Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendmentNo. 168, in clause 40, page 33, line 6, after ‘evidence’, insert ‘other than medical evidence’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 169, in clause 41, page 34, line 23, after second ‘information’, insert ‘excluding medical information’.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I shall be brief. There are broader issues, some of which were raised earlier by the hon. Member for Daventry, that we might consider in a clause stand part debate.

The amendments would exclude medical information from the information that can be shared under clauses 40 and 41. The reason is pretty simple and straightforward: as I hope all members of the Committee agree, medical information is particularly personal and is, with good reason, subject to a great degree of confidentiality in the medical system. Without such an exclusion, there is a risk that medical information about claimants could float around the system, being passed back and forth between agencies. That could include potentially sensitive, personal medical information. Is there not a risk that relatives or other people known to a claimant could get access to their medical information through the mechanism in the clauses? It is an important principle that medical information about an individual should be subject to very high standards of confidentiality and of appropriateness before being shared with any other agency. I hope that the Minister can allay my concern.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Again, I find myself much in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. His remarks are of course consistent with what I said earlier. Does he agree that the important principle is that of consent? I believe that one of his amendments to a later clause confirms that he does. The consent of the client should be obtained before information is released to others, particularly if it is of the highly sensitive nature that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that intervention. As the hon. Gentleman says, an amendment I tabled to a later clause refers explicitly not only to consent but to informing someone when information has been shared. That is an important principle and applies even more strongly to medical information than to almost any other category of information that we might debate under the clause.

The point is plain, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us, ideally by accepting the amendments, which would improve the Bill no end, if I may say so. If he feels unable to do that, I hope that he will at least give the Committee an undertaking to reflect further on how explicit protection for medical information can be put into the Bill within the provisions on information sharing for social security.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I shall be brief. First, could the Minister say what role, if any, the Data Protection Act 1998 plays in relation to the exchange of such information between the DWP and, as subsequent clauses will show us, other local authorities and county councils?

Secondly, I assume that most of the data exchange will take place primarily on computer systems, although I suspect a large degree will be on physical  paperwork. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that the IT systems in use, or those that will be used, are able to protect certain categories of information from general viewing by all people who can access those systems?

My primary reason for speaking to the amendment is directly linked to my concern that relatives or associates of the claimants and customers who have their medical information on the system might be able to see their details. That might be a former partner, or a close or distant relative of the individual in question. The idea that their medical records—or medical data exchanged between authorities—are freely available to somebody with a clear right to access the system, and a need to access it in exercising their functions, means that there is a deep concern about the potentially detrimental impact on that person’s privacy and relationships, and perhaps even on their family situation.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I am pleased to have the chance to respond to this brief debate. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that we need very high standards of protection. I assure him that that is what we seek to do through the Bill. He put it colloquially, but that I do not think that accepting his amendments would improve the Bill no end.

The hon. Members for Daventry and for Windsor made some entirely reasonable points. I confirm to them and to the rest of the Committee that section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides that it is a criminal offence to divulge any social security information, including medical information. That safeguard will apply in new section 7B of the 1992 Act as well as in amended section 7A. Clause 41 also considers medical evidence, while clause 42 complements the 1992 Act by making it a criminal offence to divulge that information. In this context, “information” includes medical evidence. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that it is a criminal offence to carry out the type of activity about which they raised concerns.

As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey was fair enough to acknowledge, amendments 168 and 169 would limit the sharing and use of information under the clauses to non-medical information. Amendment 168 would prevent medical evidence gathered in connection with a claim to a benefit from being used for a prescribed, relevant purpose. Here, a relevant purpose is set out in regulation 6 of the draft Social Security (Claims and Information) Regulations 2007. It is a while since we thumbed through the documents that we had at the start of our proceedings when we were talking about Employment and Support Allowance, but it is on pages 125 to 128 of the draft regulations before the Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman carries those with him religiously, so if he wishes to ask about specifics, he can of course do so.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

If medical evidence or records are disclosed, the information sheets that I have seen—partially for my own records—are all put together in one bundle or on one screen, without much shielding of other information. Will the Minister reassure the  Committee that only the relevant parts of such medical evidence will be disclosed, not the entire file or section?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman again makes an entirely fair point: we are discussing the disclosure of appropriate medical evidence rather than the divulging of entire medical records.

The relevant purposes are contained in the draft regulations. At this stage, they are only draft regulations, and hon. Members and others can reflect on their contents and offer observations about their potential operation, as they can about all draft regulations that we provided to the Committee in October.

One function of clause 40 is to enable local authorities administering housing benefit in English county councils to promote the take-up of benefits administered by the Department. Such benefits, which are listed in draft regulation 6(b), include those in which the provision of medical evidence in support of a claim is necessary. The words “is necessary” are important. The benefits include incapacity benefit, employment and support allowance and disability living allowance. It is right to support customers in making claims for benefits to which they are entitled. Removing the ability to use medical evidence when appropriate to encourage and assist customers in making such claims would hamper that objective, particularly in relation to joint team activity or targeting at certain customers, including older customers.

Many of us in our constituencies or elsewhere will have seen that joint team working. I have seen it in the east end of Glasgow and in Liverpool. We have already discussed the Streets Ahead project in Liverpool, where different agencies come together and literally knock on people’s doors and offer joint advice and support. It is an innovation in customer care and support, but we must share that information better and make it more joined up for our customers. As we roll out the city strategy consortiums, there is an opportunity for co-ordinated and coherent customer support. However, it will be based on the appropriate sharing of information among all consortium participants.

In some joint teams, local authorities administering housing benefit and English county councils work together as agents of the DWP to collect claims information and evidence, including medical evidence. I stress that people are not required to make a claim or to provide evidence to a joint team. They remain in control throughout, and they can opt to make their claim direct to DWP if they prefer.

Amendment No. 169 might prevent local authority welfare services teams from confirming with DWP or local authority benefit teams that the means test for certain benefits has been met. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. Welfare services teams would have to continue to duplicate the activity of the benefit teams by collecting and considering financial information needed to decide whether a customer meets the means test for welfare services assistance. That would run contrary to his well intentioned and well founded public policy statement, and his rhetoric about and intentions towards our deliberations.

The amendment would hinder a local authority’s decision about whether housing benefit should be paid to a tenant or to a landlord. The decision hinges on whether a customer is considered to have difficulty managing their own affairs and whether they would be likely to misuse their benefit—in other words, whether they are a vulnerable customer. Information concerning a customer’s medical condition would greatly influence that decision. That is acknowledged throughout the Committee.

The information gateway in subsection (2) would enable housing benefit teams to receive information about a customer’s vulnerability from welfare services teams. The decision of the housing benefit authority will be subject to appeal to an independent tribunal if either the customer or their landlord disagrees with the authority’s opinion. It is therefore essential for the authority to have a firm and complete basis on which to make its decision, including appropriate—I stress the word “appropriate”—medical information.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. He raised them in the correct spirit and, I believe, in a probing sense. We will exercise control through regulations made under clauses 40 and 41, and I invite him to offer observations about the draft regulations. For example, the effect of draft regulation 7(2)(c) of the Social Security (Claims and Information) Regulations 2007, which are to be made under clause 40, is to permit a local authority administering housing benefit and English county councils to verify information and evidence received from a customer making a claim for a benefit administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. However, the regulations specify that those authorities may not verify medical evidence, as it is not for them to do so, and must instead forward it to the Secretary of State.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

The Minister of State is helping to address the Committee’s concerns about this matter. Will he say something about the situation where information is properly transferred because it is relevant to the payment of a benefit or where it is transferred for some other perfectly acceptable purpose and is then not well controlled within the receiving authority? In the real world, some of our concerns are not about whether the gateway is passed, but about the situation once it has been passed. Even if it were well understood on one side of the gateway that the information was not to be made available to third parties, when it reaches the team on the other side the security might be insufficient to confine it only to those who need to know it. Sensitive information that started in the right hands may pass through again to the right hands but may somehow leak from them to a wider number of people, in the local authority or otherwise, some of whom might be bent or might find it appropriate to misuse it. Such a situation would concern us a lot.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

Typically, the hon. Gentleman raises a reasonable concern. His specific point captures some of the worries raised by the hon. Members for Inverness,  Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, and for Windsor. It would be a criminal offence to violate the protections that we envisage in the Bill and the regulations, and the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 are taken into account—a point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor.

The measures aim to ensure that the information must be relevant, a point to which I have alluded, and be obtained and processed lawfully. It would be forbidden to check NHS databases, for example. These legal safeguards are important. We are extending convenience and better support for our customers, many of whom, as we are all aware, are in a vulnerable situation, and it is important that protections go alongside that improved service.

As well as the legal protections, to which I have alluded at length, there is the additional safeguard that benefit and social services staff are subject to their own disciplinary codes, which carry the ultimate sanction of dismissal for the types of situations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—the unlawful use or disclosure of information. Local authorities are subject to the 1998 Act, and information on computers and elsewhere has to be held securely.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

This is just a quick reminder of the question I raised earlier. It relates to safeguards to prevent a relative or former relative of somebody who is claiming a benefit, or someone who has been in a relationship with such a person, from seeing their records. I am sure that there must be such a provision somewhere in local authority procedures or regulations. Will the Minister of State offer reassurance by pointing to where the restriction exists?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

I have mentioned that disclosure of medical evidence of this sort would be a criminal offence and that IT systems in local authorities and elsewhere are covered by the 1998 Act and additionally by the staff disciplinary process. How local authorities carry out such functions and undertake the powers in respect of a “relevant person” and a “relevant purpose” has been discussed in this Committee. Section 2(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 gives every local authority the power to do anything that

“they consider is likely to achieve ... the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area”

and

“social well-being of their area.”

Of course, that includes the opportunity to support customers and join up services to support them. However, they do so in the context of the disclosure of medical evidence being a criminal offence. They are also covered by the data protection arrangements and must act entirely within the disciplinary codes. Those three checks provide a triple lock on the misuse of the information.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I am still troubled by a point that may arise from my relative ignorance about the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. What would happen in respect of a person in a local authority receiving information about someone with whom they previously had a connection, when they would normally be the person to whom that information would be relayed?  Sometimes an allegation is made, for example, that somebody’s estranged partner who happens to work in a local authority has a downer about a planning application. There may be nothing improper in that person handling such data normally, but if they had a clash of interests because they were aware of another person—just as a judge in hearing a case may be conflicted—can the Minister assure us that they would not be the one handling the data? Would he be satisfied that the local authority in question would say, “X may not handle this case, because they are declaring an interest in the person, so Y will take it on”? It is not a matter of an improper release of information under criminal charges, but a question of the person who would normally deal with such information not being appropriate in that particular circumstance.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

In concluding, as I have said already, it is about access to relevant medical evidence, rather than medical records. The triple protection that I have spoken about—the criminal offence, data protection and the codes of conduct and disciplinary process—is important. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Our constituents do not just raise concerns about a relative or an estranged relative: they could be concerned about a neighbour or anyone with whom they have a disagreement, gripe or grudge; or they may have another reason not to trust a person’s judgment.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Daventry would expect me to say that this is an internal management issue for local authorities. Of course, we will keep the matter under review as a national Government, but we cannot, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect us to, design a system centrally that would take into account specific concerns, whether about neighbour disagreement, estranged family or allegations of discrimination on whatever grounds. Local authorities of all parties would take such matters seriously, monitor them and interrogate management information to ensure that there are no such trends, or discrimination, and see that people do not take their personal disagreements into their business activity.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that the triple protection would prevent the misuse of relevant medical evidence. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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—

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

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?

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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.

Anne McGuire (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Disabled People), Department for Work and Pensions; Stirling, Labour)

If the Conservative party wished to adopt a saint, perhaps the appropriate one would be St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes?

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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 (Windsor, Conservative)

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?

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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 (Windsor, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

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.

David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

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 (PPS (Rt Hon Des Browne, Secretary of State), Ministry of Defence; Colne Valley, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister and Disability Spokesperson, Work & Pensions; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

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.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

The third of my questions was the most significant. The key question was, how many third parties will have access to the information?

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

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.

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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.

Jim Murphy (Minister of State (Work), Department for Work and Pensions; Renfrewshire East, Labour)

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.