Open letter: Re: Simon Hughes MP on HMRC tax data

Hi Simon

Thanks for your lengthy response.

I applaud your desire to seem strong on personal privacy, but your position on this HMRC thing seems entirely backwards.

Sharing of anonymised data *publicly* is far better than providing it to only a few organisations for profit. The standards for checking that the data are safe to release publicly should of course be extremely high, but if the government is going to release any of this information, than it should be *public domain*. If it's not safe to be released publicly, it shouldn't be released at all. For any government department to be the gatekeepers deciding which organisations are worthy of seeing the data is just entirely wrong.

However the fact is that a thriving information economy is essential for enhancing our competitiveness and driving economic growth.

This is your most concerning statement, and very much suggests you'd sell the shirt off your back for a bit of government profit. My main objection to this is that I really think it's toxic to treat "economic growth", or indeed "enhancing our competitiveness" as the ultimate goals of society. When you pursue economic growth as your end goal you simply hand over power to huge corporations who are unaccountable to anyone. Inequality and runaway consumption both sky-rocket,  and the financial system gets destabilised.

Income equality, social justice and tackling global warming are the important issues, and I would far rather that we were a [*good* country](http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_anholt_which_country_does_the_most_good_for_the_world), contributing to increasing the well-being of the world as a whole, than a "competitive" one.

Rather than "a thriving information economy" I would rather have a "thriving information society" - sharing anonymised tax data (or indeed any non-personally-identifiable data) *publicly* would contribute far more to the greater good. Let anyone who chooses, rather than a privileged few, read and analyse the data. Anyone who believes in democracy has to believe that making the information available to everyone to generate ideas from and draw trends is better than limiting that information to a select few.

This article I just found very much summarises my point of view:

[Open data is a public good. It should not be confused with data sharing](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/12/response-confuse-open-data-sharing-government)

Please respond.

Thanks
Robin

-----

On 8 September 2014 10:07, Simon Hughes <simon@simonhughes.org.uk> wrote:
Rt Hon SIMON HUGHES MP

Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Liberal Democrat Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties


HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) data sharing



Thank you for your e-mail asking me to attend the data sharing round table event organised by the campaign group 38 degrees. I sincerely apologise for the delay in replying, but my office continues to receive a large amount of correspondence and I always try to prioritise first the requests for practical help.

I would like to assure you that human rights and the right to privacy of individuals are personal and political priorities of mine. I have never shied away from speaking up for civil liberties, from my time as a practising lawyer, during all my time in parliament as the local MP and now also in my current role as Minister of Justice and Civil Liberties.

With my Liberal Democrat colleagues I blocked the introduction of compulsory ID cards. I also actively campaigned against and prevented the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ included in the original Communications Data Bill as proposed by the Conservatives. Their plans would have led to the storing, for a whole year, of every website someone had visited. I am proud that Liberal Democrats blocked these original plans which would have been a totally inappropriate intrusion into people’s lives – and which the Conservatives still support.
I have been a human rights activist for many years, and I would like to assure you that I keep an individual’s right to privacy at the forefront of all my decisions about how the government keeps and shares our data. As minister of state for justice and civil liberties I also have the lead responsibility for laws which govern freedom of information, data protection and data sharing. The changes currently being proposed by HMRC, however, will not fall to my department for review. As this matter relates to our country’s financial information it will instead by the responsibility of my government colleagues in the treasury to review the suitability of these proposals.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the 38 degrees event on Tuesday 8th July as I was on ministerial duty but one of my assistants did attend on my behalf and has informed me about the discussions. Additionally my colleague Ian Swales MP, the Liberal Democrat backbench Treasury spokesman, also attended the 38 degrees event to hear the concerns of the experts at hand.

HMRC Consultation

Last summer, HMRC launched a public consultation on increasing its ability to share certain tax information. Currently it is unable to share data even with other government departments. Liberal Democrats are committed to promoting open government, and changes to these restrictions could increase transparency, promote economic growth and increase social mobility.

The consultation sought feedback on three proposals which were:
 to share general, aggregated and anonymised tax data with certain approved organisations;
to share company VAT information with credit reference agencies to help firms wanting to secure loans, and
 to release limited company VAT registration information as public data.

The government is now working to introduce changes to the second proposal. These changes will increase availability of trade credit to VAT-registered businesses and will help the economy by up to £1.8 billion.

In relation to the first proposal, last year’s consultation stated that there would be a rigorous accreditation process for any government department, charity, academic or company wanting access to the anonymised data. HMRC would then be able to decide whether it would be appropriate and in the public interest to share information with them. Access would only be provided in a secure environment and those granted access would be subject to the same confidentiality provisions as HMRC staff. This means that anyone who unlawfully disclosed taxpayer information would be liable to criminal sanctions. These are all important safeguards, and I am glad that the government is now looking further at ways of protecting people’s privacy.

My position

The whole concept of privacy and personal data has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. During a time where more and more of our lives are shared online I understand why many are increasingly concerned as to who has their information and what it is being used for. However the fact is that a thriving information economy is essential for enhancing our competitiveness and driving economic growth. How we achieve a balance between growth and data protection rights is the key question.

No final decisions have been made following this consultation and I’m glad that HMRC has confirmed its commitment to protecting taxpayer confidentiality. It has said it will only make changes through an open policy making process, which will give civil society and privacy interest groups such as 38 degrees a full opportunity to debate and influence the way in which the proposals could be implemented. I believe this is the correct approach.

I recognise that the views and opinions in relation to data sharing are diverse, as are the benefits and potential downsides. Whilst there are some people who do not wish for their data to be shared under any circumstances other people may be satisfied with sharing if it is for a greater benefit. But I am confident that by making sure that HMRC’s approach is open, honest and positive they can resolve any fears we may have.

I have made it very clear that I would oppose any change which would compromise the privacy of people. Any final changes must provide significant public benefits without compromising confidential taxpayer information and come with robust safeguards in place. I have no doubt that the Treasury will carefully consider the points made at the 38 degrees event when discussing how to go forward with this.

Thank you for raising these issues with me and I apologise again for the delay in getting back to you. I hope that my reply has addressed at least some of your concerns. If you have any further questions, or if I can be of any additional assistance on this or any other matter where members of parliament have responsibility, please do not hesitate to contact me again.



Yours sincerely


SimonSig



Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP

MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark