This proposal was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 28 November 2007.

  We note that you broadly support the proposed Regulation. We, too, welcome the proposal to simplify and revise the existing basic legal framework of European statistics in order to provide better support to the production of comparable statistics across the EU and thereby facilitate the formulation of EU-level policy. We also agree that some of the detail of the proposal may require further attention.

  Article 11 provides for the adoption of the European Statistical Programme. Are the Government content with the procedure outlined for the adoption of the Programme? Are they content with the content of the proposed Programme? We consider the Programme important to provide an indication to National Statistical Authorities among others of what statistics will be required, as well as providing the legal framework for the collection of statistics. On a related matter, you say that the Government are satisfied with the provisions on temporary direct statistical action. Are you satisfied that Article 15 will not impose an excessive burden on National Statistical Institutes?

  You say that that "dissemination, access and disclosure control are adequately provided for". Is Article 18 sufficiently clear as to when individual data can be disseminated in the form of a public use file? What is the UK's approach to "anonymising" data? Do other Member States adopt a similar approach?

  Your EM indicates that the Government are reserving their opinion on some of the features of the statistical framework proposed until an adequate explanatory note is provided. You appear to suggest that this note should be provided by "the Task Force that developed the model". We understand from page five of the Commission's EM that the proposal builds on the results of several Task Forces. What body do you consider ought to prepare a further note, and is a further note expected?

  Finally, we note your statement that the proposal is consistent with the Human Rights Act. The proposal raises important issues of data protection and privacy. Might Articles 19 to 21 and 26 involve risks of excessive disclosure of personal information? We would be grateful for a more detailed analysis of the human rights implications of this proposal, both in terms of the Act and the wider European human rights framework. This should include your reasons for reaching the conclusion that the proposal is consistent with the Act and your specific comments on Chapter V of the proposal.

  We have decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny.

29 November 2007

  Thank you for your letter of 29 November 2007. You raise a number of questions about the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Statistics. I have addressed each of your questions in turn, below.

ARTICLE 11  PROVIDES FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE EUROPEAN STATISTICAL PROGRAMME. ARE THE GOVERNMENT CONTENT WITH THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PROGRAMME? ARE THEY CONTENT WITH THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMME?

  The European Statistical Programme will be adopted in the same way as at present, by co-decision of the European Council and Parliament. This manner of adoption gives the Programme legal force, commits the Commission (Eurostat) and Member States to its delivery (according to their spheres of competence), and enables the release of funds to deliver the programme.

  Under proposed Article 4, the ESS Partnership Group will examine the Programme and related developments, methods, priorities and progress. The composition of the ESS PG is set out in Article 4(2). The ESS PG therefore has a substantial statutory role in scrutinising the Programme before adoption, and for providing the professional leadership for its delivery after adoption.

  Where the Commission (Eurostat) believe that the delivery of the Programme requires a direct statistical action by the Commission (as opposed to the default position of actions by Member States) the action must be agreed by a comitology procedure. The ESS Committee is the comitology committee for the ESS (Article 27) and the Article 15 provision is one of a number of areas in the new framework where detailed issues are resolved in this way.

  The Programme consists of the statistics considered necessary for performance of the activities of the European Community. The Select Committee is correct to say that this becomes an important indication to NSIs of the future statistical needs of Europe. Member States typically prefer that European Statistics are founded upon national aggregates, rather than by direct statistical actions by Eurostat. To remain so it will be necessary for the national programmes for statistics to be supportive of the requirements of the Programme at the community level. This is already the case (for example, in the design of labour market and household surveys and national accounts). Therefore the Programme does indeed shape important features of the national statistical programme for the UK and other Member States, such as the burden imposed on UK statistics. This makes the scrutiny and professional leadership role of the ESS PG very important. The proposal replicates the current role of the Statistical Programme Committee (which has been considered successful) but builds it into the single modern governance framework for the ESS

ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT ARTICLE 15 WILL NOT IMPOSE AN EXCESSIVE BURDEN ON NATIONAL STATISTICAL INSTITUTES?

  Article 15 makes legal provision for the Commission (Eurostat) to directly compile existing data in Member States, or undertake the direct collection of data within Member States. The provision is most relevant for those Member States with developing national statistical systems. Any direct statistical action must be authorised by comitology decisions of the ESS Committee. The action must be directly related to a requirement of the European Statistical Programme. If the UK is obliged under such a Article 15 procedure to compile or collect data there may be a burden equivalent to, but perhaps different in practice from, meeting the requirements of the Programme by the usual means. It is for the UK and other Member States to endeavour to meet the requirements of the European Statistical Programme by their preferred methods of data Collection, but if the Member States fail to do so then Article 15 provides the means by which the Commission can seek authorisation for direct statistical action.

  In short, the burdens on the UK originate from the Programme itself. Therefore the provisions of Article 15 do not of themselves impose any extra burden on the UK but rather provides a means by which the ESS can lawfully provide for the delivery of the agreed Programme.

IS ARTICLE 18 SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AS TO WHEN INDIVIDUAL DATA CAN BE DISSEMINATED IN THE FORM OF A PUBLIC USE FILE? WHAT IS THE UK'S APPROACH TO "ANONYMISING" DATA? DO OTHER MEMBER STATES ADOPT A SIMILAR APPROACH?

  Individual data used to produce a European Statistic can be disseminated as a public use file only when it is no longer 'confidential data', as defined in Article 3. This requires that data subjects can not be identified, directly or indirectly, taking into account all relevant means that might reasonably be used by a third party to identify the data subject. This is a standard for anonymisation that is equivalent to, or even exceeds, the obligations to confidentiality in the Statistics and Registration Service Act (2007).

  The particular rules and measures for protecting confidentiality in disseminated European Statistics, datasets for scientific use, and public use files, are determined by the ESS Committee through the comitology procedure. This replicates the current arrangements whereby these comitology decisions are made by the Committee on Statistical Confidentiality.

  The UK statistical system has a sophisticated approach to statistical anonymisation and is recognised by its peers as having a leading role in Europe in developing world class methods for both confidentiality protection and for providing access to data for research purposes. The peer review process within the ESS has found that the UK fully complies with all the requirements of the European Code of Practice in this area. The peer review report of the UK statistical system will soon be published by the Commission.

WE UNDERSTAND FROM PAGE FIVE OF THE COMMISSION'S EM THAT THE PROPOSAL BUILDS ON THE RESULTS OF SEVERAL TASK FORCES. WHAT BODY DO YOU CONSIDER OUGHT TO PREPARE A FURTHER NOTE, AND IS A FURTHER NOTE EXPECTED?

  It is for the Commission (Eurostat) to produce any further explanation for the draft Articles for the Proposal. Our preference would be for the Commission to constitute an Expert Group to prepare on behalf of the Commission, and under its chairmanship, a text that explains the intention of each Article. This text should be provided to the Council Presidency for circulation to the Working Group for this proposal.

THE PROPOSAL RAISES IMPORTANT ISSUES OF DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY. MIGHT ARTICLES 19 TO 21 AND 26 INVOLVE RISKS OF EXCESSIVE DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION?

  We would be grateful for a more detailed analysis of the Human Rights iplications of this Proposal, both in terms of the Act and the wider European Human Rights Framework. This should Include your reasons for reaching the conclusion that the Proposal is consistent with the Act and your specific comments on Chapter V of the Proposal

Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights requires that any interference with the right to a private and family life must be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society. The proposal can be considered consistent with this right on the grounds that:

— it refers only to European Statistics, being those statistics developed, produced and disseminated in accordance with the Decision of Council and European Parliament on the European Statistical Programme, within the legal and regulatory framework for those European Statistics.

— further, the proposal harmonises the existing legal framework that ensures the Programme minimises intrusions into respondent privacy yet balances that intrusion with the need for statistics that allow the Community and Member States to develop and pursue policies and administrative actions upholding the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

— further, the proposal requires that any transmission or exchange of data is limited only to that necessary for the statistics in the European Statistical Programme. It will not be lawful under the proposal to exchange any data that is not necessary for that purpose.

— As is the case of a national statistical system, given the increasing demands for statistics from national and European government the alternative to exchanging existing data is to initiate additional direct statistical inquiries. This would increase the respondent burden, but would also have the effect of increasing the amount of data held by the statistical system about the citizens and enterprises of Europe.

— The ESS PG, under Article 3(d), shall have the role of scrutinising the measures for statistical confidentiality of exchanged data. This will include the standards for maintaining the security and privacy of statistical records held by Eurostat.

— Under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 the Statistics Board will only be able to exchange confidential data with the Commission (Eurostat) where there is an obligation in Community law to do so. Where there is such a Community obligation the relevant sectoral Regulation when enacted will provide the 'in accordance with the law' and 'necessity' requirements of the Convention right. Once again, the role of the ESS PG in the scrutiny of the sectoral regulations, and the European Statistical Programme that makes them necessary, is important.

  The Commission have sought the formal opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the compliance of this proposal with the European Data Protection Directive.

14 January 2008

  Thank you for your letter of 14 January which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 23 January 2008.

  We are grateful to you for the helpful explanations you provide. In particular we welcome your detailed comments on the human rights position. We look forward to seeing the formal opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor.

  We note your comments on the need for a further explanatory note. Is it expected that the Commission will establish an expert group as you suggest?

  We have decided to retain the proposal under scrutiny and will consider this matter again once we have had sight of the further explanatory note and the EDPS opinion.

24 January 2008