I think we have already made the point and we do not need to come back to it. What I took from the noble Lord’s earlier contribution was that one way in which medical research is developed and carried out involves a consent process, and we would not want to change anything in that sense. However, for lots of reasons—the noble Lord gave three or four—you cannot always use consent. You may not want to go to the patient, or perhaps you cannot go to or find the patient. Alternatively, the noble Lord made the more general point that you often collect data without any real sense of where it might go in the future. We are not saying that any of that is good, bad or indifferent—one is no better than the other—but they all need to be considered in a broader understanding of the public good being best served by having the least restrictive system concomitant with appropriate procedures being in place. That is the line, with the ethics committee sitting at the top, that gets you to the point where that would be a fruitful conversation to have with Ministers.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 October 2017.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Data Protection Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
785 c1262 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-04-16 11:02:53 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-30/17103022000148
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-30/17103022000148
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-10-30/17103022000148