---

Health and Social Care Bill

I have every sympathy with the intention behind these amendments, seeking as they do to ensure that people’s confidentiality is preserved. First, let me stress, as I have previously set out in a letter to noble Lords, that the National Information Governance Board, in conducting its role in relation to providing advice to organisations processing confidential personal information, will neither hold any clinical records, on paper or electronically, nor have access to any existing or new databases of patient information. In general, it would be unlawful for NHS or social care organisations to disclose to the board any confidential personal information. As a means of preventing the board from requesting confidential personal information, we think that Amendment No. 210 is unnecessary, as such a request would not be made and would not be complied with. The Secretary of State is currently advised by the Patient Information Advisory Group, whose responsibilities are conferred by this Bill on the National Information Governance Board. The advisory group has established a framework that governs the use of patient information by researchers and others, ensuring sensitive data are held securely, are used in the public interest for specified purposes and are destroyed when no longer required by the recipient. Although the National Information Governance Board will determine how it will oversee these arrangements, it has indicated that it intends to work within the framework established by the advisory group that it will replace. The Academy of Medical Sciences has stated that these arrangements are essential for supporting research where obtaining consent or using anonymised information is not possible. We envisage an important role for the board in providing advice to the Secretary of State, the NHS and other bodies that process patient information, but we do not envisage any circumstances in which it would be necessary for the board itself to access personal information. Amendment No. 211, which seeks to prevent the National Information Governance Board from having access to patient information, does not therefore seem necessary to ensure that confidentiality is preserved. It is also important to stress that the board will not be expected to produce advice on information governance issues simply at the behest of the Secretary of State and that it will also have powers to determine for itself when it is necessary to produce advice. For example, the Secretary of State might ask the board to provide the NHS with advice on, say, data security following a high-profile leak of personal information. Alternatively, the board may become aware of bad practice at a particular NHS organisation and think it appropriate to provide specific advice. Amendment No. 211 would remove the enhancement requested by those currently performing the future role of the National Information Governance Board. I shall write in detail on the questions raised by the noble Earl about the thinking behind this because it would probably not be welcome if I went into that kind of detail at this point in the Committee. But I shall write and circulate the letter to the Committee.