Statistics and Registration Service Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. At the outset, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on the Bill’s direction of travel. It is well recognised that recent years have seen a disintegration of public trust in the independence and probity of the nation’s statistical data. The figures from the ONS survey have been widely cited; namely, that only 17 per cent of the public believe that statistics are produced free of political interference, a perception that may well have deepened as a result of last week’s Budget. Undoubtedly, therefore, there is an urgent need to legislate for independence. As my honourable friend Michael Fallon said on Second Reading in another place: "““National statistics are not only the Government’s statistics. They are more than simply a ministerial crutch or a parliamentary resource. In a proper democracy, statistics are an essential public good. They belong to all of us. After the suspicions of the past ""few years, we want our statistics back and we want them to be clean””.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/07; col. 68.]" That said, I do not propose to trespass on those matters in the Bill already covered so eloquently by other noble Lords, not least the wise counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Rather I wish to focus on the information-sharing provisions of the Bill. A particular feature of the debates in another place was the recognition that the public at large have a special and considerable interest in statistics. This was represented in a number of ways on all sides, but is neatly encapsulated in the Financial Secretary’s observation on Second Reading that: "““Importantly, in our modern democracy they [statistics] inform the judgments that people make about the promises and performance of their Government””.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/07;col. 29.]" Indeed, to the Government’s credit, they amended the Bill on Report to give some measure of statutory force to this. Thus, Clause 7(1) now states: "““In the exercise of its functions … the Board is to have the objective of promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good””." However, I cannot help but agree with my honourable friend, Michael Fallon, that, given that the Bill now defines ““public good”” in the context of, "““informing the public about social and economic matters””," and, "““the development and evaluation of public policy””," this is couched very much in Westminster-centric terms. In other words, while I willingly accept that progress has been made, there is still work to be done here in establishing levels of independence that are a proper fit with the public’s needs and not just those of us operating within the political process. To my mind, this becomes especially relevant in respect of administrative data, even more so in respect of information that qualifies under the terms of the Data Protection Act as either ““sensitive”” or ““personal””. I am chary of suggesting that ““ownership”” of this sort of data should more properly reside with the particular individuals who have, one hopes, consented to their collection. Nevertheless, it is essential to realise that, given the huge scope of the data now collected and the sophistication of IT techniques to process them, these are not meagre unconnected morsels of any given individual’s interactions with the state. Rather, taken in toto, they are whole-life delineations of who someone is and how he leads his life. Indeed, this is—or should be—part of the motivation for making administrative data more widely available as a statistical resource. But it also infers that, while the ““public good”” element of the Bill acknowledges the individual citizen’s interest in statistical output, it should perhaps also reflect no less strongly his interest in—and, to an extent, ownership of—the raw data. I do not wish to be misunderstood here. I acknowledge absolutely the considerable benefits that could accrue from administrative data being more widely used as a statistical resource. I empathise with the view of Len Cook that this would represent, "““the largest possible improvement to the quality of British statistics””," that could be enabled by this legislation. Moreover, I pay due heed to a manifest understanding of all sides of this debate, which is evident in these words from the Financial Secretary: "““there is indeed a strong public interest in greater sharing of administrative data … there is also a public interest in ensuring that the confidentiality of such data is properly protected””.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/07; col. 25.]" The Minister repeated the same mantra earlier. Needless to say, recognition of this is most welcome. Indeed, I acknowledge that the Government have made strenuous efforts in satisfying the conflicting sides of this equation. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the words of comfort from the Minister, I remain somewhat concerned that the current drafting may not only fail to deliver as robust a regime as is necessary but, as with the context of the definition of ““public good””, be too closely allied to the needs and requirements of, as it were, administrative convenience. As I read it, the construct of the Bill is to create quite deliberately the Statistics Board as a gateway for onward transmission of data. As highlighted by my honourable friend Mark Hoban during Committee in another place, the current text could permit the Statistics Board to become a conduit for the distribution of data more widely throughout Government to be further processed for a purpose at variance with and beyond the terms of that of its original collection. Certainly, in so far as my understanding of the drafting is accurate, this inspires no small measure of discomfort, not least for example in the context of the national identity register or the children’s index. Indeed, it is worth recalling the comment from the Chief Statistician of Canada when giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on this matter: "““Of course, the other side of that coin is extremely strong confidentiality guarantees, which are spelled out and which allow no exceptions. Not even the intelligence community, not even the police, not even the courts in the course of a prosecution can have access under the Statistics Act””." Evidently, the Bill before us today does not encompass such strong data protection as that. That said, there is a case for suggesting that perhaps it should, not least because there is a wider dimension to this. Undoubtedly, there is growing and justified anxiety about the encroachment of what has euphemistically been called ““the database state””. In this context it is salutary to reflect that the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place is to initiate an enquiry into this. I can also refer back to the ONS survey that found that only 14 per cent of the public believe that government handle data honestly. While I accept that greater independence for our statistical authority may go some way towards addressing this perception so far as the board will be concerned, there is none the less an over-arching obligation upon government to establish extremely strong and robust data protection regimes in circumstances where information sharing is envisaged. Some, I suspect not least the Minister, may feel that reliance on the terms of the Data Protection Act offers sufficient reassurance. However, increasingly that is not a view I share, if only because, as a generality, information-sharing regimes will of necessity breach at least the second data principle if not others and, in that sense, lie beyond the reach of the Act. I therefore argue that, in circumstances such as these, we should aim to strengthen data protection rather than either maintaining the status quo or, worse, weakening it. At the end of the day it would be foolish in the extreme if, in making legislative provision for a more independent statistical regime and thereby, we hope, reinvigorating public confidence and trust in the nation’s statistics, a different but no less corrosive causefor lack of confidence and distrust was substituted. Inadequate or inappropriate data protection could well have that effect. With that in mind, I look forward to probing these issues at greater length as the Bill makes its progress through the House.