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

I beg to move amendmentNo. 145, in clause 41, page 34, line 35, after ‘function’, insert ‘prescribed by the Secretary of State’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

The customer.

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

I hear the Minister say “customer”, so I will use the new Labour terminology for the remainder of the debate.

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

And Conservative.

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

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.

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

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 (Windsor, Conservative)

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?

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

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

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?

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

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I was under the impression that I had finished my comments.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Start again.

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

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

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am so inclined, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

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.

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

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.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

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?

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

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.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

My final point was about the wide-ranging power in clause 41(9)(a) to make different provisions for different purposes.

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

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 (Windsor, Conservative)

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.

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

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.