Statistics and Registration Service Bill

moved Amendment No. 195: 195: Clause 40, page 18, line 21, leave out from first ““section”” to end of line 22 and insert ““subsection (4) of that section shall not have effect”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 195 deals with Clause 40 and probes the rationale for allowing the board to permit any onward disclosure of NHS registration information that it has received. Clause 40 allows the Secretary of State for Health or other public authority to disclose English and Welsh NHS registration information to the board. Under subsection (5), the board may use the information only for the purposes of population statistics. So far so good. It seems to us to be reasonable for there to be no further ability for anyone in the board to disclose that information any further, but Clause 36 is to apply with only a very limited modification in subsection (6). We would contend that Clause 36, which prohibits the disclosure of personal information held by the board, should apply without any of the let-outs or excuses set up in subsection (4). Clause 40(6) takes a different line, allowing disclosure in almost all subsection (4) situations, other than under paragraphs (c) and (i). In those cases, the consent of the Secretary of State is required. Since the board is not the original recipient of the data—that will be the NHS in one of its various forms—we believe that the board should not have the permission to disclose the information further. That should be properly a matter for the primary custodian of the data; namely, the NHS or the Secretary of State for Health. The board should and needs to have no further part to play in further disclosure, because the information has been given to the board only for the purposes of population statistics and not for any other purpose. Of the other amendments in this group, Amendment No. 199 is a mirror of Amendment No. 195 in relation to Welsh NHS registration information. Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 would achieve the same effect in relation to the provisions of Clause 44, which allows the Treasury to make regulations to authorise a limitless number of public authorities to disclose information to the board. Specifically, Amendment No. 201 would eliminate the let-outs in subsection (4) of Clause 36. Amendment No. 202 would leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 44(7), which would allow the Treasury to lay down rules for onward disclosure. Amendments Nos. 211, 212, 215 and 216 are similar and deal with the Scottish and Northern Irish provisions in Clauses 45 and 46. It is common ground that access to personal information needs to be strictly confined. The key question is who should allow access. We believe that control over access should rest with the body most able to determine whether disclosure should be made. That will be the body which first obtains the information. A secondary or tertiary holder of information is not the most natural person to decide whether any other person may have access to the data. As I have said, we have no problem with the Statistics Board having access to and using the data obtained from other public authorities for its statistical purposes, but we believe that the board should be subject to the strictest of rules in relation to further disclosure. Indeed, it is noticeable that Clause 42(4) of the Bill prohibits the further disclosure of information obtained from HMRC without the consent of the commissioners. If any onward disclosure is necessary, we believe that that should be the right model for this Bill throughout the information disclosure provisions. Will the Minister explain why one approach has been taken for HMRC information and another taken for other information disclosed to the board? This is all the more important because under Clause 42 little personal information is likely in any event to flow from HMRC to the board. At this stage, I have not tabled equivalent amendments to Clauses 48 to 50, which give the Treasury power to authorise disclosure by the board. Those clauses may also require further consideration in the light of the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.