§ Mr. WaddingtonI beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 2, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 5 and insert
'be—(a) persons to represent the interests of data users;'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
'and(c) persons representing those employed in data using industries.'.and Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
§ Mr. WaddingtonThe Government amendments grouped together honour an undertaking given in Committee to consider a number of points that had been raised concerning the composition of the Data Protection Tribunal, and to come forward with a suitable formulation to redress the imbalances that had been drawn to Mr. attention.
Two points have been made. First, it was argued that representatives of data users could, in some circumstances, outnumber those representing the interests of data subjects. Secondly, it was put to us that user interests might, in fact, go unrepresented since the technical experts provided for in the Bill were under no duty—indeed; may not be qualified—to put forward the user's point of view. On the face of it, those two points may seem contradictory, but in fact they both have some validity.
I shall rehearse briefly the history of this part of clause 3 and schedule 3. Our original intention was to provide for an entirely neutral tribunal with no sectoral interests being represented. However, since the tribunal would undoubtedly be hearing some cases of a rather technical nature, it seemed appropriate that some technical expertise should be made available to it. We provided that half of the members of a duly constituted tribunal, apart from the chairman, should be technical experts chosen from the pool of people appointed under clause 3(5)(a). Those experts, however, soon came to be regarded by some as representatives of the data user. It was, therefore, suggested that data subjects should in all equity also be specifically represented. On reflection, I think that we accepted this argument a little too readily and took powers to enable the Secretary of State to appoint a certain number of people to represent the interests of the data subjects and for at least one to serve on each duly constituted tribunal. In doing that we now see that we introduced an element of partiality into what was hitherto an entirely neutral tribunal and that there is an argument, in fairness, for saying that the interests of data users should be specifically represented.
Of course, technical experts might in some cases have been able to double as representatives of data users. but the two are not necessarily synonymous. We therefore now accept that it would be more sensible to make specific provision for an equal number of representatives of data users and of data subjects. That is what these amendments seek to do.
8 pm
In making these changes, we lose the pool of computer experts. As I said, these have come to be identified by some as representing the interests of users. Their continued presence might, therefore, be seen as a 221 complicating factor. Moreover, if we had retained a provision for computer experts to be represented on every duly constituted tribunal, it would have meant that the tribunal would always have had to have had at least five members, whereas three is generally regarded as the optimum number in most cases.
I am afraid, therefore, that the loss of the expert members seems an inevitable but acceptable casualty of the amendment. This does not mean that technical expertise will not be available to the tribunal, but simply that such expertise will be provided by expert witnesses called before the tribunal under the rules of procedure to be made under paragraph 4 of schedule 3.
I hope that what I have said helps to reassure Opposition Members—whose amendment to clause 3 seems to be aimed at the same point — who clearly feel that the interests of data users should be specifically represented. As I explained, the Government accept that view, and our amendment will achieve that result. It is not clear whether, by tabling their amendment, they were seeking to ensure that the pool of technical experts would be retained, as their amendment would simply add an additional category of tribunal members, rather than substituting data user representatives for technical experts. I hope that what I have said will be enough to explain why we do not believe that that would be the right approach. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI am glad to say at once that we find the amendment acceptable. I accept that the wording of the Government amendment is superior to ours, which is as it should be, and for that reason we will not press our amendment No. 5.
The Minister must now find representatives of data users and data subjects. From where will he find them? May we be told how he intends to approach this task? May we be assured that the various parties concerned with data subjects—consumers and others—will be able to submit nominations to the Minister? In other words, how wide will the net be cast before the Minister reaches his judgment?
§ Mr. WaddingtonWe shall gladly accept advice from interested bodies. If those bodies furnish us with names, those names will certainly be considered.
§ Amendment agreed to.