Hansard

I will deal first with the issues that were raised by Edward Mountain and Rhoda Grant. I note the concerns from relevant committees about the lack of time that was available to consider the memorandum, and I acknowledge that it was lodged later than we would have liked. In mitigation, I offer the following points. First, prior to lodging it, I wrote to Mr Mountain—on 12 January; 41 days ago—informing him of a number of issues that we felt should be brought to his and the committee’s attention. That was an attempt to be helpful, and I hope that the attempt was successful.

In paragraph 5 of that letter, we said:

“We hope to lodge an LCM shortly.”

I acknowledge that the memorandum was lodged later than we would have liked. However, precisely because we were conscious of the complexity of the plethora of issues that are dealt with in the bill—I do not, to be frank, have time to go through them all—I specifically wrote a non-statutory voluntary letter to the committee, as a matter of courtesy and in order to be helpful, saying what we proposed to do.

Since the complex bill was introduced at Westminster, it has been necessary to discuss and pursue a range of amendments to it. The bill has undergone substantial amendment during its time in Parliament. It was therefore important that our memorandum to Parliament reflect as closely as possible not the initial proposals but the final proposals in the bill. I hope that that explains the lateness of its lodging. I stress that we take such matters seriously, so I want to give that assurance to the committee convener.

I can also provide an assurance in relation to the specific question that was asked, quite fairly, by Rhoda Grant. All regulations will be carefully drawn in a way that ensures that they do not breach any privacy rights, and this Parliament will have full scrutiny.

I was grateful to have had the opportunity to have a private word with Mr Rumbles about the matter that he raised a moment ago—I thank him for giving me some advance notice of his particular concerns.

Let me get straight to the nub of what concerns us here today. We have carefully considered one of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s key suggestions, which was that the Scottish devolved public bodies that will disclose data to improve public service delivery, reduce fraud and tackle debt be named in the bill. However, we do not support that recommendation. We oppose it precisely because we wish to protect this Parliament’s role in scrutinising proposals for data sharing. For that reason, we have asked the UK Government not to table amendments that would name devolved Scottish public bodies in the bill.

However, there are occasions on which co-operation through sharing of data is necessary. Let me give two examples. First, with regard to supporting prisoners on release, the bill would allow Scottish ministers to put before this Parliament regulations to allow the Scottish Prison Service to share with the Department for Work and Pensions a specific and limited set of data that would allow for a benefits package to be in place on an individual’s release from prison, which would help with their on-going rehabilitation and contribute to the wellbeing of their families. That is a good thing.

A second example concerns tackling fraud. Regulations under the bill’s fraud provisions could allow Revenue Scotland to share specific data with other Government departments to help to reduce tax avoidance and evasion, and to help to maintain the tax revenue that is available to support Scotland’s public services. I submit that that, too, is a good thing.

Any such arrangements must be clear, codified and subject to safeguards around individual privacy. In any such data-sharing proposals, ministers will need to state clearly who would be able to share data and for what purposes. To summarise the point: in debt, in fraud and in public service delivery matters—those points have been quite fairly raised by Mike Rumbles—ministers must bring to Parliament a statutory instrument that will require to be considered under affirmative procedure. This Parliament must, should and will be consulted and shall decide on any proposed usage of the powers on said matters.

I am not sure whether being accused of being benign as a minister is a compliment or an insult, but I accept it in the spirit in which it was intended. Having undergone an extensive process, we are satisfied that the provisions of the bill, as amended, as they relate to devolved matters, are appropriate.