Statistics and Registration Service Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Indeed, as the noble Earl said, an important point of principle is at work here. I agree. I remain deeply dissatisfied with the Minister's response in respect of the powers of the Information Commissioner. In a way, the Minister is on something of a roll because, in terms, he proved my point for me. He indicated that the Information Commissioner has more than adequate powers to deal with breaches of the data protection principles. I have no dispute about that. However, I seriously dispute that the Information Commissioner is empowered on his own initiative to view the operation of the data-sharing regime at the Statistics Board in the round—not in respect of breaches but in the round. As far as I read the Data Protection Act 1998, the Information Commissioner simply does not have that power. Viewed more widely, it is interesting to note that this Bill is, of necessity, a product of the Treasury. To a greater or lesser extent, it flows from the thinking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In turn, the amendment quite deliberately engages matters of transparency, accountability and, crucially, public trust. Accordingly, the Minister’s rejection of the amendment today begs the question of how much confidence we can really have in Gordon Brown's avowed intent to reinvigorate virtues of accountability, transparency and public trust when he takes over from Mr Blair. That being so, I feel entirely justified in seeking the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 147.