Clause
61
Information
relating to young persons: supply by Secretary of
State
12.30
pm
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 103, in
clause 61, page 33, line 6, leave
out from authority to in in line
7.
No more dulcet
tones or poetry in this set of amendments, Mr. Bercow. Very
briefly, clause 61 effectively replicates the provisions of clause 15,
but the information shared by clause 61 is for the purpose of the
Connexions service rather than that of promoting
participation.
The
wording does, however, differ between the two clauses. Clause 61
says:
The
Secretary of State may supply information, including social security
information, to a local education authority or other person involved in
the provision of services for young persons,
whereas clause 15 says:
The Secretary of State
may supply information, including social security information, to a
local education authority in England for the purpose of enabling or
assisting the
authority.
The purpose
of this amendment is to remove the phrase or other
person from clause 61(1). It is too wide a description of who
else can be supplied with this confidential information. Perhaps the
Minister could spell out whom he has in mind and we can then refine the
phrasing to incorporate the specific entity, or type of entity, he has
in
mind.
Jim
Knight:
The amendment would limit the transfer of
information to that passed directly to local authorities. It would
therefore prevent information being passed directly to Connexions
service providers where the local authority is not providing the
service itself. That, in essence, is my
worry.
Clause 61(1)
says:
The
Secretary of State may supply information, including social security
information, to a local education authority or other person involved in
the provision of services for young persons in pursuance of section 54
or 56(1)(b) for the purpose of the provision of those
services.
Clause 54 defines
support services provided by local education authorities. Clause
56(1)(b) defines the provision of services for young persons or
relevant adults.
No doubt we
will return to this when we consider part 2 of the Bill, which deals
with the transfer to local authorities of responsibility for the
Connexions service, but it is important that we say that this transfer
is planned to take place. As local authorities start planning how to
deliver Connexions services, we encourage them to look for the best
potential providers, including those in the voluntary and community
sector and in the private sector.
Some
organisations have a splendid track record with particular groups of
vulnerable young peopleseveral members of the Committee have
been particularly concerned about thatand it is important we
use their expertise in delivering Connexions services. Many existing
Connexions partnerships were doing a good job, so we wanted authorities
to be able to make arrangements with the existing partnership, if they
concluded, in accordance with their procurement rules, that that was
best for the area. I therefore do not want to do anything to prevent
those arrangements from continuing. In addition, they are an important
part of freedoms and flexibilities the centrethe
Governmenthave promised to local government. It is vital that
Connexions, whether delivered directly by a local authority or under
contractual arrangements by other providers, can provide the right
support quickly to young people. If the information that may be
disclosed under these clauses could be passed directly only to local
authorities, it would almost certainly lead to delays in the provision
of that support in most local authority areas. I hope that that is
straightforward enough for the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton in explaining what the purpose is behind this
clause.
Mr.
Heald:
Why is the word involved used,
rather than provided? Why does it not say, Or
other person providing services for young persons? What is
involved in? That sounds a vague, loose sort of term
for a
Bill.
Jim
Knight:
My recollection is that we have used that term
because there may be a contracted provider that also works with a third
party, perhaps one of the organisations that we took evidence from,
such as Fairbridge, to help it deliver the Connexions service. It may
be appropriate for organisations that are not the direct provider but
are involved in the delivery of the service to share some of this
information and have it shared with
them.
Mr.
Gibb:
I was assured, but now I am becoming less assured.
Does that mean that anybody who purports to be involved in helping
young people in this field is entitled to have access to this sensitive
information?
Jim
Knight:
No, I do not think that it is anyone who purports
to be. It would have to be someone where it is relevant. We have
discussed the notions of peoples responsibilities under the
European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and
the various responsibilities on public bodies as they pass data to be
satisfied that it is proportionate and relevant. Therefore it would not
be an organisation that purports to be
but one that is genuinely involved in the provision of the service. In
respect of the word and the specific question from the hon. Member for
North-East Hertfordshire, we want some form of contract in order for
them to be involved. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton too and that on that basis he will
withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful. The Minister has hastily brought back
his argument from the brink by adding that assurance that there should
be some form of contract. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East
Hertfordshire so wisely pointed out, that word involved
would enable any person who purported to be helping young people to
have access to this very sensitive information. There is a tendency in
all Governments to give themselves the benefit of the doubt in the
wording of extensive provisions relating to powers for Government and
local authority bodies. It would have been better if the provision had
been worded more tightly to confine it to those that had a contract
with the local authority in the provision of services in pursuance of
clause 54.
The
purpose of Committees is to debate these issues and get the wording
tightened. I should be grateful if the Minister could think about this
provision and perhaps come back on Report with tighter wording. He has
to an extent defined and refined the meaning of other person
involved. On the basis that the matter has been aired and we
have some helpful words from the Minister on the record, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
61 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
16
Information:
supply by public
bodies
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
clause 16, page 8, line 44, at
end insert
(1A)
Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the relevant
person or body mentioned in subsection (2) regards the provision of the
information to be proportionate to the fulfilment of 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. 24, in
clause 16, page 8, line 44, 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.
113, in
clause 62, page 34, line 5, at
end insert
(1A)
Information may only be supplied under subsection (1) if the request
for information is proportionate to the purpose of providing services
in pursuance of section 54 or
56(1)(b)..
Mr.
Gibb:
Clause 16 is the most terrifying of all the
data-sharing clauses in the Bill. It is made more terrifying still by
the words in the explanatory notes. The clause says that any of the
state organisations listed in subsection (2) can supply information
that they hold on a 16 or 17-year-old to the local authority
to help the authority fulfil the duties that the Bill imposes on it. The
organisations are a local authority, the Learning and Skills Council
for England, a primary care trust, a strategic health authority, a
chief officer of police, a local probation board, and a youth offending
team. Information could therefore include a persons health
records, their criminal records, their involvement with the youth
offending team and details of how such programmes are
working.
One might
think that there were rules and regulations to prevent certain aspects
of a persons health records from being disclosed, but we then
have the chilling words on page 10 of the explanatory notes, which
state:
Clause
16 sets out which other public bodies may share information about a
young person with a local education authority in order for it to fulfil
its duty. The purpose of the clause is to allow public bodies to
provide information to local education authorities where other
statutory provisions would prevent their doing
so.
All the sections in
all the Acts over the years that were designed to safeguard the
confidentiality of sensitive personal information held by GPs,
hospitals, the probation service and the police will therefore be
rendered worthless for 16 and 17-year-olds as a result of this one
clause in the Bill.
As
we have debated, the provisions in clause 16, together with all the
other information-sharing provisions, have attracted the interest of
the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee is looking at the
Bill and is concerned about whether such provisions are consistent with
the right to respect for private and family life.
The Minister responded at
length to those concerns, but on whether the measures in clause 16 are
proportionate to the Governments aims, he
said:
The
information that public bodies hold is crucial to ensuring that the
data in the database used by Connexions is accurate. Not having this
information leaves a risk that the support offered is not the most
appropriate for a young person; some agencies may have dealings with a
particular young person but would be unable to share that information
with the Connexions
service.
The implication
is that the data are simply being used by Connexions to help advise
young people. If that were the case, it would still be disproportionate
and would, at the very least, necessitate the young persons
consenting to information about his health or involvement with the
police being supplied. Clause 16 is not, however, just about the
Connexions service; that would be the case if were debating clause 61.
Clause 16 relates to
enabling or assisting the
authority to exercise its functions under this
Part
that is,
its duty to promote participation. That is far wider than the duties in
clause 54.
The
Minister says:
some
agencies may have dealings with a particular young person but would be
unable to share that information with the Connexions
service.
As I said, we
are not talking just about the Connexions service. However, some of the
agencies that have dealings with a young person should not be able to
share information with Connexions or, indeed, with the
local authority or other agencies. Health records and details of
involvement with the police should be sacrosanct. We await the Joint
Committees report, but I have serious concerns about the
Bills data-sharing provisions in general and clause 16 in
particular. I am alarmed by the cavalier response in the
Ministers letter to the hon. Member for
Hendon.
Amendments
Nos. 23 and 24 introduced into clause 16 the requirement that the
information requested is proportionate to the Governments aims,
and amendment No. 13 introduces a similar provision into clause 62.
Article 8 of the European convention on human rights protects the
rights to private and family life, and that is a qualified right, as we
debated on the previous clause. The Government can breach that right,
provided that the breach has a basis in law and is done to secure one
of the permissible aims set out in paragraph 2 of article 8. According
to that paragraph, a breach may be made for reasons 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 other
condition is that a breach is
necessary in a democratic
society,
which means
that it must fulfil a pressing social need and must be proportionate to
the Governments aims, and that is the consideration that the
amendments would introduce into the Bill. They introduce a requirement
that a breach of article 8 must be made for wider social aims and be
proportionate to those aims.
It is interesting that the
Government have included that requirement in clause 35 on parenting
orders. Clause 35(8) says:
The second condition is
that any interference with family life which is likely to result from
the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate
in all the
circumstances.
That is a
clear reference to the human rights legislation for a lesser breach of
human rightsattending a residential coursethan that
contained in the sharing of sensitive personal
information.
12.45
pm
The Minister
said that that provision was superfluous in relation to these clauses.
Is it not, therefore, superfluous in relation to clause 35? Perhaps the
drafters of the legislation in chapter 4 have a more profound
understanding of the importance of human rights and the right to a
private and family life than the drafters of this part of the Bill, who
take a less sanguine view of the importance of these
matters.
Mr.
Laws:
I am not sure I would say that I am terrified by the
clause because it takes an awful lot to terrorise and terrify a Liberal
Democrat. However, I am extremely worried about the contents of what is
a sweeping clause, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton explained. I am very attracted to the amendments that he
has tabled. If we do not receive a satisfactory response from the
Minister, I hope that he will press the amendment to a
Division.
The
clause gives open-ended powers to a wide range of authorities that go
well beyond the education sector and will allow the release of
information to a local authority or to persons or bodies that have
responsibilities
under the Bill. This matter takes us back to some of
our earlier concerns about the type of data that are likely to pass
backwards and forwards as a consequence of trying to support young
people in education and training and in meeting the obligations imposed
by the Bill. I do not want to anticipate the questions that I will have
for the Minister when debating amendment No. 60, which deals with the
bodies that have a responsibility for health matters. I think that
there is a need for more adequate protection against the abuse of these
powers than is in the
clause.
I
would like the Minister to clarify two points. Will he indicate which
of these powers are currently available for young people below the age
of 16? In other words, are there powers such as these for under-16s who
are not in education or trainingthey may be persistently absent
or truantingso that information from such bodies can be
accessed in order that educational establishments can exercise their
existing
responsibilities?
On
a specific point, is information held by employees of the organisations
that are listed in the clause that is held not in their workplaces but
at home addresses covered by the data protections that the Minister
indicated earlier? There have been cases in my constituency where very
specific and sensitive allegations have been made about young people,
often in relation to child protection issues, and data have been held
in a home setting by employees of organisations such as those listed.
Will the data protections that the Minister referred earlier relate to
such data?
I hope that
the Minister will respond to the wise words of the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and his cautionary note and that, by the
end of the Ministers speech, we will be less terrified, or in
my case less moderately worried, about the contents of the clause. If
not, it may be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to press the amendment
to a
Division.
Jim
Knight:
As with the other provisions that we have
discussed under this chapter, local authorities will use the
information that they receive from other public bodies to help them
identify young people who are not participating. It will be used to
identify the most appropriate support for those young people so that
they can be helped back into learning as soon as possible. As we have
discussed, the sharing of information is critical to the effective
provision of services to young people and it enables coherent services
to be delivered. The amendments propose specific references, in clauses
16 and 62, to the need for the supply of information by public bodies
to be proportionate to the purpose for which it is requested. As we
discussed with the amendments to clauses 15 and 61, article 8 of the
European convention on human rights requires that information can be
supplied only as far as is necessary and proportionate to the purposes
that it will serve, which are to enable or assist local authorities to
fulfil their duties to promote participation and identify young people
not participating and to provide the Connexions
service
Mr.
Hayes:
Will the Minister give
way?
Jim
Knight:
I will shortly, but let me finish my
paragraph.
My letter to
the Joint Committee on Human Rights details our consideration of the
aims and proportionality
of the provisions. Public bodies such as those listed in clauses 16 and
62 may be providing services to a young person that would be relevant
to the support that young person is receiving from the Connexions
service. Disclosure of information would take place only if it was
proportionate to the aim of increasing participation in education and
training.
Mr.
Hayes:
There we have it. Having spent two hours telling us
that the only purpose, or at least the only serious purpose, for
collecting and sharing this information was to provide advice and
guidance through the Connexions service, the Minister then reads a
pre-prepared note, which I presume he wrote last night, which says that
the purpose of collecting and sharing this information is to promote,
and indeed enforce, participation. So it is not reasonable to suggest
that this is entirely about efficacy; this is about enforcement and
thus the tone of the amendments proposed by my hon.
Friend
The
Chairman:
Order. I have counselled against the tendency
towards an increasing prolixity in interventions, of which I am afraid
that was a rather distinctive
example.
Jim
Knight:
I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings that at no point did I mention enforcement. What I said
was
which are to enable
or assist local authorities to fulfil their duties to promote
participation and identify young people not
participating
so that
they can be provided with a Connexions service. That is not so that
something can be enforced against them but because the purpose of this
whole part concerns the local authoritys duty to support young
people to fulfil their duties to
participate.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister is stretching the credulity of the
Committee to its very limits. Is he really saying that identification
of non-participants is purely to give them advice and could never be
used to ensure that non-participants do participate in line with the
statutory responsibilities and powers of local
authorities?
Jim
Knight:
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the purposes of
identifying young people who are not participating is to provide them
with support. The personal adviser would make contact with the young
person, discuss their support needs and seek to broker those support
needs for them. Subsequently, at some point down the track, there may
be a conversation that takes place because that person refuses that
support, but that is not because of the initial transfer of data. The
initial transfer of data was in order to inform their support
needs.
Mr.
Laws:
Is the Minister saying, for example, that the
provision relating to the police could not be used to ask the police to
give information that would help the local authority to pursue an
individual who is not complying with their responsibilities under the
Bill and pursue that person, potentially through an enforcement route,
for not being in the education and training
sectors?
Jim
Knight:
In that we are going to issue guidance to say this
should be used for support rather than enforcement, the purpose of the
police and other criminal justice-related bodies being listed here is
in order for that support to understand the circumstances of that young
person. If they are involved with a youth offending team, that
information is extremely relevant for people in understanding what they
are dealing with and the support that is
needed.
Mr.
Laws:
I think that the Minister is being helpful. Is he
confirming that a local authority would never go to the police, in
relation to a young person who was not complying with the
responsibility to be in education or training and who had perhaps
disappeared from their home address, to ask them to identify where that
individual might be or whether they were in contact with some part of
the existing police organisation in order to help the local authority
to track them down and take enforcement action against
them?
Jim
Knight:
I cannot foresee a circumstance in which
Connexions personal advisers using these data would go to the police in
the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I hope that that is helpful
to
him.
Mr.
Gibb:
Clause 16 states that the information should be used
to assist the
authority
to exercise
its functions under this
Part.
My understanding
is that the phrase this Part means part 1 of the Bill
and that part 1 refers to clauses 1 to 53 inclusive. Within clauses 1
to 53 are all the clauses about attendance notices, written notices to
participate and the penalties that go with that. Have I understood
correctly what is meant by this
Part?
Jim
Knight:
In so far as the hon. Gentleman has gone, clearly
he has understood that. Then in clause 18 we
say:
In
exercising its functions under this Part, a local education authority
must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of
State.
It is in that
guidance that we will set out how this measure should be used. In the
same way that we are giving our initial thoughts on clause 4 and some
of the issues about that, I am happy to give our initial thoughts on
this measure, although not the draft guidance, to assist the
Committee.
Mr.
Gibb:
I will be corrected by you, Mr. Bercow,
if I am wrong, but my understanding is that guidance cannot overrule
the provisions of primary legislation. If primary legislation gives
local authorities the power to request the informationit says
explicitly in the Bill
that that is for the purpose of part 1, that is clauses 1 to
53they are entitled to do that, regardless of what is in
guidance that the Minister may or may not
issue.
Jim
Knight:
I am sure that the hon. Gentlemans
understanding of guidance is not wrong, but he also has to understand
the reality in which this measure works. I cannot foresee that some
jobsworth officer in a local authority will want to incur the great
cost of chasing around trying to enforce things left, right and centre.
The reality is that the whole enforcement issue, which we have debated
at huge length over the previous few weeks, is there as a culture
change. It is there to be used in extremis, not to be used by officers
going
fishing.
Mr.
Laws:
I am astonished by what the Minister is saying. Let
us say that a local authority officer was aware that a young person was
not in education or training as they were supposed to be under the
Bill, but was deliberately trying to duck being tracked down for that
purpose. Is the Minister really suggesting that that officer would be a
jobsworth if they contacted the police to find out whether they knew
where that individual
was?
Jim
Knight:
Let us say that someone is deliberately flouting
the law. The legislation does not say must, but the
local authority can, and we would expect that it would, take
enforcement action. However, I do not envisage fishing
tripspeople casting around trying to find individuals to
enforce
against.
Mr.
Gibb:
Just taking the Minister at his own wordhis
own argumentwhat information would the Connexions service want
from the police service to help it to provide careers
advice?
Jim
Knight:
If someone has been in trouble with the law, that
certainly affects their life chances. Therefore, they may have
particular support needs and particular service provision may be
helpful to them in preventing reoffending behaviour and getting them
re-engaged in education and
training.
The
Chairman:
Order. I apologise to the Minister for
interrupting him before he has completed his answer to the hon. Member
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but we have reached the appointed
hour.
It being One
oclock,
The Chairman
adjourned
the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at Four
oclock.
|