The
Chairman: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that that
was a rather long intervention, and I hope that it is his last long
one?
Mr.
Murphy: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I was under the
impression that I had finished my comments.
Mr.
Boswell: Start
again.
Mr.
Murphy: I will not take up the hon. Gentleman’s
encouragement, but I will say in closing—it relates to his point
and experience and to that of the hon. Member for Windsor—that
any person who supplies information to DWP or local authorities will be
given a
fair processing statement explaining to what uses the information will
be put. In addition, all guidance issued by the Department on the use
of the power will be freely available to anybody who wishes it.
Similarly, and importantly, anyone can request from local authorities
involved in sharing information documents that set out their policy on
the matter under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I hope that with
that important reassurance, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey will be inclined to withdraw his
amendment.
Danny
Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
I am so inclined, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Adam
Afriyie: I am conscious of time, so I will be as quick and
to the point as I can without being peremptory. The clause relates to
sharing information on certain benefits under the supporting people
framework, which is a funding mechanism for giving money to vulnerable
or needy groups in society.
The clause aims to ensure that
the information available on grants given by other mechanisms is
available to the people administering employment and support allowance
and other benefits under the Bill. I am aware that the Local Government
Act 2000 makes it an offence to share information other than in
relation to a very narrow category of benefits. Clearly, something
needs to change, and the clause is necessary if information is to be
shared. However, as I said on clause 40 stand part, we must go no
further than necessary when disclosing personal and private information
to achieve efficiency.
I have two or three concerns
about which I trust that the Minister will reassure us. First, the
pathways to work pilots will already have had access to certain
information through the supporting people framework. What impact did
that have on how efficiently benefits were delivered under the new
schemes? My second
concern, which is fairly significant, is about the powers being created
under the clause. Subsection (9)(a) states that the power to make an
order or regulations under the clause includes the power
“to make different provisions for
different purposes”. At
a cursory glance, that seems to mean, in layman’s language, that
the Secretary of State can make any provision for any purpose. I am
sure that that is not the case, but will the Minister explain where in
the Act the power is checked or contained?
My third concern is about the
definition of welfare services, which is key to the clause and to the
sharing of information under the clause. The definition at the end of
subsection (10) is fairly vague. It states that welfare services
include “services which
provide support, assistance, advice or counselling to individuals with
particular needs.” I
hope that that is covered in the regulations, because it does not take
a large leap in imagination to realise that pretty much any support
service that is provided to any
individual could be considered to fall within that grouping. I would
like some reassurance that that broad—indeed, vague, from a
layman’s perspective—definition will be dealt with in the
regulations. If I have misunderstood the legal language, will the
Minister explain where I have misunderstood
it? Access to the
draft statutory instrument relating to clause was very welcome because
it makes it clear how orders and regulations will be made and gives us
the shape of the instrument. That was useful in showing how complicated
the benefits system is and how welcome parts of the Bill are in
tackling some of that complexity.
In relation to the employment
and support allowance and other benefits under the Bill, what was the
experience of the pathways to work scheme with overlap and interaction
between the supporting people framework and that funding mechanism? Was
there any confusion? Were there any representations that the two are
incompatible? Was there any trouble or rub-up between those two
overlapping schemes?
Clearly, clause 41 needs to
stand part of the Bill. If the Minister gives me the reassurance that I
seek, I will be comfortable in accepting it as it
stands.
Mr.
Murphy: I shall respond relatively briefly to the specific
points that have been raised. As hon. Members will know, the clause
will replace section 94 of the Local Government Act 2000, to which the
hon. Member for Windsor referred. Section 94 allows only a one-way
sharing of benefit information from benefit teams to welfare services
teams for purposes connected to the application of welfare services
grants. Clause 41 will make that one-way gateway into a two-way sharing
provision, which is
important. On a point
raised by the hon. Gentleman, the same definition of welfare services
will apply as under the 2000 Act. We are not redefining welfare
services in this clause. That is an important reassurance, and I know
that he will take it as such. We are simply continuing and extending
the sharing that is already in
place. On pathways
and, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the possible rub-up between schemes,
I have pathways in my own area and, as a constituency Member of
Parliament, that is not something that I have noticed. Others might
have their own experience, but we have already committed to the
publication of the experiences and assessment of pathways. We will of
course share them with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which
will make its own observations on the neatness of the fit between
pathways and other DWP programmes, whether they are provided by the
state or enabled by the private and voluntary sector.
The hon. Gentleman was right
to allude to the complexity of the benefits system, the welfare market
and labour market interventions. As we seek more collaboration between
the public sector and the private and voluntary sector and use the
opportunity that technology provides, collaborative work will become
much more commonplace and will be welcomed more by ourselves and, more
importantly, by our customers. Two-way information sharing is crucial
to enable that to
happen. The hon.
Gentleman asked earlier about the cost of enabling the provision. We do
not have an identified set
of costs, because we are not putting an additional statutory obligation
on local authorities. It is important to point that out to our local
government colleagues. We anticipate that as a consequence of
information sharing, there will be significant savings and a reduction
in duplicate requests for information from the same customer. That is
all that I can say on costings at this
time. Mr.
Boswell: In cases in which the local authority assumes the
burden of administering a national benefit, will there be provision for
the reimbursement of the local authority, either through the normal
local government formula or by way of a special acknowledgement of its
work? It is clearly important that such work is done as efficiently as
possible, and that the costs should be met if they are
disproportionate. For example, if a ring of fraudsters is operating in
a particular local authority area and the authority has to do a lot of
extra work, who will pick up the
tab?
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important principle,
which he knows is exercising the Government. I shall put it in the
context of the conversation that we are currently having in Parliament
and elsewhere about how properly to devolve the welfare state and how
to incentivise good behaviour and ambitious thinking and delivery. In
the private and voluntary sector there is a well established
procurement process, identified in contracts, and risk and rewards.
That is set out in pathways and in other private and voluntary sector
support. How to
incentivise local authorities is an important conversation and the
truth is that we have not got it right over time. One of the problems
by which we are currently taxed is city strategy. As we heard yesterday
at departmental questions, the fifteen city consortiums are to put
their proposals to the Government by29 December. Within that
context, the question is how properly to reward those who go beyond the
norm in progressively supporting people to get off benefit and into
work, so that they can retain some of the savings for investment in
subsequent success. We are alive to that principle. We acknowledge that
over time, Governments of all persuasions have not gone far enough or
come close to getting the right rewards in the public sector,
particularly in respect of local authorities. We are determined to
address that in our city
strategy. 5.45
pm
Adam
Afriyie: My final point was about the wide-ranging power
in clause 41(9)(a) to make different provisions for different
purposes.
Mr.
Murphy: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having
alluded to his specific question. What we seek to do there, as in other
clauses, is to draft quite a wide power and then follow it up in
regulations or guidance, whichever is most appropriate. Draft
regulations in relation to the clause have been provided. The
alternative to taking the relatively broad power is to set out in
primary legislation a rather prescriptive definition of the
purpose.
Welfare reform Bills do not
appear annually. We cannot rely on the flow of primary legislative
vehicles to continually update the Government’s interventions in
a changing welfare market. That is why we take a relatively broad power
which we can follow up with regulations or guidance. The House and
others will take a view so that we get those regulations and guidance
absolutely right. To place on the face of primary legislation a
specific constraining power would mean that the primary legislation
would be pretty quickly out of date and unable to adjust to the
changing nature of the welfare
market.
Adam
Afriyie: The reason that I make the observation is that on
a cursory glance through other legislation passed in the past five to
10 years, I could not find an identical phrase or the same structure of
comment. That was why I raised the concern. Perhaps at some other point
the Minister may allude to it
again.
Mr.
Murphy: That is an important point. Perhaps later in our
deliberations we can return to that. We have taken similarly broad
powers in earlier clauses. I cannot recall the exact phrasing. I think
we had a Division on one earlier. That the Secretary of State should
have a power to vary provisions because of the changing nature and
changing circumstances of the labour market and the welfare system is
an important and well-established principle.
We can discuss the points
raised by the hon. Member for Daventry about the issue of fraud and
specific efforts by local authorities at a local level when we come to
clause 45. I do not want to entice the hon. Gentleman to prolong his
point, but there will be an opportunity to do that then. With those
comments, I encourage the Committee to agree that the clause stand part
of the
Bill. Question put
and agreed
to. Clause 41
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
42Unlawful
disclosure of certain
information Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Adam
Afriyie: I want to make two or three brief points. The
clause appears to bar the unlawful disclosure of certain information by
people involved in the use of the information. Essentially, it aims to
stop the unlawful disclosure of information when disclosure is probably
enabled by the previous two clauses. The third party organisations and
private companies that may be employed in the use of information and
the delivery of welfare services will clearly have access to the
information. I seek some reassurance on the controls on the employees
of those third party organisations. Will criminal record checks be
compulsory? I should like some information on the vetting of employees
in third party organisations to which services may be contracted
out.
This is a “techy”
point, but I am curious to know the difference between clause 42 and
section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which it
clearly seeks to reflect. If there are any differences, what is the
reason for them? My
final question is on budgets. It is intended to promote take-up, but
the clause says that it will be unlawful to disclose information.
Inquiries and monitoring will incur costs, so from which budget will
those costs be paid? I appreciate that the costs will not be
significant or enormous, but will they be paid by local authorities,
third party suppliers, or the
DWP?
Mr.
Murphy: Clause 42 is needed to align existing protections
against unauthorised data sharing in relation to benefits staff and
local government. The hon. Member for Windsor said, rightly I think,
that the clause replaces section 123 of the Social Security
Administration Act 1992, which applies to benefits staff, and section
95 of the Local GovernmentAct 2000. The clause creates a
criminal offence of unauthorised disclosure by welfare services staff
of information gained through clause 39, which is headed
“Information relating to certain benefits”. Conviction
for the offence may lead to a fine or, importantly,
imprisonment.
Danny
Alexander: I assume that, when the Minister referred to
clause 39, he meant clause 41, because the Bill has been
renumbered.
Mr.
Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he encourages me
to mention that the wording of the draft regulations and supporting
material will also need to be updated, because having been published in
October they predate the additional clauses.
To address the point made by
the hon. Member for Windsor, subsection (2)(a) covers third party
employees—parties employed by local authorities. It is up to the
authorities to conduct appropriate checks on staff. Hon. Members were
keen to see the paperwork that we compiled on the roles of the private
and voluntary sectors in future pathways, and will now have had chance
to reflect on it. In drafting that paperwork, we dealt with staff
training, staff experience and keeping staff skills up to date, and we
wanted to ensure that people will be supported in getting back into the
labour market by appropriate staff with appropriate experience and
relevant backgrounds.
On the hon. Gentleman’s
narrow, technical question on clause 42, I am advised that the narrow,
technical answer is that there are no differences between the clause
and section 123 of the 1992 Act in what constitutes unauthorised
disclosure. I hope that the reassures the hon.
Gentleman.
| 
