Danny
Alexander: I am grateful as always to the Minister
for his full response. Earlier in our proceedings, I mentioned the
importance of advancing ideas about allowing medical assessments for
one benefit to inform assessments for others, to get a more efficient
system of medical assessments from the claimant’s point of
view—so they were not called for multiple assessments. I
understand the Minister’s point about the importance, in certain
circumstances, of allowing the relevant evidence to be shared. The
Minister’s remarks in respect of my concerns about
confidentiality have given me a considerable degree of reassurance. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Boswell: You will recall, Mr. Hood, that there
was some reference to theology this morning. In view of my contribution
this morning, I can only pray in aid St. Augustine, who I think advised
the sinner to sin boldly, but always remain conscious of the presence
of his redeemer. As I spectacularly misapplied my remarks on clause 38,
I hope that it will be in order if I
reiterate— Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Does my hon.
Friend agree that the Augustinian prescription, “Oh Lord, make
me simplify, but not yet”—might be an accurate
description of Government Ministers’ approach to simplifying the
benefits
system?
Mr.
Boswell: I am sure that even Government Ministers may look
forward with at least some qualified assurance to the possibility of
salvation, but I agree with my hon. Friend that they have not yet
reached that state of bliss.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire): If the Conservative party
wished to adopt a saint, perhaps the appropriate one would be St. Jude,
the patron saint of lost
causes?
Mr.
Boswell: The hon. Lady has now succeeded in fulfilling my
expectations. I ought to resist further invitations, but perhaps I
could suggest thatSt. Anthony of Padua, the patron saint of
those who find lost items, might be a little more appropriate? We have
found some principles that have perhaps been downplayed over the years.
The only substantive point that I wish to make is that what I said this
morning was timeless rather than pointless. The problem this morning
was that it was clauseless. I now think that we have found a clause on
which to hang it, and I hope that the Ministers will respond
accordingly.
Adam
Afriyie: I am pleased to rise to speak to clause 40 stand
part. It is the first time that I have led on a particular clause under
your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, but I have observed, during
former proceedings, that your guidance is often robust—so I am
slightly nervous—but always useful and helpful in steering newer
Members. Clause 40
relates to the sharing of more information between more bodies. In
particular it extends the parties that are able to view information
from claimants or customers to county councils, between local
authorities, with third parties to whom a local authority or the DWP
are subcontracting, and between the DWP and various other parties. In
the notes and several other documents that I have read, including the
Green Paper, the line is that the purpose of this clause is to promote
the take up and delivery of benefits.
I am sure all Members will
agree that the sharing of information can often lead to greater
efficiencies and we all see greater efficiency in the delivery and take
up of benefits. But we must also be careful to balance the privacy of
claimants and sometimes the security of claimants against that desire
for greater efficiency. Of course greater efficiency is what we want
and to some degree the entire Welfare Reform Bill pushes towards
greater efficiency—both in getting people into work and in the
allocation of benefits. The points that I would like
briefly to raise concern the security of data and the relevant purpose.
Some experience has come through from the pathways to work pilot
schemes. There must be some evidence or experience there about whether
the requirement for further data sharing was necessary. I am happy to
take interventions on the way if the Minister feels that he wishes to
answer the point quickly because I simply do not have the information
that he has available.
There must be some evidence
that additional data-sharing powers were required. If those additional
data-sharing powers were not part of the pathways to work pilot scheme,
what impact did that have? Did it have a significant impact? Are these
new powers of data sharing absolutely necessary in improving
efficiency? With
regard to civil liberties and privacy and, in some cases, the security
of individuals I have a general question. I believe that around 400,000
civil servants would generally have access to this kind of area, but
does the Minister have some figures on how many additional civil
servants and, more precisely—or more importantly—how many
additional sub-contractors to the DWP or to local authorities or county
councils might have access under these data sharing
arrangements?
5
pm I will not run
through sections 7A or 7B, which were created in the Social Security
Administration Act 1992, in detail other than to say that it is very
clear that third parties now obtain access to information, which is a
concern. What vetting procedures does the Minister anticipate will be
used to select employees among third parties to access the newly shared
data? That is a key
question. We have
already run through the concerns, under amendments Nos. 168 and 169,
about an individual being related to someone who is making a claim and
the effects that that can have. What safeguards are in place for
employees accessing the system as employees of third party
contractors? The
relevant purpose for use of information is to be set out in the
regulations. It was very helpful to see a set of draft regulations
beforehand; I have had a quick scan through and am comfortable with the
direction that many of them take. I seek some reassurance though:
proposed new section 7B(3) says that a relevant purpose for the sharing
or use of information
is “any prescribed
purpose which relates to a claim which is made or which could be made
for a specified
benefit.” My
concern is about the
wording “a claim
... which could be made”.
I am sure that it must have something to
do with the technicalities of drafting legislation, but I seek
reassurance. To my mind, as a layman, it seems that that would enable
the sharing of absolutely everybody’s information, because a
claim may be made by any citizen at some point in the future. Somebody
may suffer a bereavement or a relapse of a mental health
issue and make a claim. Somebody may make an inquiry about a benefit
with no intention of taking it up. I have done so myself on behalf of a
relative who was suffering from Parkinson’s
disease. Mr.
Boswell: Would my hon. Friend also like to reflect that
making a claim is, by definition, different from being in a position in
which one might make a claim? In the first case, in making a claim, one
implies acceptance of the rules of the scheme under which that claim is
made, whereas in the second case, one has made no commitment at
all.
Adam
Afriyie: I thank my hon. Friend for making the point
crystal clear. This is why my concern is with the
wording “or which could
be made” in respect of
a specified benefit: a claim is not actually being made at that stage.
What reassurance can the Minister offer that there is not a
free-for-all in the distribution or use of anybody’s
information, whether they have made a claim or
not? In order to
promote the take-up of benefits so that a form for a particular benefit
is populated from information that is contained locally—there is
a good example in the explanatory notes, or possibly in the
regulations—surely some sort of budget would be required. If the
intention is to extend the promotion of benefits, additional money will
need to be spent. Will the Minister say a few words on where that
additional budget is expected to come from? Will the local authorities
be expected to come up with it, or will it be the DWP
centrally? Finally,
we had a full and frank debate about the use of sanctions when we
discussed previous clauses. I have noticed that financial sanctions
will come up again in later clauses, together with prosecutions,
investigations and yet more financial sanctions. If we are to feel
certain that the purpose of clause 40 is to promote the take-up and
delivery of benefits, as opposed to introducing a mechanism for
imposing sanctions on offenders or for sharing information so that more
prosecutions and investigations can be undertaken, the Minister must
reassure us and rebalance the equation in his response. Will he explain
where the promotion of benefits comes into the clause in budgetary
terms and say something about the fact that the promotion of benefits
is not mentioned in the regulations or anywhere else other than in
notes and the Green Paper, and then as an intention?
Overall, the Bill is to be
welcomed. If the clause does what it is purported to do, it will
clearly be welcome. We all want greater efficiency so that more
resources reach the claimants, but I hope that the Minister can give us
some reassurance on the two or three points that I
raised.
Danny
Alexander: I will not dwell on the comments made by the
hon. Member for Windsor. He raised many of the points that I was
seeking to raise, so I will be brief.
It was important to say, as
the hon. Gentleman did, that the provisions for information sharing
will be welcome if what they lead to is more efficient benefit
processing and a greater ability for services to be joined
up for claimants, so that their experience is more straightforward and
benefits decisions can be taken more quickly. I think it was important
to preface my comments in that spirit. Mr.
Boswell: May I put to the hon. Gentleman the converse?
Individual officials, for whatever motive, may embark on what lawyers
would call a fishing expedition, trying to find out information that
may or may not be relevant to the case or to other matters with which
they may have to deal, or which possibly cast aspersions on a claimant
that are entirely
irrelevant.
Danny
Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and
I hope that the Minister will find time to address it in his response.
The powers have to be used responsibly—not in the way that the
hon. Member for Daventry described, as a kind of fishing expedition.
They should be used to make inquiries in a proper sense.
I shall raise one additional
matter that has not been mentioned in the course of the debate. Will
the Minister address the issue of how the provisions might, in due
course, interact with the national identity register and the national
identity card, a benighted project—[Interruption.]
The Liberal Democrats have opposed the project on a range of grounds
that I do not propose to dwell on
now.
Mr.
Ruffley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard
the Minister saying “sainted” from a sedentary position,
but does he agree that it would be a complete miracle if the scheme
came in on time and on
budget?
Danny
Alexander: It would be a miracle of saintly proportions if
that happened. One
of the arguments that Ministers advanced in support of that misbegotten
and misconceived project was that it would make it easier for members
of the public to access public services. The realm of public service
that we are debating is access to benefits and access to support from
the welfare system. My concern is the extent to which the provisions in
the clause will allow information that is held for social security
purposes, including medical evidence, although not medical
information—a distinction drawn earlier by the
Minister—to be linked into the national identity register to
enable claimants to access public services. They may be using a
national identity card to identify themselves. Could that information
end up being stored on the national identity card, supposedly for
reasons of administrative convenience? I hope that the Minister can
give me a categorical reassurance that there will be no interaction
between the social security information that we are debating and the
national identity register, and that there is no possibility whatsoever
that such information will be stored on the national identity
card.
Kali
Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): I served on the Standing
Committee for the identity card Bill on both of the occasions on which
it went through Parliament and I do not recognise any of the scenarios
that the hon. Gentleman has described.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that
intervention. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me similar
reassurances about how the Government intend to make use of the
provisions that we are debating. The Minister is a reassuring presence
on this Committee, and I am sure that he will carry out that role
effectively, as he has done before. I am concerned about the issue, and
I hope that he can give me the categorical reassurance that I
seek.
Mr.
Murphy: I shall try to respond relatively briefly, because
I know that we are encouraged to make progress to clause 52 by whatever
time of evening or night we manage to get there. Generally, my view on
information sharing is that we need to go further in shaping public
services around the needs and experiences of individuals, and learning
from some of the experiences of the private sector. As I have said
before, we should be intolerant of the state’s oft-repeated
requests for the same information for similar purposes on consecutive
days. I give the example of a part-time worker who is a mother who
drives to hospital for her appointments. The state interacts with that
citizen in all sorts of different ways: as a mother, a patient, a
driver, a worker, a taxpayer, and somebody who might be receiving tax
credits or the national minimum wage. We say that the state
collectively does not do enough to communicate and interact with its
citizens as rounded citizens; we can have a series of transactional
relationships that do not in any way match up. There can be convenience
for the citizen and efficiency for the state in the way in which we
interact and transact with our customers.
Turning to some of the points
that have been raised, I do not want to rerun the conversations that we
had on earlier amendments, and I am sure that you would not encourage
me to do so, Mr. Hood. However, on the point made by the
hon. Member for Daventry and others about a “fishing
expedition”, we are protected against such expeditions by
guidance and staff codes as well as by wider human rights
safeguards. The hon.
Member for Windsor asked how many additional civil servants would have
access to the information. I know that figures are sometimes difficult
to ascertain, but the advice here is that it is a round figure and it
is nil. I hope that that reassures him. There are other figures of
course. The clause extends the ability to share the information to
English county councils, and I do not have a figure for that. I do not
think that it is a matter of principle; it is a question of
information. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels passionate about the
issue, I am happy to follow it up with
him.
| 
