Statistics and Registration Service Bill

I thought that the noble Baroness had presented sufficient amendments for this issue to be aired without having the dire threat that more are to come on subsequent clauses. We will look forward to that entertainment when it arrives. She has raised some important points on a significant part of the Bill relating to data sharing and I will make a few general points before seeking to deal in detail with her questions. There is broad support from a key range of interest groups on the important aspect of the Bill concerned with data sharing. Data sharing is crucially linked in the Bill with the confidentiality provisions that we discussed on the previous amendment. Those provisions will cover personal information passed under these clauses, as they would any other personal information held by the board or anyone who has received personal information from it. Let me set out the principles of data sharing that appear in the Bill. There are benefits from data sharing and they command widespread agreement. There are also proper concerns to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. We have not the slightest doubt that data sharing can lead to improvements in the quality of statistical data and analysis, which can therefore improve our ability to make and to judge the impact of policy. Data sharing can also reduce the burden on those required to complete the surveys on which so many of our official statistics depend and has therefore been recommended by both the Better Regulation Task Force and the Confederation of British Industry—two important contributors to this debate—which are all too well aware of the fact that excessive demands for data are extremely irksome for interest groups. What is more, the sharing of data for statistical purposes can help to address the problems of declining survey response rates, which are also a sad feature of our times. We have set up a mechanism that will enable data sharing for statistical purposes to and from the board with safeguards to make sure that the data are used in a limited and appropriate way. Increased data sharing could occur between the board and other public authorities, and vice versa, where regulations permitting such sharing are made under Clauses 44 to 50. The regulations will be subject to further scrutiny and approval by Parliament and will be made only where the Treasury with its residual responsibilities to the board—the noble Baroness mentioned the Treasury, so she will not mind me expressing the hope that it remains in that position—and another Minister agree that the sharing of information is for the statistical purposes of the board or the public authority to which the disclosure is made and is in the public interest. Ministers will need to agree this for each data set specified in the regulations, and the use of regulations will allow the system to adapt to further statistical resources and needs, thus allowing new indicators to be developed to provide a more up-to-date, accurate, comprehensive and meaningful description of the country. The Bill also heightens safeguards for confidentiality and includes a criminal sanction for unlawful disclosure. I wish to make one further point before I address the amendments of the noble Baroness. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked earlier whether the Government envisage that the Statistics Board could or should perform the function of a repository or conduit for the widespread sharing of information throughout government. It is not our intention that these data-sharing clauses should allow the board to become a general repository for raw data or to introduce the widespread sharing of confidential information throughout government. A number of safeguards will prevent this power from being used to allow the widespread sharing of information. Any information passed under the clauses must be used for the statistical purposes of the receiving authority or the board, and before the regulations are made the relevant Ministers, as I mentioned a moment ago, must be satisfied that the disclosure is in the public interest. I hope that I have met the anxieties expressed by the noble Earl. The amendments before us would prevent the board from disclosing personal information that it has received relating to patient registration information or from the data-sharing enabling powers in all circumstances. As we have discussed, we are taking the opportunity to increase the confidentiality safeguards on personal information by introducing a criminal sanction on the unlawful disclosure of information, whether held by board members and employees or by anyone to whom the board has passed the data. The confidentiality obligations have been designed with a number of exceptions, ensuring that the board is permitted to disclose personal information in certain limited circumstances and for specific purposes where we consider it to be necessary and in the public interest. Given that we want as far as possible to limit the circumstances in which personal information might be passed on only to those for whom it is absolutely necessary, in Clauses 44 to 50 we have restricted still further the exceptions. Consequently, for the clauses permitting extended data sharing with the board, we have removed the power of the board to share this information in pursuit of its functions. Beyond these restrictions on the existing exceptions, the Government believe that the remaining exceptions are entirely appropriate. I do not quite understand why we would want to restrict the disclosure of information for the limited exceptions that remain, such as where consent for that disclosure has been given by the person to whom the information relates or where the information is already lawfully in the public domain. It is right that the board should be able to respond positively to a request for disclosure in such cases where it would be unreasonable for the board to be obstructive. Amendments Nos. 202, 212 and 216 seek to remove the power in Clauses 44 to 46 respectively to include consequential provision allowing for further disclosure of the information received in regulations under these clauses. The presumption under the clauses is that onward disclosure should normally be restricted only to limited exceptions. Including consequential provision to allow for further disclosure may in certain cases—but only in certain cases—be appropriate. Just as there may be statistical and policy benefits from the board using data that have come in through regulations made under these clauses, there may be similar statistical and policy benefits from another public authority—for example, statisticians elsewhere in the Government Statistical Service—using the information that the board has received. So although it is not expected that data received by the board under these regulations will in general be allowed to be disclosed to, for example, approved researchers, there may be cases where this could be appropriate. In both cases—researchers or other government statisticians—it is right that any such sharing should be explicitly set down in regulations to be approved by Parliament, and the Bill provides for that. Furthermore, in making the regulations, the Treasury would be subject to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. As such, it would be unlawful for the Treasury to make regulations that were incompatible with the convention rights. Another Minister of the Crown must consent to the exercise of the power to make regulations. The exercise of the power will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament under the affirmative procedure and the regulations may not amend the Human Rights Act. The Government have thought through these issues and have put data sharing under very clear restrictions. But, within that framework, the Bill offers proper protections while, at the same time, permitting data sharing in areas where that clearly advances the public interest. That is the basis of the Government’s position and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.