Statistics and Registration Service Bill

I have given notice that I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill, and I do so on a probing basis. As we go through the information clauses in the Bill we shall explore a concern that personal information that comes to the board should be used for statistical purposes only and that the board should not become a conduit for personal information to become more widely available through the Government and beyond. Clause 37 provides that Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to information received directly or indirectly from the board. Hence the exemption from Freedom of Information Act disclosure which would otherwise apply to information whose disclosure is prevented by Clause 36 is ruled out. Put simply, if a government department or other public authority obtains personal information from the board, it might well be required to disclose it under the Freedom of Information Act. That seems to us to be a rather dangerous possibility. We have already seen that Clause 36 allows the disclosure of personal information in quite a large number of circumstances, which are set out in Clause 36(4). Once it arrives in the hands of another authority, Clause 37 might allow it to be disclosed further. I am aware that the other reasons for non-disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act will continue to apply, but the concern is that the public authority that receives the personal information from the board will be less assiduous than the board in seeking to justify exemptions from disclosure. The only example given in the Explanatory Notes and in another place for requiring this curious clause is the National Archives. The clause would allow it to publish census data after the usual time periods. If that is the only exception for which Clause 36 is designed, it could be given statutory effect on a more direct and targeted basis. When the Minister replies, will he say whether there is any other reason for the existence of Clause 37? If it is aimed at the National Archives only, it would be safer if this provision, which modifies the impact of the Freedom of Information Act, were restricted to that particular instance. The unlimited scope of Clause 37 gives us cause for concern. We believe that the presumption in the Bill should be against facilitating the disclosure of personal information, but Clause 37 seems to start from the opposite position.