Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

Let me begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we would never be so arrogant as to suggest that a Bill we introduced was absolutely perfect. As proof, with regard to this particular Bill, he will know that we accepted some Opposition amendments in another place. Improvements have been effected. We approach all our work with undue modesty. That does not mean that I will accept every amendment that is tabled and I am not going to accept either of these, largely because it obviates me from the obnoxious choice of which amendment I would accept. We are a little early, so the Committee will not mind if I digress momentarily. The other day, when the Government sustained a defeat on yet another amendment that asked for an annual report to be inserted in legislation, the Chief Whip told me that he would be very happy if I gave him a pound for every time such an amendment was proposed. I replied that I would happily do that provided he gave me a pound for every amendment that recommended a sunset clause—knowing full well that with the digital switchover Bill I had two, so I was already in profit for the week. That does not make the concept any more attractive, however. Let us be clear: the objective of the Bill is to ensure that the help scheme gets the information it needs when it needs it; no more, no less. We should reflect, after all, on what Clause 1(1) says: "““The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland department may… supply a relevant person with social security information for use… in connection with switchover help functions””." That is the legal basis the Bill creates by which they can deliver such information. Once the help scheme has completed its task, the legislative basis for using the information, and therefore for the DWP or anyone else disclosing it, vanishes with that legislative basis. Drafting the powers to link them directly to the event of digital switchover—a time limited event—therefore has the same practical effect as a formal sunset clause. We already have it; the right to obtain or disclose the information dies with the completion of the function. Once switchover is complete and the help scheme has done its job, the DWP, the MoD and the other agencies will no longer be able to lawfully disclose such information. Once again, we are not disagreeing about principle. Both noble Lords opposite and the Government want to be absolutely secure in understanding that once the process has ended, disclosure of information must also come to an end. I am glad to give the assurance that there are no plans for the help scheme to continue, or for the powers to be exercised, after switchover has been completed and no more help needs to be delivered. I emphasise that the problem with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, the first amendment tabled this afternoon, is that it contains a requirement for information to be destroyed one month after the switchover help scheme has been completed. That is an obligation anyway. The fifth data protection principle in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998 is as follows: "““Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes””." The Data Protection Act is essentially the bedrock by which data protection in this country obtains. All data controllers must abide by those principles. If we made a specific provision for data destruction in the Bill, would we not be calling the effectiveness of the Data Protection Act—the guarantee for citizens across the board that data cannot be kept or used when it no longer has a purpose—into question? The Bill did not start out perfectly but, thanks to its consideration, we have made improvements. These amendments are not improvements, and I invite the noble Lord to consider withdrawing them.