Clause
42
Information
held by
HMRC
Mr.
Hoban:
I beg to move amendment No. 170, in
clause 42, page 18, line 36, leave
out from ‘other’ to end of line 38.
This is another probing
amendment on the ability of data to be released and shared, in this
case between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the board. I
understand why the clause
states:
“Subsection
(1) does not authorise the disclosure of personal
information”.
It then
gives the
exemption:
“other than
personal information relating to the import or export of goods to or
from the United
Kingdom.”
I should be
grateful to the Financial Secretary if he could explain why we need the
exemption and why he seeks to qualify the general position on
authorisation by reference to the subset of information that is
collected by Revenue and
Customs.
John
Healey:
In essence, the hon. Gentleman asks why we need
this wording and this specific focus on import and export data,
particularly if we are already sharing them. The answer lies in the
implementation of section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenues and
Customs Act 2005. That limited HMRC’s ability to share
information, by laying down the general rule that HMRC may not disclose
any information held or received by it in the course of its
functions.
Since the
2005 Act came into force, officials have been examining the
HMRC’s disclosures of data to ensure they are consistent with
the rules laid down in the CRC Act. Those investigations have brought
to light two occasions when information has been disclosed to the ONS
and then fed into the compilation of national accounts, so it has that
important function.
The 2005 Act permits
HMRC to disclose data in certain specified circumstances, one of which
is where another provision authorises disclosure. That is similar to
subsection (4)(a) in the previous clause. The clause will form such a
provision to ensure that HMRC can lawfully share data with the new
board in the same way as the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise
shared data with the ONS. So it is intended to put beyond any doubt the
basis for the necessary and current sharing of information that relates
to import and export
data.
Mr.
Hoban:
Is the Financial Secretary suggesting that there
was some doubt about the legality of the data sharing between HMRC and
the ONS that the clause is needed to
correct?
John
Healey:
As I have explained, there are two occasions
specifically, when looking at the disclosures of data from HMRC, when
it will be helpful to have greater clarity and certainty than we
believe at present the 2005 Act offers. That is the basis for the
provision that we have included in clause
42.
Mr.
Hoban:
I think that clarification is helpful, as we are
obviously clarifying the drafting of a previous Act. I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Fallon:
I want to pursue more generally the concern raised
by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. The clause is very wide, and
I fully understand what the Financial Secretary has just said. He is
trying to replicate a power in the Commissioners for Revenue and
Customs Act 2005, to ensure that the information that is sent to the
ONS under that Act continues to be sent to the board. However, that is
not quite what clause 42(1) would do. It refers to information in
connection with
“any
function of the Revenue and
Customs.”
I have two
concerns about
that.
First, the
restriction of that information is not contained in the clause itself
but set out in the explanatory notes. Paragraph 165
states:
“It is
intended that two categories of data will be disclosed under this
provision”.
That does not
reassurance us much. Presumably, the Financial Secretary could add to
those categories, or a future Minister with new intentions could
specify further categories of information to be disclosed. Can the
Minister reassure me that the explanatory notes contain the existing
categories that are disclosed and that it will not be possible to widen
them further than is suggested by the intentions that are set
out?
My second
question is on a point recently raised by the hon. Member for Slough,
who is sadly not in her place. I quite understand why personal
information will not be disclosable under the clause—I welcome
that—but the Financial Secretary has referred to one of the
central problems that besets the ONS: the lack of comprehensive data on
migration.
One of the
key matters is the number of people entitled to national insurance
cards and those who are registered and deregistered for them. At the
moment, that seems a hazy area. Even though personal information cannot
be disclosed, under the clause, can the board produce more accurate
migration statistics by examining the data on the number of national
insurance cards, or can it only examine data on the collection of
national insurance contributions—in other words, the amount
paid, rather than the number of cards
issued?
John
Healey:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
interest in the clause and his attempt to help the Committee understand
the Government’s
thinking.
The clause
does indeed permit the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs or an
officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to pass information
held by HMRC to the board for use in connection with one or more of its
statistical functions. It only permits the sharing of personal
information—defined in clause 36, as data that can identify
individuals or businesses—that relates to the import or export
of goods. That is considered personal information because it can
identify businesses and, in some cases, individuals who are sole
traders.
The hon.
Member for Sevenoaks tempts me to stiffen the clarity and commitment in
the explanatory notes. It is intended that two categories of data will
be shared under the clause, both of which are currently shared. Any
future Minister or Government could make amendments, as is the case
with any legislation in any policy
area.
10
am
The first
category of data to which the provision will apply
is
“summary data,
including information on income tax and National Insurance
contributions, which is currently provided by Revenue and Customs to
ONS, to allow ONS to produce statistics, including estimates of the UK
national income, as a part of their production of the UK National
Accounts”.
Those data are
not personally identifiable. They are less relevant to the future
improvement of migration and population statistics than some of the
proposals that the National Statistician is putting in place through
her recent working group. If hon. Members want to pursue their concern
about the quality of migration statistics, I refer them to the
group’s report.
The second category of data
is
“information relating
to the import or export of goods to and from the UK, which is currently
passed from Revenue and Customs to ONS to allow ONS to produce
statistics. ONS use the data to identify businesses to survey about
import and export prices, and in the analysis of the results of such
surveys. Results from ONS’s surveys feed into indices of the
prices charged to producers (part of the measurement of the value added
by UK manufacturers), and into analyses of the UK balance of payments
in the National
Accounts.”
That
information is considered personal, as defined under the Bill, because
individuals can be identified from it. If the ONS did not receive that
information from HMRC, it would need to survey many more businesses to
find out which of them import and export goods. All hon. Members will
appreciate that that would significantly increase the survey burden on
businesses. Furthermore, the quality of the statistics that ultimately
come into the national accounts would be impaired. On that basis, I
hope that hon. Members will accept the
clause.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 42
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 43
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2 agreed
to.
Clause
44
Power
to authorise disclosure to the
Board
Mr.
Hoban:
I beg to move amendment No. 171, in
clause 44, page 19, line 20, at
end insert—
‘(4A)
notwithstanding subsection (4), any personal information acquired under
section 44 cannot be
disclosed.’.
Clause
44 gives powers to the Treasury to make regulations to enable or
require public authorities to disclose information to the board. I
understand why such powers may be required: to reduce the costs of
national statistics and improve their comprehensiveness and accuracy.
There is certainly great support from the business community for
measures that seek to reduce the cost of data collection when there are
alternative routes. That underpins part of the argument
forclause 42.
The amendment is designed to
address concerns about creating information gateways. I am worried that
we are creating the potential for data to flow from the public
authority to the board and then, throughthe provisions of
clauses 36 and 44, to another Government body. Is it appropriate for
the board to be
used as a conduit in that way? Would it not be far better for the
information gateway to be directed, when that is required and
necessary, between the public authority and the Government Department
that might use the
data?
Mr.
Newmark:
The way I read it, clause 44 contains quite wide
powers for the Treasury to authorise the disclosure of information
where disclosure would otherwise be illegal or ultra vires. Although
that information can only be gathered for statistical purposes and
cannot be used for any other reasons, I support amendment No. 171,
which clarifies a point about which I was concerned before by seeking
to ensure that any personal information obtained in that way cannot be
disclosed. That is important, because at the moment, under subsection
(6)(b), the Treasury can make regulations containing
“consequential and supplementary” provisions, which could
authorise further disclosure by the board, even where that would
otherwise be illegal, as mentioned in subsection
(7)(b).
In the absence
of amendment No. 171, I am concerned that the Treasury could,
effectively, make regulations and not be subject to any scrutiny,
thereby empowering the board to collect personal information and then
to disclose it, even where it would otherwise be illegal. That sweeping
power should, at least, contain a ban on the disclosure of personal
information, as amendment No. 171
provides.
Rob
Marris:
Would not the hon. Gentleman’s remarks be
better addressed to the debate on clause 48, titled “Power to
authorise disclosure by the Board”? We are discussing clause
44—and amendments thereto—which is titled “Power
to authorise disclosure to the Board:
Scotland”
Mr.
Newmark:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I could
have done it either way, but I decided to raise the point in relation
to clause
44.
John
Healey:
Before dealing with specific amendments and points
raised by the hon. Members for Fareham and for Braintree about
amendmentNo. 171, I should like to say that clause 44 is the
central clause relating to the power to authorise disclosure of
information to the board. It is worth emphasising that the aim of the
clause and the Bill is to ensure that information can be shared to
provide better services and better policies to support those public
services for citizens and businesses and that it can be used in other
instances where that is in the public interest. We are creating a
framework that will ensure the continued sharing of data between the
ONS and other parts of the Government for the purpose of statistical
production and analysis. We are also creating a mechanism to allow for
increased data sharing between the ONS and other parts of the
Government, and vice versa, where that is for the sole purpose of
statistical production—and only where that sharing is judged to
be in the public
interest.
The specific
extensions of access will be agreed through secondary legislation that
will be subjectto parliamentary scrutiny through the
affirmative procedure and will therefore require the approval of the
House. I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff,
South and Penarth and other Committee members have recognised, there is
in principle a clear case for stronger sharing of administrative data.
Such sharing can improve the quality of statistical data and analysis
and improve our ability to make and judge the impact of policy. Re-use
of data means that statisticians can produce richer statistics and
better analyses, often without needing to survey the same topic again.
It also has the potential to bring benefits in reducing the burden on
those responsible for completing, or required to complete, the surveys
on which many of our official statistics depend. The 2005 report by the Better
Regulation Task Force, “Regulation—Less is More. Reducing
Burdens, Improving Outcomes”, recommended increased data sharing
between Departments to reduce the intrusion on business and the
complexity and the time required for businesses to complete surveys.
The Confederation of British Industry echoed a recommendation that
Philip Hampton made in his 2005
review:
“It
would, in principle, be helpful if government departments and
regulators could hare information to reduce
duplication”.
As part of
the Whitehall-wide plan to reduce administrative burdens, the ONS has
committed, as part of its simplification plan, to making £10
million worth of reductions in the burden of business by 2015. Almost
two thirds of those savings—approximately£6
million—are expected to come from the greater use of
administrative data for statistical purposes in place of the survey
returns from respondents that are currently
required.
The other
principal case for greater data sharing is to deal with declining
survey response rates. The response rates in many of the ONS’s
major surveys have declined in recent years. The general household
survey had an 83 per cent. response rate when it was introduced in
1971, but that response had fallen to 72 per cent. by 2005. As survey
response rates decline, the chances become higher that the results will
be distorted and less reliable and will not truly represent the state
of the British
population.
Enhancing
the sharing of administrative data will help us to deal with some of
the problems with declining survey response rates, and will reduce the
cost to the Government of conducting the surveys. That can help in
three ways. First, it can help statisticians to compensate for lower
response rates by allowing them to augment the information that is
available for analysis. Secondly, it can help statistical services to
target future surveys at those who are less likely to respond, because
it will allow them to define more clearly and accurately the groups in
which response rates are a concern and to concentrate
attentionand activity on them. Thirdly, the greater use of
administrative data might, in the long term, offer an alternative to
survey activity.
Our
approach provides for extensions to currentdata sharing under
the powers in clauses 44 to 50. In broad terms, there could be
increased data sharing between the board and other public authorities
where regulations are made to permit such sharing. Of course, any such
regulations would be subject to
further scrutiny and approval by Parliament. In practice, the discussion
and preparation of potential regulations will be between the board and
Departments, but, importantly, Ministers will be required to give
formal agreement prior to the laying of any such order before the House
or any devolved
Administration. We
adopted that approach to allow the system to evolve. Data sets might be
created that could bring significant benefits to statistical analysis
if they are linked with those produced by other Departments. Clause 44
and the following clauses will permit further sharing under
regulations. We are doing that through regulations rather than primary
legislation to allow flexibility in the system for future evolution.
The system must be able to adapt to future statistical resources and
needs. It must also allow scope for new indicators to be developed that
can provide a more accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful
description of the UK through the statistics and analyses that we
produce.
Amendment
No. 171 would prevent the board from sharing with others information
received under the regulations, but, in general, the circumstances in
which the board is able to share data that it has received from other
public authorities under the enabling clause are limited. As we
discussed, clause 36 includes the limited list of exceptions to the
obligation of confidentiality. Clause 44 restricts the exceptions
further, so unlessthe regulations make provision to permit
further disclosure, the board will not be able to share such data in
pursuit of its functions or with approved researchers as a matter of
course. It is important that the public have confidence that their
personal information will be held securely. Under subsection (4), the
board will not therefore be able to share data that it has acquired
through the enabling clause in pursuit of its function or with approved
researchers.
10.15
am
The provisions
leave the board able to disclosethe information only in the
remaining, limited, circumstances covered in clause 36. To allow
sharing in those circumstances is sensible and necessary, for reasons
similar to those that we discussed during our consideration of clause
36. It is right that the board should be able lawfully to share
information, for example in response to a court order, to comply
witha community obligation, or to aid a criminal
investigation, or to release information that has already been lawfully
released. We do not want to make release of data in those circumstances
a criminal
offence.
There are
occasions when the board needs to share data with others. The clause
appropriately captures those circumstances. The hon. Member for Fareham
indicated that his was a probing amendment; I hope that I have given
him sufficient reassurance not to feel the need to take it
further.
Mr.
Hoban:
I thank the Minister for his remarks.
I would like to complete the
CBI quotation that the Minister used earlier. The CBI
said:
“However,
the information provided must only be used for the same type of purpose
by all bodies and careful and detailed consideration must be given to
concerns related to data protection and privacy.”
That strand has been running through the
debate. I would argue that if information is held by another public
body, that body could be served a court order to release it, rather
than people going through the board or the Office for National
Statistics. I understand the Minister’s point and the rationale
behind data sharing, but we need to examine more carefully how we
restrict data that are shared, to ensure that they are released
predominantly for statistical use, with certain specified
exemptions. That may be a theme that we return toat a later
date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
44 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Kevin
Brennan.]
Adjourned
accordingly at eighteen minutes pastTen o’clock, till
this day at One
o’clock.
| 
