Clause
57
Educational
institutions : duty to provide
information
11.45
am
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 42, in
clause 57, page 30, line 37, at
end insert
‘to the
extent that fulfilling such duty conforms to Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.’.
The clause is another
data-sharing provision, which we touched on when we debated amendment
No. 97. Clause 57 is drafted similarly to clause 14, but it relates to
data being shared with the local authority to enable it to supply
support services to young people, rather than to promote participation.
However, the principle of the information that an educational
institution holds being shared with the local authority is the
same.
The amendment
would ensure that the data-sharing powers are consistent with the
European convention on human rights by incorporating article 8 into the
clause and requiring it to be consistent with that article, which deals
with the right to respect for private and family life. It
states:
“Everyone
has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence...There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of
others.”
The
human rights aspect of the Bill, particularly in relation to
information-sharing provisions, has been raised by the hon. Member for
Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who chairs the Joint Committee on
Human Rights. The right protected by article 8 is a qualified right
that can be interfered with, as the Government have done, if that
interference has its basis in law, is done to secure a permissible aim
set out in the relevant article and is necessary in a democratic
society. Interference must fulfil a pressing social need, pursue a
legitimate aim and be proportionate to the aims pursued. That is a key
aspect. The hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the human rights
implications of the Bill were raised in a letter of 20 December, in
which he
states:
“The
Bill contains information supply and sharing provisions in Parts 1 to 4
which raise potential human rights issues, notably the right to respect
for private and family life. The Government has referred to some, but
not all, of the information supply and sharing provisions in the human
rights section of the Explanatory Notes. In particular, whilst the
Explanatory Notes state generally that the provisions in Chapter 2 of
Part 1 pursue the aim of economic well-being, the Government does not
explain specifically, in relation to each of the disclosure provisions,
how each provision is both necessary and proportionate to the
achievement of that
aim.”
The hon. Gentleman
specifically
asks:
“In
relation to each and every information supply and sharing
provision...what legitimate aim is sought to be protected...are the
provisions necessary to achieve the aim and...are the measures
proportionate to that
aim?”
He goes on to
ask:
“In
relation to each and every information supply and sharing provision,
what specific safeguards will be in place to ensure their compatibility
with article 8
ECHR”?
Thus, the question
is: what is the legitimate aim?
The Minister responded in
another
letter:
“Economic
well-being of the country: the information collected will be used for
improving the participation and general attainment in education and
training of young people by providing appropriate support to individual
young people...thereby ensuring a more skilled
workforce.”
That, then, is the Minister’s
explanation of the legitimate aim of the powers, which, on the face of
it, could infringe the human rights convention. On the issue of whether
the measure is proportionate, his response
is:
“Only by
the provision of this information—name, address, date of birth
and other information relevant to Connexions services—by schools
and colleges can the full group of young people be identified in
respect of whom LAs have the duty in clause 54 to make Connexions
support services available. This enables Connexions services to provide
appropriate
IAG”—
information,
advice and
guidance—
“at an
early stage, thereby helping young people to make informed choices that
most benefit them.”
The
important passage there is the one about the information being relevant
to Connexions services. Clause 57(2) states that the information
requested must be relevant to the provision of services. However, the
information supplied can be
any
“information in the
institution’s possession about the pupil or
student.”
There is
nothing in the definition of relevant information that requires it to
be confined to the purpose of providing Connexions services. Even if
the provisions did confine the information to that purpose, the power
would still be very wide, involving supplying details of the academic
and personal problems of a student at school or college. I believe that
that would be disproportionate to the
aim.
Mr.
Heald:
I support my hon. Friend’s general point,
but if the information was about safety—the safety of other
pupils—such as the fact that the student had regularly carried a
knife and was perhaps the local gang leader, or had inappropriately
touched other students, or something of that sort, surely it might be
quite important for risk
assessment.
Mr.
Gibb:
My hon. Friend is right, and nothing in the
amendment would prevent that information from being given, because an
exception to the qualified right to respect for private and family life
is the prevention of crime. That is one of the exceptions to that
sacrosanct right. All the amendment would do is make the Bill conform
to article 8 as qualified and as subject to those exceptions. My hon.
Friend raises an important point, but I hope that I have convinced him
that the information could be supplied if the amendment were accepted.
I await the Minister’s response to those important points about
human
rights.
Jim
Knight:
It is important for the Committee to note that, on
the front of the Bill, we have made a statement under section 19(1)(a)
of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the Education and Skills Bill is
compatible with convention rights. Clearly, the amendment tests that,
and it is perfectly right that it should do so, but I want to be clear
from the outset that we think that the measure is compatible with the
convention.
Article
8, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, provides
for the right to respect for private and family life and that is an
important right. I assure him that we have looked closely at the duty
in the clause to provide information against that article. I am
grateful to him for quoting at length annexe A of
my letter responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, because it
saves me having to do so. On behalf of the Joint Committee on Human
Rights, my hon. Friend asked me to set out the aims that we sought to
protect and to confirm that, in my view, the provisions were necessary
and proportionate. I did that in the letter of 14
January. The aims of
the clause and of other information-sharing clauses that we are
discussing are strongly linked to the economic well-being of the
individual and of the country, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton has explained. The information that is collected will be
used to increase participation in education and training by providing
appropriate support to individual young people, as provided for by
clause 54. That is the context in which clause 57 should be understood.
Support services will be provided by local education authorities, which
will thereby ensure a more skilled work force, as well as benefits for
the individual and
society.
It is
necessary for educational institutions such as schools and colleges to
provide basic information on individual young people to those involved
in the provision of support—in other words, to Connexions.
Without that, Connexions would not have basic information about its
core client group and would be unable to provide young people with
information, advice and guidance tailored to their needs. We know that
receiving appropriate information, advice and guidance is essential to
achieving the aim of increasing participation and that it meets a
pressing social need. Our witnesses reinforced that message, even if we
were not already convinced of its
importance.
It is only
by the provision of basic information by educational institutions, as
set out in the clause—name, date of birth, address, and name and
address of parent—that Connexions service providers can identify
the full group of young people to whom local authorities have a duty to
provide support under clause 54. Information other than that basic
information must not be released to Connexions when pupils or students
over 16 or the parents of under-16s have instructed the institution not
to release it, as we have discussed at
length.
In all cases,
whether we are dealing with the basic information or the further
information, I stress that it must be relevant to the provision of the
Connexions service and it may be provided only to a person involved in
the provision of the Connexions service. The passing on of the
information is under the control of a “responsible
person”, as defined in subsection (5); for example, in a school,
that would be the governing body. Those provisions, together with the
ability of parents and young people to withdraw their consent for the
passing on of all but the basic information, are very important
safeguards.
In
addition, the Data Protection Act will govern how Connexions service
providers can use the information that they obtain under the clause,
including how they acquire, store and dispose of it. Any unlawful
disclosure or use of the information will be subject to the offences
and associated penalties under the Data Protection Act. We will discuss
amendments that deal with offences in relation to data sharing
later.
As
I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was content to
sign the necessary statement under section 19 of the Human Rights Act
1998. We are satisfied that the information flow is justified by our
aim of improving participation in education and training, and that the
provision of information is no more than is necessary to achieve that
aim. My conclusion is that the amendment would not add anything to what
is already provided in the Human Rights Act. On the basis that it is
superfluous, and that we do not think that superfluity in legislation
is a good thing, I invite the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
If superfluity were excluded from legislation passed
by this House, Bills would be significantly shorter. However, I say to
the Minister that to say that the statement on the front of the Bill is
evidence that it complies with the Human Rights Act is rather odd. He
could not exactly write a statement on the front of the Bill that in
his view its provisions are incompatible with the European convention
on human rights, so of course he is going to say that it is compatible.
We have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Hendon whether the Joint
Committee on Human Rights believes that the Bill is consistent with the
European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. The
Minister confirmed in his response to the debate that the protection
available to the pupil or student is provided by an opt-out rather than
by active consent, just as he said in evidence to the Committee a few
weeks ago.
12
noon
I
hope that the Joint Committee will examine our proceedings,
particularly our sittings today and immediately before the recess,
before coming to a conclusion about whether the Bill is compatible with
the Human Rights Act and the European convention. It would be better to
incorporate the amendment into the Bill, because when interpreting it
the courts would have an explicit provision to ensure compliance with
article 8. However, the purpose of the amendment was to air the
subject, and I see no need to press it to a Division. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
15
Information:
supply by the Secretary of
State
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 20, in
clause 15, page 8, line 4, at
end insert—
‘(1A)
Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the Secretary
of State regards the provision of the information to be proportionate
to the aims of the local education authority in the exercise of its
functions under this
Part.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 21, in
clause 15, page 8, line 4, at
end insert—
‘(1A)
Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the local
education authority requesting the information regards the provision of
the information to be proportionate to the aims of the local education
authority in the exercise of its functions under this
Part.’.
No. 106, in
clause 61, page 33, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(1A)
Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the Secretary
of State regards the provision of the information to be proportionate
to the aims of the local education authority for the purpose of the
provision of services in pursuance of section 54 or
56(1)(b).’.
Mr.
Gibb:
Clause 15 gives the Secretary of State the power to
supply social security information to a local education authority about
a young person. It is clear that that information comprises simply the
name and address of the young person, or that of the parents, held by
the Department for Work and Pensions. The amendment would ensure that
the Secretary of State supplied data to the LEA only if both parties
regarded the provision of such information to be proportionate to the
aims of the LEA as defined in the Bill.
In a letter
to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Minister gave as his reason
for that provision the fact that young people tended to move around
frequently. He said that from the age of 16 young people become a lot
more mobile and that such information—the social security
data—is what enables local authorities to keep track of them.
However, the Bill gives no guarantee that a young person’s
private information will be shared only when that proportionate needs
test is met.
As
drafted, the Bill says that the Secretary of State can provide any
information that the local authority would find useful in carrying out
the functions placed upon it. However, such information might well be
transferred even when the young person in question was not frequently
changing address, as the Secretary of State said should be the case, or
if there was no other pressing need. If the Minister is comfortable
that the power will be used only in a proportionate way, he should have
no problem in accepting the amendments.
Jim
Knight:
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
proposes to include in the clause a specific test of proportionality. I
suggest that such amendments are not necessary to ensure that
consideration is given to the proportionality of supply of
information.
The
Secretary of State and the local authority must both act in a way that
is compatible with the European convention on human rights, according
to which any interference with the right to respect and family life
must be necessary and no more than is necessary to achieve the desired
aim. That requires a public body to ensure, before putting in place
arrangements to release information that potentially infringes that
right, that the information released is no more than is necessary for
the purposes it will serve—that it is proportionate. That is why
the powers in these clauses restrict the information that may be shared
and what purposes it can serve. In clause 15, the purpose is to enable
or assist local authorities to fulfil their duties to promote
participation and identify young people not participating. In clause
61, the purpose is the provision of Connexions services.
The aim of
increasing participation in education and training justifies the supply
of information provided for in the clauses, but every public body must
satisfy itself that the extent of the information that it releases to
local authorities under the provisions is proportionate to those
benefits. Local authorities must also be satisfied
that their requests for information are proportionate. The information
that will be provided under the clauses is an essential source of basic
identification information that will serve to populate the Connexions
database. Together with other sources, it will be fundamental to
Connexions’s ability to track young people effectively and to
provide them with appropriate and timely
support. The
hon. Gentleman referred again to the letter I sent to the Joint
Committee on Human Rights—I am grateful to him for, as ever,
assiduously doing his homework. The letter sets out our analysis and
justification of the information-sharing provisions in the Bill. Local
authorities are taking on new functions of promoting participation and
identifying young people who are not participating so, clearly, the
information sharing needs to continue so as not to jeopardise the
effectiveness of the Connexions service. In the light of that
reasoning, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I can see no reason why the term
“proportionate” cannot be included in the Bill to make it
explicit and clear that the supply of information should be
proportionate. However, the purpose of the amendment was to air those
issues in the Committee. Having done so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 15, page 8, line 4, at
end insert—
‘( ) Information
may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the person to whom the
information relates has given written consent that such information can
be
supplied.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to consider the
following amendments: No. 104, in
clause 61, page 33, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(1A)
Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the person to
whom the information relates has given written consent that such
information can be
supplied.’.
No.
105, in
clause 61, page 33, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(1A) Any person
about whom information is supplied under subsection (1) shall have the
right to examine any relevant information requested by a local
authority or other person before that information is provided by the
Secretary of State to the authority or other
person.’.
No.
102, in
clause 61, page 33, line 19, after
‘unless’ insert
‘consent has been given by the
person to whom the information relates
and’.
Mr.
Hayes:
It is good to come back to our labours after a
brief respite from scrutinising the Bill with the assiduity and
diligence that the House demands and which our constituents deserve, is
it not?
The debate
this morning focused on the Opposition’s sensitivity to the
storage and use of data. The Minister repeatedly assured us that the
information is solely for advising young people through the Connexions
service but, when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton, he was forced to admit that the information is
actually about local authorities fulfilling their duties under the Bill
and, of course, those duties specifically include the promotion of
participation. Given that enforcement is the end of
the process, the Minister will understand that we continue to have
doubts. That is why we have tabled the amendments, which we will
discuss at some length, I
hope. It would
probably be helpful if I said a few words about the explanatory notes
on clause 15, because they make clear why we feel that the amendments
are important. The notes state:
“The Secretary of State,
under clause 15, may supply social security information to
enable a local education authority to fulfil its functions under this
Part”,
as we have heard.
They
continue:
“The
clause sets out under what circumstances further disclosure of this
information is permissible, under what circumstances it is an offence
and the penalty that may be
imposed”.
Indeed, the
explanatory notes to clause 61, which is relevant to this group of
amendments, say that the powers under the Bill enable the
“Secretary of State to supply
information to a local...authority or other person for the
purposes of the provision of Connexions services for young people.
Specifically, it gives the Secretary of State the power to supply
social security information in relation to young people. In order to
identify young persons, it may be necessary to use information held by
the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (for example, as supplied
to JobCentre Plus by a young person claiming benefits). In this way,
Connexions services can maintain accurate and comprehensive
records”.
The point is
that that can be done without the young person’s explicit
consent. Amendment No. 22 would provide that the information should be
supplied only
“if the
person to whom the information relates has given written consent that
such information can be
supplied”.
Amendment No.
104 says much the same, and amendment No. 105 would provide that the
young person concerned should have
“the right to examine any relevant
information requested by a local authority or other person before that
information is provided by the Secretary of State to the authority or
other
person.”
If
the purpose of the supply of information is entirely to provide advice
and guidance to assist the business of promoting participation, it
seems irrefutable that permission should form part of the process. If
someone wished to receive advice, they would be happy for information
to be passed between the agencies that might be best placed to offer
it. On that basis, I expect the Minister to find the amendments highly
seductive. They build upon the sentiment that he has expressed that the
provision is about helping people, taking them with us, encouraging
them and providing them with all the guidance they need.
All the amendments would ensure
that personally sensitive information could be disclosed only with an
individual’s consent. That is especially important given recent
history—the Committee will not need reminding of it, but I shall
do so none the less. The Government have had a pretty poor track
record. I do not blame the Minister, although I have no doubt that he
accepts collective responsibility for the failures and the
Government’s very sorry record on handling data. My wife
received a letter saying that her own personal data had been spread far
and wide without permission or due cause. You can imagine the shock
waves that went through the Hayes household as a result, Mr.
Bercow.
In that
context, it is not unreasonable for parliamentarians to have doubts
about the storage and transmission of sensitive data. As the hon.
Member for Yeovil made clear earlier, that data may be very sensitive.
I intervened on him to point out that Connexions deals not only with
advice and guidance on careers, but with a number of other aspects of
support for young people, including advice on drugs, sexual health and
other highly personal matters. Given that the Connexions database is to
lie at the heart of the process, hon. Members will understand that our
concerns and doubts are exaggerated by the fact that we know that many
young people currently dealing with Connexions are doing so because
they have some kind of challenge or problem. The purpose of the
amendment is clear, and its attractiveness to the Government should be
plain.
Mr.
Heald:
Does my hon. Friend envisage that the individual
concerned would be able to ask for reassurances about how information
would be treated in its transfer from the Secretary of State to a local
authority? For example, would it be possible for the individual to say,
“Look, I don’t want this just to be stuck in the Royal
Mail on a disc,” or, “I don’t want it to be
couriered round London on the back of a motorbike.”? Does he
feel that we should ask for assurances that the information will be
safe?
Mr.
Hayes:
Or, indeed, left in the back of a car on a laptop
computer, only to be stolen. My hon. Friend’s points are
reasonable. How information is stored and the security measures and
protocols that are put in place are critical. The more involvement and
empowerment we can offer individuals as a means of providing the
necessary checks and balances that my hon. Friend suggests, the
better.
12.15
pm
As
I said, the amendments are clear; their attractiveness to the
Government is plain, and I believe that they are extremely helpful.
Given the tone and tenor of today’s debate so far—my hon.
Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who is well known
in this House and increasingly in this Committee for his generosity,
even temper and measured approach to all that he does, became at some
point if not alarmed then certainly gravely concerned—I think
that the Minister had better accept these amendments as a way of
re-establishing the measured mood that my hon. Friend normally
exemplifies.
Mr.
Heald:
May I make just one point? It is one thing for this
type of information to be transferred from the Secretary of State to
the local authority if somebody has gone missing and if it is an
individual case where it is necessary for, say, the Connexions service
to have information about where someone is. I would not be so concerned
personally about an individual exercise of that sort. However, if what
is being proposed is that all the information for all the young people
in the age group concerned will just be sent en bloc to local
authorities right around the country, without any event that triggers
that transfer such as a person not being able to be found or whatever,
I would be concerned.
Can the Minister give some
assurance that the exercise will concentrate on individuals, that the
information transferred will be the information relating
to an individual, and that this process will not
just involve mass transfers of information between Government
Departments? While he is at it, can he also assure us about the
security of the method of transfer? I ask that because, as my hon.
Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, there have
recently been some examples of very shoddy
security.
Jim
Knight:
It is obviously a delight for the Committee to
listen again to the dulcet tones and poetry of the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings after such a long interlude, and we were
all sad to hear of the loss of Mrs. Hayes’s
data.
Provision
in clause 61 empowers Government Departments to pass information about
a young person to the Connexions service in order to support young
people to participate. Amendment No. 105 would mean that the young
person would have the right to examine that information before it was
released. As I have explained in relation to previous amendments, young
people already have rights of access to personal data held about them
under the Data Protection Act 1998, and they can make a request under
the Act for a copy of any personal information held by any
organisation. They could make this same request of Jobcentre Plus and
the Connexions provider before or after any information had been
passed.
Let me address
the question about data transfers that the hon. Members for South
Holland and The Deepings and for North-East Hertfordshire have raised.
In practice, the social security information that is shared is that of
16 and 17-year-olds and it takes place locally between the local
Jobcentre Plus and the local Connexions service. It is shared on an
individual basis, when a 16 or 17-year-old turns up at the local
Connexions or Jobcentre Plus offices. It is a requirement if someone is
in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance that they are registered
with Connexions. Effectively, the individual must have a form stamped
by Connexions that says that they have been registered with the
service; that is a mechanism by which that transfer of information
takes place, via the individual themselves. There is also a national
feed on young people aged 18 and 19 on a consent basis.
That information is uploaded on
to the national Connexions customer information system website, which
is managed by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and
the data are then separated into individual area files and distributed
via the website to local Connexions services. The website is, of
course, secure and not open to public access. Only named individuals
with appropriate access rights within the Connexions service are able
to access data for their own area. All CCIS databases conform to the
requirements of the Data Protection Act. I hope that that gives hon.
Members all the information that they need on data
transfer.
Turning
to the matter of obtaining young people’s consent before
disclosing information, as I said in response to previous amendments
and just now, it is a condition of 16 and 17-year-olds claiming certain
benefits that they are in contact with Connexions, so that we can be
sure they are getting the help and support that they need. On the vast
majority of occasions, the young person is happy to register
voluntarily with Connexions, so personal information does not need to
be passed without their consent. Where a young person is reluctant
to register, it is necessary that Jobcentre Plus has the power in the
clause to pass to Connexions these young people’s name, address
and date of birth without obtaining consent. This enables Connexions
personal advisors to contact the young person to ensure that they have
access to appropriate support. That will be increasingly important as
we move towards full
participation. Eighteen
to 19-year-olds do not have to be in contact with Connexions in order
to claim certain benefits. It is none the less vital that Connexions
learns about them from Jobcentre Plus as soon as they claim, as they
will invariably not be in employment, education or training. We will
have the best chance of re-engaging them if Connexions is in a position
to provide them with appropriate support without delay. Although in
practice the vast majority of 18 and 19-year-old claimants, like other
young people, view the service provided by Connexions positively and
give consent, there are a few young people—often those most
disaffected—who may be more resistant. The power provided by the
clause means that Connexions can identify and inform them again of the
type of support available.
Accepting the amendments would
add bureaucracy and complexity to the system, and could delay or
prevent Connexions from intervening to support young people. For the
Connexions service to work effectively, it needs accurate and
up-to-date information on who young people are, what they are doing and
how to contact them. The information that Jobcentre Plus provides is
particularly valuable because young people become much more mobile from
the age of 16 and are therefore more difficult to track. In essence, we
can intervene much earlier if we have early information transfer rather
than having to go through a process of obtaining consent in every
case.
Returning to the
point made about the Data Protection Act, in my view, the protection is
adequate and we do not need to add to the legislation, either by
explicitly requiring consent or by inserting other forms of protection
in the Bill. I hope that, in light of my reasoning, the hon. Member for
South Holland and The Deepings, who is a reasonable man, will withdraw
his
amendments.
Mr.
Hayes:
I do not buy the Minister’s argument because
the essence of his case was that when someone claims jobseeker’s
allowance, there is an automatic process by which they are referred to
Connexions, which is about trying to marry them with appropriate
opportunities. However, they are making an application for
jobseeker’s allowance: by their own choice, of their own will,
they are beginning a process which is, understandably, about both
receiving a benefit and attempting to get a job, with the advice that
goes with that.
My
anxiety about the provisions in the Bill is that the duties in the Bill
on local authorities are not solely about providing advice and
guidance; they are about promoting and, indeed, ensuring participation.
The process is therefore very different, and it is not entirely
reasonable to apply the same logic to such a very different process.
The measure is not necessarily about the voluntary acceptance of
advice; it is about the promotion of a duty to participate. To that
end, I think that the protection—the check and balance, as I
described it—of asking for people’s permission to share
information about them is entirely
reasonable.
Jim
Knight:
I will have one more go at persuading the hon.
Gentleman. Does he accept that, by definition, someone who is claiming
benefits is not in education, employment or training and that it is
desirable for them to be so? If he does, he will acknowledge that it is
desirable to ensure that we have taken every opportunity to give them
the support that they need. Therefore, a simple transfer of
information, so that we can intervene as early as possible to give them
support and to get them off benefits and into reasonable training, with
or without work, is good. The provisions are therefore
proportionate.
Mr.
Hayes:
I start from the assumption that increasing
participation is good. We have established that in our deliberations
thus far. We have found common ground because we think that it is good
for young people to be trained, guided and advised, to encourage them
to increase their employability. There is no doubt about that, but the
issue that has created disagreement throughout the Committee is
compulsion. The reason why there is sensitivity this morning about
information is the relationship between information and
compulsion—the way in which the information might be used. That
sensitivity has permeated the discussions about amendments this
morning.
Jim
Knight:
I shall have another go. We will make it clear
that the CCIS is to be used for support, not for
enforcement.
Mr.
Hayes:
That is what the Minister said when he intervened
on my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton half an
hour ago. The Minister described the clarity of the guidance that he
will offer. However, the amendment would introduce an extra protection
to the Bill, and given that he has told us that the vast majority of
young people would readily agree to the information being shared
because it would be in their interests, and so, given that he is
dealing only with a few—those were his words—young people
who might be recalcitrant, he is effectively saying that he would
resist the amendment, which would check the excessive use of
information and power that it might engender, for the sake of a handful
of young people who would not agree to have the information shared
anyway.
Participation
is best ensured by the encouragement, willingness and commitment of
young people to engage—to be part of a process. A critical part
of that process is advice and guidance, and part of advice and guidance
is sharing information properly. Of course, we believe all that, but we
are not sure that a degree of commitment is not assisted by an
amendment suggesting that if one does not want the information shared,
it will not be, and that if one does, one has to give written
permission.
That is
not such a big deal; it is not an alarming change to the
Government’s proposals. It is a modest, sensible and cautious
change that the Government might be wise to accept. Unless the Minister
can offer to me more than he did to my hon. Friend the Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, which was a fairly woolly pledge of
guidance, we shall press amendment No. 22 to a vote, as a means of
illustrating that sovereignty in such matters lies with young people,
and that their rights must be protected.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
14
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 15 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
| 
