellectual
case for changing the machinery of government and public bodies.
I would not say there is no case for it but I have to say I think
he has done a very good job and he and his team do really a very
good job in what are still relatively new areas of public policy.
They have been extremely robust and the way they have operated
has not always been comfortable for Government, but they have
done an excellent job. Richard Thomas and his team are consummate
professionals. Whether as a minister or as a backbencher or as
a citizen I have seen no problems and no conflicts of interests
at all. Belinda has been at this rather longer than I have, would
you agree with that?
Ms Crowe: Yes, I would agree with it
and I believe that Richard himself finds the roles sit quite well
together. Indeed, in many speeches he has made he starts off by
saying that intellectually there might be some inherent tensions
but from a practical point of view this is about a regulator looking
at the way people exercise their information rights on the one
hand openness where appropriate and protection where it is necessary.
Mr Wills: To answer your first question
about the powers, we think he should have more powers and we have
given him more powers. We have given him powers to carry out spot
checks; there are new penalties. When I first met him I asked
him to tell us what he needs and we will do our best to give it.
Q1002 Lord Rowlands: To pursue individual
cases where people have complained about their privacy? Is he
entitled to do that?
Mr Wills: Again we need to look at future
powers in the light of Walport/Thomas. These are precisely the
sorts of areas that we have asked him to look at and new powers
for the Information Commissioner may well be part of what they
recommend. We are very concerned to support him both in terms
of the powers that he has and indeed the money; he plays an invaluable
role in our public life. He personally has been a consummate public
servant of the highest order and so has his team; they do a wonderful
job and we will support them.
Q1003 Lord Norton of Louth: Section
23 of our Data Protection Act makes provision for the appointment
of data protection supervisors in each department with the role
of monitoring independently the department's compliance with the
provisions of the Act. That would probably fit in very much with
what you were saying earlier about a change in culture within
departments. The only problem is that that provision has not been
brought into effect and I wondered what was the reason for that
and whether there is any intention to actually move in that direction.
Mr Wills: Without wishing to evade your
question too far, there is no question that we need to raise our
game. As I said at the beginning technology is changing too fast,
people see the opportunities too vividly and we need to raise
our game; there is no question about that. How we are going to
do that must depend on the result of these reviews. If I were
to come before you in three or four weeks' time I might be able
to discuss the policy in a little bit more detail although I suspect
we will probably have to wait until the autumn for that and I
would be happy to come back and do so. We set up these reviews
precisely because we felt there was a pressing need to review
the way Government operates. They are reporting; we have had interim
reports; they are all going to be out very soon (as I said, the
data handling review is out this afternoon and the rest of them
are not far behind). Once we have them we will make decisions
and I do not think it is a secret to say that things will have
to change.
Q1004 Lord Morris of Aberavon: I
would like to ask you, Minister, about the Gus O'Donnell review
on the loss of personal data by a number of departments regrettably.
We had the interim report and some commitments there regarding
the spot checks and new sanctions. What progress has there been
in implementing these commitments and completing stage two of
the review?
Mr Wills: The review is being published
this afternoon. The Right Honourable Ed Miliband will be standing
up in the House of Commons to make a statement on this very subject.
That is the progress we have made on that. In terms of implementing
it, I cannot speak for all government departments in detail but
we have learned lessons and continue to learn lessons from these
incidents. A lot of them have come to light because departments
have really realised the need to scrutinise their own procedures.
These did not all happen at once; they have come to light precisely
because of the reviews the departments have undertaken into the
way they handle data and they have revealed, as I say, a very
pressing need for change: a change in systems, change in procedures
but above all this change in culture, people just have not taken
the handling of data seriously enough and that has got to change.
It is changing and I think if you go into departments and you
talk to any permanent secretary now this is absolutely at the
top of their agenda; it certainly is in our department.
Q1005 Baroness Quin: My question
to a certain extent follows on from Lord Norton's question in
terms of practice within Government. The Committee looked at practice
in Canada as part of the inquiry and the Department of Justice
there had quite a strong role in examining other departments'
proposals for new data sharing provisions. I think they had departmental
Department of Justice lawyers in each department reporting back
to the Department of Justice itself. This may also be the kind
of issue that the review is looking at, I do not know, but does
the Ministry of Justice at the moment have any analogous role
to this? If not, what do you think about the idea about having
all data sharing proposals vetted by one particular government
office with appropriate expertise and therefore ensuring a greater
degree of compliance and conformity across the system and meeting
the goal of joined-up Government once again?
Mr Wills: In terms of data protection
it does happen pretty much like that. There is an analogous role
here because Belinda and her team do provide that advice and support
for data protection. There is not that role for data sharing at
the moment. Again—I am sorry to keep resorting back to the
reviews—clearly there is a case for that and in practice
what has happened on an ad hoc basis in relation to three particular
policy areas that I can think of Belinda and her team have actually
been extremely helpful to other Whitehall departments in formulating
data sharing proposals and trying to finesse the perception that
data protection prevents as a matter of principle data sharing.
Of course it does not, but there is a cultural change that needs
to happen there. In terms of data protection it happens already
in effect; in terms of data sharing it is happening on an ad hoc
basis but driven very much on a personal level. There is no institutional
mechanism and, as I say, since I have been in this job there have
been three examples where Belinda and her team have worked extremely
hard to help other officials deliver a public policy objective
which depended on data sharing. Free school meals was one of them,
there have been two more recent ones, but it has been personal
rather than institutional. I think the whole burden of what I
have been saying and the burden indeed of the reason why set up
Walport/Thomas was to look at how we could do these things better,
more systemically and systematically. I would be surprised if
there is not movement on this in the next few months, on the data
sharing part of it I am referring to specifically.
Lord Peston: I am lost again; it is obviously
my morning. I cannot work out what happened to Lord Smith's question
because within what I thought he was going to ask I was going
to ask about data sharing in the private sector.
Chairman: Lord Smith thought that the material
had already been covered.
Q1006 Lord Peston: Can I ask then
whether you have a view on access to private sector data? To go
back to something you said earlier, if the Inland Revenue could
share data with the leading supermarkets they could easily check
consumption and expenditure against declared income and come very
close to discovering whether you were fiddling your income tax.
I take it nothing like that takes place.
Mr Wills: No. I come, as you see, with
a very large file. I did read it and as far as I am aware there
is none of this in it. If I may—and Belinda will forgive
me—I will give you my instinctive response.
Q1007 Lord Peston: I am willing not
to have that; you could write to us.
Mr Wills: I think it is a very important
point; because it is a matter of principle I would be extremely
concerned about it. The public and private sectors are completely
different animals.
Q1008 Lord Peston: So there is no
suggestion we are going down that path.
Mr Wills: Certainly not from me.
Chairman: Minister and Ms Crowe, can I thank
you very much indeed on behalf of the Committee for joining us
today and for the evidence you have given us. The Committee will
now deliberate in private.
| 
