These amendments deal with the powers to make supplementary and consequential provision in the regulations to permit data sharing. The clauses set out two examples of possible types of supplementary and consequential revision, in particular to restrict or permit disclosure of the information disclosed under these regulations. Such provision could be used to allow approved researchers access to information disclosed to the board. Naturally, such provision would need to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative procedure, along with the rest of the regulation.
The amendments add in another example of what consequential or supplementary provision the regulations made under this power could contain—to govern onward disclosure when this is allowed by existing legislation. The amendments suggest that the regulations might need to make provision for disclosure that is already permitted. However, the clause already makes it clear that consequential provision could be made to restrict further disclosure. It is not therefore clear to us what the amendment would add.
The noble Lord may have another type of provision in mind. Perhaps he wishes to see the possibility for consequential provision to be made to restrict use of the information by the board when it receives it. However, if that is the case, the amendment is still not needed. The enabling clauses explicitly specify—for example, Clause 44(2)—that the regulations may authorise disclosure only to enable the board to carry out one or more of its functions. They also make clear—for example, Clause 44(3)—that the board may use the information received under the regulations only for the purpose for which disclosure is authorised.
Noble Lords might find it helpful to bear in mind that the consequential and supplementary provisions listed in the clause is not exhaustive. Included in the enabling clauses, at Clause 44(7), Clause 45(7) and Clause 46(7), are two examples of possible consequential and supplementary provision. It would still be possible and, I am sure, desirable in some cases, for the regulations to make additional provision as to use, further to these examples.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked what other powers might be over-riden. There is nothing in the Bill that can over-ride the Data Protection Act or the Human Rights Act. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Statistics and Registration Service Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 May 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c749-50 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:18:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_399152
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_399152
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_399152