Statistics and Registration Service Bill

moved Amendment No. 37: 37: Before Clause 34, insert the following new Clause— ““Information Commissioner (1) The Information Commissioner may assess any aspects of the way in which the Board holds, uses, discloses or shares information. (2) The Board must provide any assistance or access that the Information Commissioner requests in connection with an assessment under subsection (1). (3) If the Information Commissioner carries out an assessment under subsection (1) he is to report his findings to the Board. (4) The Information Commissioner may publish any report he makes under subsection (3) and any such report must be laid before each House of Parliament.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 37 inserts a new clause before Clause 34.Clauses 34 to 50 contain various powers and obligations relating to information, including personal information. They allow significant data sharing and we debated them fully in Committee. We were grateful that the Minister gave considered replies to the various amendments that were tabledin Committee. My purpose in tabling those amendments, and that of my noble friend Lord Northesk, who is unable to be with us today, was to establish the boundaries of the very wide powers contained in those provisions. We were in general satisfied with the nature of the replies given in Committee and I believe that we established two important issues. I should like to read a short extract from Hansard where the Minister said: "““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””." That is the first important issue. These clauses are not to be used as a vehicle for the Statistics Board to become a hub for, say, the identity card scheme. The Minister went on to say: "““Any information passed under the clauses must be used for the statistical purposes of the receiving authority or the board””.—[Official Report, 23/5/07; col. 746.]" The second important issue is that information may be disclosed only for statistical purposes. I have repeated what the Minister said in Committee because we found those statements very important and we wanted to be quite sure that we understand the Government's intention in relation to the data-sharing clauses. Fundamentally, they are not a part of wider sharing of information across government and statistical purposes are at the heart of the transfer of information. I hope that the Minister will confirm today what he said in Committee. If so, I believe that while there are aspects of the clauses which still cause us concern, we will not seek further changes to the clauses themselves. Amendment No. 37, however, raises an additional issue in relation to the powers of the Information Commissioner. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in saying that the Information Commissioner is doing an excellent job, albeit with limited resources. The Information Commissioner has no direct powers under the Bill. Under Section 57 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he can assess the processing of personal data if, and only if, the data controller consents to the assessment, otherwise his powers are limited to cases where a request comes from the person affected by the processing of data. Too often, individuals will be unaware that there has been incorrect processing of their data. The ability of the Information Commissioner to act without a request is important. I understand that, under EU law, the Information Commissioner should be able to initiate his own investigations but the Data Protection Act does not give him that power. The Minister will doubtless be aware that the issues about the Information Commissioner’s role have arisen in a similar way in respect of the Serious Crime Bill, which is now being considered in another place. The Government have undertaken to bring forward amendments to meet the concerns of the Information Commissioner, which were expressed during consideration of that Bill in your Lordships' House. Admittedly the data-sharing provisions in that Bill make this Bill look like a teddy bears’ picnic, but the principles are the same, and I hope that the Minister will welcome the placing of this modest additional safeguard in the Bill. The damage that can be done to individuals by the incorrect disclosure of their information can be incalculable and, once done, cannot easily be undone. Therefore, it behoves us to ensure that as many protections for the individual as possible are enshrined in the Bill. Against that background, I beg to move.