COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 10 July 1998)

§ The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 114 and 115.

I shall deal first with Amendment No. 4. Clause 2 sets out lists of sensitive data for the purposes of the Bill. These data may only be processed if one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is met.

Article 8 of the directive requires personal data revealing "religious or philosophical beliefs" among other categories to be treated as sensitive.

The Bill originally gave effect to this requirement in Clause 2(b) by referring to "religious or other beliefs". On reflection, we took the view that that was insufficiently precise. Amendment No. 4 changes this to read, "religious or other beliefs of a similar nature". We believe that that expression captures more precisely the data which the directive requires to be treated as sensitive.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 79 and 114. These amendments are intended to make sure that paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 is fully consistent with the directive. Paragraph 7 permits the processing of sensitive data where necessary for a range of public sector functions. This paragraph is included in reliance on Article 8.4 of the directive.

Article 8.4 specifies that processing to which it relates must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, and must be carried out for reasons of substantial public interest.

As it left this House, paragraph 7 made no express reference either to substantial public interest, or to safeguards. We think that both these requirements will normally be met in the circumstances covered by the paragraph. However, given the breadth of the provision, we think it prudent to make provision to deal with any cases which may arise where they may not be.

Amendment No. 114 allows the Secretary of State by order to specify cases in which the public sector processing may not involve sensitive data. This would, for example, allow processing which was conceivably not in the substantial public interest to be excluded from the scope of the paragraph.

1481 The order may also specify cases in which sensitive data may only be processed if specified conditions are met. The conditions could take the form of additional safeguards to ensure full conformity with the directive in any doubtful case.

Amendment No. 79 provides that the power is subject to the negative resolution procedure.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 80 and 115. The House will recall that at Third Reading an undertaking was given to bring forward an amendment to make clear on the face of the Bill that information about racial or ethnic origin may be processed for the purpose of ethnic monitoring. This was in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. These amendments give effect to that commitment.

Amendment No. 115 introduces a new paragraph into Schedule 3 which has the effect which I have just mentioned. It says that information about racial or ethnic origin may be processed for ethnic monitoring purposes, provided that the processing is carried out with appropriate safeguards. Subparagraph (2) provides for the Secretary of State to specify by order circumstances in which the processing is or is not to be taken as being carried out with appropriate safeguards.

Amendment No. 80 would add that order-making power to the list of those in Clause 63(5) which are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

These amendments have been drafted in close consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality which welcomes them. I am grateful to the commission for its help.