Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 105: 105: Schedule 6, page 67, line 19, at end insert— ““32DA Publication (1) Nothing in section 32D prevents the Commission from publishing a report on a data matching exercise (including on the results of the exercise). (2) But the report may not include information relating to a particular body or person if— (a) the body or person is the subject of any data included in the data matching exercise, (b) the body or person can be identified from the information, and (c) the information is not otherwise in the public domain. (3) A report published under this section may be published in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of those members of the public who may be interested. (4) Section 51 does not apply to information to whichsection 32D applies. (5) This section does not affect any powers of an auditor where the data matching exercise in question forms part of an audit under Part 2.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 105 provides a publication power to the Audit Commission so that it may report on its data-matching exercises. It also limits the kinds of information which may appear in this report. It is already the practice of the commission to publish a report once the results of data-matching have been properly investigated by the audited bodies and the exercise has been completed. The purpose of these reports is to provide to the public an overarching summary of the exercise, including the amount of detected overpayments and fraud. The reports do not, however, identify individual data subjects, although the commission may, from time to time, identify particular audited bodies following consultation with them. That might arise in circumstances where there a particularly significant fraud has been uncovered as a result of a local authority’s investigation into the results of a data-matching exercise. In this way, the public can keep abreast of the commission’s activities and form their own view as to the gains achieved by the national fraud initiative. The amendment will place the commission’s existing good practice squarely in the Bill. Although the commission will be able to identify those bodies which have provided it with data in its reports, it will not be able to identify the individuals, partnerships or companies to whom the data relate unless that information is already in the public domain. Accordingly, the provision strikes the right balance between ensuring transparency and accountability on the one hand while, on the other, ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are in place. On Amendment No. 106, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, propose that the code of data-matching practice which the Audit Commission prepares, and any revisions to it, should be made subject to the approval of the Information Commissioner and then both Houses of Parliament by way of affirmative resolution. On Amendment No. 107, the code should, alternatively, at least be made subject to the approval of the Information Commissioner. I know the noble Baroness and noble Lord will not be surprised that I shall resist that amendment. I am grateful to them for tabling it, because it again enables me to explain our amendments. I first reiterate the comments I made in Committee: it is not the role of the Information Commissioner to approve codes of practice issued by public authorities. It would severely undermine the Information Commissioner’s independence, and therefore public credibility, if the situation were otherwise. It is probably for this reason that are no precedents in any other context of which we are aware where the Information Commissioner has been required to approve another body’s code of practice in the way now proposed. As a matter of practice, the Audit Commission will also seek to consult the Information Commissioner in preparing and revising the code and I will shortly speak further on this point on a government amendment. The Information Commissioner will retain a statutory overview on the Audit Commission’s activities under the Data Protection Act 1998, which gives him all the powers of supervision and intervention that he needs. It is also for that reason that the further proposal, to require that the code be approved by both Houses of Parliament by way of affirmative resolution, is excessive. It would not be good use of the House's time, or that of our colleagues in another place, if we were required to deliberate on a code in circumstances where the task will already fall within the general supervisory and regulatory remit of the Information Commissioner. We appreciate that a central premise behind Amendment No. 108 is a desire to enhance the checks and balances that will be in place with respect to the Audit Commissioner's data-matching activities. For that reason, I have tabled an amendment that will place a duty on the Audit Commission to consult the Information Commissioner when preparing and revising the code. In relation to Amendment No. 109, we believe there is some force in the points that have been made concerning the visibility of the code, which will spell out the standards that members of the public can expect when their data are matched and the detailed safeguards that will apply to each exercise. The amendment places a duty on the Audit Commission to send a copy of the code to the Secretary of State so that it can be laid before the House. It also places a duty on the commission to publish the code from time to time. The Government tabled Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 in order to meet the concerns that have been raised. We believe that they strike the right balance between the exercise of efficient and effective data matching by the Audit Commission and the safeguards that should apply to it. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not move their amendments. I thank them in advance for keeping them on the Marshalled List as it has allowed me to explain them. I hope that has assured the House that all that should be done has been done and that we are all in agreement. I beg to move.