Obviously, the Bill has been in preparation for some time. I completely understand the point, which is about how we can be so confident in these claims. I suggest that I work with the Bill team to get an answer to that question and write to Members of the Committee, because it is a perfectly fair question to ask what makes us so sure.
In the future tense, I can assure noble Lords that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will monitor and evaluate the impact of this Bill as a whole in the years to come, in line with cross-government evaluation guidance and through continued engagement with stakeholders.
The Government feel that the first limb of Amendment 5 is not necessary given that, as has been noted, pseudonymised data is already considered personal data under this Bill. In relation to the second limb of the amendment, if the data being processed is actually personal data, the ICO already has powers to require organisations to address non-compliance. These include requiring it to apply appropriate protections to personal data that it is processing, and are backed up by robust enforcement mechanisms.
That said, it would not be appropriate for the processing of data that was correctly assessed as anonymous at the time of processing to retrospectively be treated as processing of personal data and subject to data protection laws, simply because it became personal data at a later point in the processing due to a change in circumstances. That would make it extremely difficult for any organisation to treat any dataset as
anonymous and would undermine the aim of the clause, significantly reducing the potential to use anonymous data for important research and development activities.
5 pm
The third part of Amendment 5 seeks to repeal provisions in Section 191 of the Data Protection Act 2018 that would allow the Secretary of State to prepare a framework for data processing by government. This could include guidance about the processing of personal data in connection with the work of government departments and others. Although the powers to issue such a framework have not been used, as the existing transparency requirements have proven sufficient, they may yet be helpful in the future.
I turn to the Clause 1 stand part notice. For the reasons I have described above, noting the help that this clause will deliver to organisations trying to assess identifiability and use anonymous data, I respectfully encourage the noble Lord not to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
On Amendment 301, as the Bill is currently drafted, Clause 1 is not to be automatically commenced either immediately upon Royal Assent or after two months. The probable impact of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would therefore be to bring forward commencement of Clause 1, rather than delay it. I therefore encourage the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, not to move Amendment 301.
For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments.