Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

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?

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

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

I assume that, when the Minister referred to clause 39, he meant clause 41, because the Bill has been renumbered.

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

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.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)

I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way, but I just want to be absolutely clear that third party contractors will not be required to conduct criminal record checks on their employees, and that consideration of what is appropriate is in their hands. That rings a few alarm bells with me.

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

The hon. Gentleman can return to the discussion on private and voluntary sector contracting and so on in the light of the paperwork that the Government have provided. He is correct in saying that  we will not centrally stipulate the criminal record checks to be performed on third parties. We can return to that issue on another occasion.

The protections provide citizens with assurances that information that may be personal and private, which they supply to those administering social security, will be treated in strictest confidence and will be only be disclosed to others in limited circumstances. I have described a triple protection mechanism. I hope that for the hon. Gentleman, who has been listening avidly to my comments, those last few sentences reassure him about his very real concern that started the alarm bells ringing. With that, I encourage the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.