Adam
Afriyie: The third of my questions was the most
significant. The key question was, how many third parties will have
access to the information?
Mr.
Murphy: I think that I am correct in saying—but if
I am not, I shall clarify the matter for the Committee—that the
number will be similar to that of the additional civil servants. This
is about extending the current ability to share information to staff of
English county councils. If I am in error about the extension of the
number of third parties—particularly in the context of the city
strategy, which we seek to roll out, or of
joint working and joint outreach teams of the type that I alluded to in
the east end of Glasgow and part of Liverpool—I shall, of
course, stand
corrected. 5.15pm If
I am in error about the extension of the number of third
parties—particularly in the context of the city strategy, which
we seek to roll out, or of joint working and joint outreach teams of
the type that I alluded to in the east end of Glasgow and part of
Liverpool—I will, of course, stand
corrected.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for having
spoken—as we have said, the hon. Gentleman is a reasonable
person. I am not seeking to force heat out at this stage of the
proceedings, but it is implausible to say that the Government are about
to share more information with relevant people and then, in the same
breath, to say that no one is going to benefit from receiving that
information other than those who already have it. Those two
propositions are difficult to reconcile. Will the Minister of State
reflect on that? I am not asking for a pat answer now. Will he come
back to us and say, “Yes, we need to expand the constituency
people who have access to that information. That is what we need to do
and these are the safeguards.”? We will then be ready to accept
it or at least listen to it. At the moment, he is imagining two
impossible things together before dinner. He needs to revise his
ability to ride both those horses
simultaneously.
Mr.
Murphy: I will take up the hon. Gentleman’s
invitation. As I said, if I am in error, I will enlighten the Committee
about the specifics. Is it St. Luke who isthe patron saint of
light? The provision concerns the greater use of information rather
than its sharing. The clause provides an extension of that opportunity
to English county councils. I confirm again to the hon. Gentleman that
third parties will not have wider access to information under clause
40. However, I will respond, in a technical sense, to his specific
points. The
additional points raised by the hon. Member for Windsor alluded to the
breadth of the power to make regulations. Clause 40, as with other
clauses, gives the Secretary of State a relatively broad power to take
into account changes in the benefit system, the changing nature of the
welfare market, changing pressures, the shape of the labour market, the
need to adapt to the opportunities of information technology, including
those in the future, and the changing relationship between the private
and voluntary sector and the welfare market. It is important to give
that broad power to the Secretary of State. We will state that in more
detail, in regulation and guidance, before implementation.
Members of the Committee will
have an opportunity to offer their reflections on the draft regulations
before the Committee and state whether we have got them exactly right.
For the first time in this Committee, I offer to write to hon. Members
if I have not got the numbers exactly right. Neither myself nor my hon.
Friend the Under-Secretary of State enjoy doing that. I think that we
have written once to Members during our entire deliberations. However,
if necessary and for the
first time in our proceedings, I will write to the Committee. With that,
I encourage the Committee to let the clause stand part of the
Bill. Question put
and agreed
to. Clause 40
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
41Information
relating to certain
benefits
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 145, in
clause 41, page 34, line 35, after
‘function’, insert ‘prescribed by the Secretary of
State’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 146, in clause 41, page 34, line 41, after
‘function’, insert ‘prescribed by the Secretary of
State’.
Danny
Alexander: I do not need to detain the Committee for long
on the amendments. They probe a simple point. I know that clause 41 is
trying to do something slightly different from clause 40. It is about
making provisions relating to the sharing of information for a specific
purpose. The explanatory note covers supporting people grants. However,
I want to probe the relatively loose use of language under paragraphs
(d) and (g) in subsection (4), although I am sure that there is an
intention behind it.
Incidentally, I am delighted
to see the temporary promotion of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. I
hope that, given her contribution to the Committee, that will soon be
made permanent. The
clause refers twice to a person authorised to exercise “any
function” of such an authority relating to housing benefit. The
phrase “any function” is broad and I want, through the
amendments, to probe what the Government mean by it. I look forward to
the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Murphy: I am not sure that I have the confidence or the
courage to share with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
Defence the information that the position in Committee of my hon.
Friend the Member for Colne Valley is a promotion from her role as his
parliamentary private secretary. However, the hon. Gentleman might
wish, in a quieter moment, to offer that observation to my right hon.
Friend. Protection
under subsection (4) is set out in terms of the appropriate person. As
the hon. Gentleman is aware, draft regulations 125 to 128 set out the
legitimate purpose. At present, it is up to local authorities to
provide for the delivery of such services in the manner that best meets
the needs of the communities they serve. The amendment would
unnecessarily involve the Secretary of State in that local authority
role and matter. Although the phrase applies to a person authorised to
perform any function, the sharing can take place only for a relevant
purpose in respect of housing benefit and welfare services. I hope that
the relative narrowness of the power will reassure the hon.
Gentleman. The clause
already contains adequate safeguards to ensure that only appropriate
persons are involved in the
information sharing. In particular, any information sharing under the
clause would need to be for the legitimate purpose of either applying a
welfare service grant or for a welfare service housing benefit purpose
prescribed under the regulations. Only those persons whose functions
relate to such purposes can be involved in the information sharing, so
there is no need to be more specific about the persons
involved. Section
123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which I have
alluded to, and clause 42 of the Bill would also make any unauthorised
disclosure of information made by a person authorised to exercise a
housing benefit and welfare service function respectively a criminal
offence. That reassurance is important. However, if the hon. Gentleman
has specific worries, he can allude to them when referring to the draft
regulations before us or do so in later proceedings. I encourage him
gently to consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for his
encouragement to comment on the draft regulations, which I shall be
keen to do in due course. I am aware of his previous implication that
now is the time to debate not draft regulations in detail, but more the
principles of clauses. However, I am now reassured about
matters—although that it not always the case. I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Danny
Alexander: I beg to move amendmentNo. 147, in
clause 41, page 35, line 22, at
end insert— ‘(10) A person
who is the subject of information that has been supplied in accordance
with subsection (1) shall be notified in respect
of— (a) the information
provided, and (b) the person to
whom that information has been
given.’. This
amendment requires slightly more substantial debate because it relates
to the rights of the
claimant.
Mr.
Murphy: The
customer.
Danny
Alexander: I hear the Minister say
“customer”, so I will use the new Labour terminology for
the remainder of the
debate.
Mr.
Ruffley: And
Conservative.
Danny
Alexander: Yes. There is a sort of unity here. We are all
customers of the modern Conservative party.
The amendment would add to the
Bill the obligation that, when information is shared under clause 41,
the “person who is the
subject of information that has been supplied...shall be notified
in respect
of— (a) the
information
provided”— the
nature of that piece of
information— “and (b)
the person to whom that information has been
given.’.” Members
of the Committee may have observed that such an amendment might have
been appropriate also under clause 40—indeed it might have been.
However,
the amendment seeks clarification from the Minister on the rights he
envisages customers having to knowledge and information about them,
which they might have supplied to an agency or Department, such as
their local authority, and which might then have been shared with
another Department. On the face of it, it would seem to me reasonable,
on the grounds of basic fairness, that that claimant should have the
right to know that information about them has been shared, the nature
of that information and with whom it has been
shared. Given the volume of
correspondence with which customers almost inevitably are burdened
during the course of their interactions with the relevant Departments,
I cannot see an argument against my proposal on the grounds of
administrative efficiency because there is regular correspondence in
any case. On the grounds of natural justice and fairness, it seems
reasonable that if information about me is being shared, I should be
made aware of what that information is and with whom it is being
shared. I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Murphy: Again, briefly, the hon. Gentleman’s
intention is of course a fair one, but he seeks to solve a problem that
I do not think actually exists. In doing so he would set up a series of
inappropriate and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that would run
entirely contrary to what the Government are seeking to do in many
other ways—occasionally we have his party’s avowed
support, but only occasionally—in order to lighten the
bureaucratic burden on public servants, businesses and customers.
Instead, he wants to create an entirely unnecessary set of bureaucratic
hurdles to the processes that we are seeking to put in
place. Amendment No.
147 would place a duty on welfare services and benefit teams sharing
information under subsection (1) to inform the customer whose
information is being shared what information is being shared and with
whom it is being shared at each and every stage in the chain of events
as that information is received by those in the welfare system who wish
to support them. If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s amendment
correctly, that information, as well as a request for information to be
shared and the fact that it is being shared, would have to be confirmed
in writing with each customer. I do not think that that is an
appropriate way to handle the situation. We are trying to introduce a
system that will remove bureaucracy, reduce the number of repeat
requests and lighten the load created by complications, which would be
welcome. The hon. Gentleman has a good purpose and reasonable concerns,
but the outcome of what he has designed would add to the bureaucratic
burden and complexity of the system. That is unnecessary and
unwelcome. In any
case, information sharing under the clause is subject to the usual data
protection principles. It is important that that is put on the record.
In particular, those principles provide already that the sharing
proposed should be foreseeable to the customer. In practice, that
involves the customer being told of the use to which their personal
information could be put when they supply
it.
Adam
Afriyie: I seek a little further reassurance before
relaxing on the point. The Data Protection Act
1998 is very clear. My background is in IT services and I understand the
principle that a person opts into rather than out of data sharing. Will
the Minister confirm that when a customer acts as a claimant by making
a claim, they opt in by physically signing to say, “Yes, you can
share my data.”? Is that the situation regarding benefit
claimants? 5.30
pm
Mr.
Murphy: I am at a bit of a disadvantage, in that the hon.
Gentleman used to be an IT consultant but I only used to be the local
e-government Minister. Our conversation on the Bill can sometimes be
pretty dry, but if we were to enter into a conversation on the nature
of the relationship between the state and IT and how we use our IT, I
am sure that it would be a dialogue involving only
two. The customer
would be aware at the outset of the types of organisation that would
use the information and the purpose for which the information would be
deployed within the welfare realm and shared to make their navigation
around the system much easier for them and those who advocate on their
behalf.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful for the assurances that the
Minister is offering to the Committee. I did not want to speak at
length because I am conscious that this is an intervention, but since
yesterday, when somebody ran into my car—it was not my
fault—I have been somewhat preoccupied with having to deal with
claims. It has been interesting. I have had to duplicate information
for different bits of the responsibility—picking up the excess
and so on—which I concede is irritating. However, I have also
been struck by the way that those with whom I have been
dealing—exclusively on the telephone and not
documentarily—have said right up front, “At this point
you are making a return, and the information is personal information
that you may or may not be disclosing under Data Protection Act
principles.” It is absolutely up front and explicit. We are all
anxious for the Minister to ensure that at some point, in training,
through explicit notice in scripts for telephone information
downloading, or on documents filled in by claimants, it is made clear
that the information has a purpose and may be used within the proper
principles of the Data Protection Act 1998, so that there need be no
doubt. No corner-cutting should take
place.
| 
