Clause
62
Information:
supply by public
bodies
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 107, in
clause 62, page 34, leave out lines 9 to
13.
Clause
62 replicates the data sharing provisions of clause 16 to facilitate
local authority support services. I will not repeat all the concerns
that were raised in relation to clause 16, except to say that it would
have been better if the protections that the Minister outlined in his
last contribution had been incorporated into these two clauses for the
sake of certainty and clarification. I will not repeat all the
arguments that have been made about the dangers and threats to privacy
arising from such a vast power to share information.
The amendment seeks to remove
from the list of bodies from which a local authority can request
information all those organisations that do not relate directly to the
education and training of the young person. It would remove the primary
care trust, the strategic health authority, the chief officer of
police, the local probation board and a youth offending team. It gives
the Minister, should he need it, the opportunity
both to justify why the power is needed and to set out the protections
that he will introduce to ensure that the information is protected in
transfer, and will not result in the long term in people being
reluctant to disclose information lest it be used for purposes other
than those for which it was originally
intended.
Jim
Knight:
The debates we held at some considerable length on
clause 16 could all be repeated in respect of this clause. I will not
seek to fail to persuade the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton again using the same arguments, and will restrict my
remarks to saying that the amendment would limit the supply of
information to Connexions to information from local authorities and
learning and skills councils. It would mean that the service would not
have access to particular kinds of information that may be essential
for it to determine the appropriate support for the young
person.
We disagree
about whether the Data Protection Act safeguards should be included in
the Bill. I have said previously that it is not good for us to
duplicate things in law. Overlapping measures can create confusion,
which is why the provisions have been kept separate. That is perfectly
normal, with the unfortunate side effect that it enables lawyers to
make their money. We have that disagreement. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman will not agree with me, but on the basis that we have had the
argument, I simply urge him to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the grounds
that we have had the debate, albeit we do not agree with the Minister
about the practicalities of the powers in the two clauses. Given that
we have had the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
62 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
17
Sharing
and use of information held for purposes of support services or
functions under this
Part
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gibb:
I wish to raise the issue of definitions in clause
17(7). We touched on the meaning of relevant information in earlier
debates, The Minister asserted that the definition of relevant
information meant that it had to be confined specifically to the
purposes of providing support services. However, subsection (7) states
that relevant information, in relation to a person providing or holding
information,
means
information
which...is held by the person for a relevant
purpose.
It goes on to
define a relevant purpose in relation to a local education authority
as
the purpose of, or a
purpose connected with, the exercise of any function of the
authority...under this
Part.
That
definition of relevant information contradicts the Ministers
assertion that the information shared under the preceding clauses will
not be used for enforcement purposes. What this definition provision
explicitly says,
in addition to the fact that all the other clauses talk about
this Part of the Bill, shows that the Minister
misunderstands his own Bill and therefore may wish to reflect on
whether amendments should be proposed on Report or in another place to
confine it to the purpose for which he thinks that it has been
drafted.
Mr.
Heald:
When Mr. Head gave evidence to the
Committee, he talked about the young
person
who turned up to
our NEET event in a brand new BMW series 3, who clearly was
economically active.[Official Report,
Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January
2008; c. 162,
Q363.]
That
raises the prospect that some of the 10 per cent. who will be
encouraged into education may be people who, for example, are drug
pushers. If someone turns up in a brand new BMW and information from
health authorities or the police suggests that they have that sort of
background, will it be possible to share that information with the
staff, so that they can keep an eye on what is going on and ensure that
the further education college does not end up being turned into a place
where drugs are pushed? Can the information be used in circumstances in
which it would defeat crimethat is, for a different purpose
from that for which it was originally provided? If the Minister does
not have the answer to hand, perhaps he will write to
me.
Jim
Knight:
Clause 17 puts in place the
legal mechanisms necessary to enable local authorities and service
providers to share information among themselves where appropriate. It
is particularly important in resolving the difficulties of tracking
young people who move across local authority boundaries. It also
enables relevant information to be collected once and used for the two
purposes outlined in the clause, and so indicates our intention that
that information should be stored in one place rather than
two.
I
think that there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and myself about relevant
purpose and the importance of guidance in clause 18. As has
been said, the information could be used only for the purposes of
delivering a Connexions service or for the purposes of delivering on
the local authoritys duty to promote the fulfilment of the duty
to participate. As far as I am concerned, that is not for enforcement
purposes, because people cannot enforce until they have supported, so
the transfer of data will be for the purposes of support. Ultimately,
young people identified as not participating can be subject to
enforcement, but the information is not shared for that purpose, as I
have said, because clause 39(5) and (6) say that support has to come
before enforcement. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman and the
rest of the Committee to support the
clause.
Mr.
Gibb:
Whether or not support should come
before enforcement is neither here nor there, because that is not what
the Bill says. It says that the relevant information can be used for
enforcement purposes. I have listened to what the Minister has said and
if he wishes to be true to his word, he needs to ask his officials to
draft some amendments so that the Bill reflects the intention that he
expressed to the Committee, because the clause and the Bill do not
reflect the intention that he has just
conveyed.
The
Chairman:
Order. I do not wish to be
excessively antediluvian about the matter because, as most Members
know, I am a moderniser. I take a modernising view of most matters of
procedure when I have the discretion to do so, but I gently say to the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that in Committee we do
not refer to officials. They are invisibleand
anonymous.
Clause
17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
18
Guidance
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 29, in
clause 18, page 10, line 20, at
end insert
and such
guidance shall be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and
notice given of the publication of the guidance by written Ministerial
statement..
Clause
18 requires local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the
Secretary of State in relation to part 1. The Bill is full of delegated
powers. In its 150 clauses, we find 65 regulation-making powers. It is
no wonder, therefore, that, on page 3, the memorandum on delegated
powers published by the Government at the same time as the Bill refers
to a
framework Bill
containing a range of powers to make delegated
legislation.
Delegated or
secondary legislation has been used increasingly often over the past 20
years, with more and more primary legislation comprising merely a
skeleton on which scores of new secondary legislative powers are hung.
Every year, thousands of statutory instruments pass through the House,
the overwhelming majority of which go through on the nod, unnoticed and
undebated. Even if the statutory instrument is debatedperhaps a
Member has prayed against it because it is subject to the negative
resolution procedure or it is one of the rarer orders or regulations
that are subject to the affirmative resolution proceduredebate
is usually confined to 90 minutes in a Committee Room. Given that we
spent more than 90 minutes debating clause 16, that period is probably
not enough time for us to deal with the powers proposed in the
Bill.
On page 5, the
delegated powers memorandum states:
In the majority of
cases, powers to make Statutory Instruments are to be subject to
negative resolution procedures except clause 3(5)...clause
5(1)...clause 49...clause 70...and clause 117...and
clause 146 to the extent that the power is used to amend primary
legislation.
There are
also five delegated powers to amend primary legislationa
practice that has grown during the 10 years in which I have been a
Member. Over that period we have also seen the growth of tertiary
legislation or guidance. It is legislationit is known as
statutory guidancebut it is rarely debated in the House. We
debated the contents of the admission code because it was incorporated
into law by a statutory instrument, but the vast majority of guidance
is issued by the relevant Department, sometimes accompanied by a press
release, some of which may, or may not, be reported in the newspapers.
There is no parliamentary procedure to pray against guidance or to
trigger a debate, and there is certainly no mechanism to vote against
such guidance. The detail of policy contained
in guidance is often fundamental to the policy, as we heard today from
the Minister. He said that guidance will overrule a major part of the
Bill in relation to what information can be
shared.
The purpose
of the amendment is to require the Government to place in the Library
any guidance issued under clause 18. In order to alert Members to the
fact that guidance has been issued, the amendment also requires the
Minister to make a written statement announcing the issuing of the
guidance. Given the importance of guidance, and the volume of statutory
instruments and guidance, I believe that the amendment is fundamental
in enabling Members to carry out their primary role of holding the
Government to account and scrutinising
legislation.
Jim
Knight:
I entirely agree with the
intentions behind the amendment, and I shall ensure that all statutory
guidance relating to part 1 is placed in the Library and that notice
will be given that that has been done. It will also be published on the
Departments website. That is routine practice, and there is no
need for it to be stated in primary legislation. I therefore hope that
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
Given that explicit assurance, I am happy to beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
s
18
and 19
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
20
Appropriate
arrangements
6.15
pm
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
clause 20, page 11, line 4, after
constituting, insert
sufficient.
You
will know, Mr. Bercow, that the explanatory notes to clause
20 say what constitutes making appropriate
arrangements. They
state:
A
person has made appropriate arrangements if they have enrolled on a
course or courses constituting relevant education or training (defined
in clause 6), or arrangements have otherwise been made for them to
receive relevant education or training, or if they are participating in
full-time education...A person does not need to have enrolled for
sufficient (that is, enough hours in the relevant period) relevant
education or training in order to count as having made appropriate
arrangements.
I
emphasise that the amendment is intended to probe the Minister for
greater clarity. It would ensure that the training is rigorous and of
high quality, as well as sufficient, and not merely relevant, to the
needs of the learner who requires new skills. I emphasise the word
sufficient, because I am talking about the level of
learning. It is critical, if we proceed with the legislation, that the
training we put in place is fit for purpose and so does the job. The
amendment would ensure such an outcome, as I am sure the Minister will
acknowledge.
Jim
Knight:
Clause 20 requires employers to check that a young
person has made arrangements to participate in accredited part-time
training. Requiring them in addition, as the amendment would, to check
the number of hours that a young person spends in
education or training would significantly increase the burden on
employers. Such detailed checks would be complicated and
time-consuming, and the Government do not think it appropriate to
expect employers to do it.
We want
provision to be of quality, but we do not think that that should be
policed by employers. Young people in full-time employment have a duty
to participate in sufficient part-time training, meaning for at least
280 hours a year. Employers of those young people have a duty to check
that they are participating, but they do not have to check that they
are doing enough hours. The amendment would put an unnecessary burden
on employers and, potentially, stop a small number of young people
getting a job because of the extra burdens.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister is speeding through his account, and I
am anxious that he does not reach his conclusion before he has dealt
with this central point. Does he accept the argument about sufficiency?
Training can be relevant but insufficient. Will the
Minister dwell momentarily on that
point?
Jim
Knight:
I accept the argument on sufficiency, which is why
we have specified that young people should do 280 hours a year. I do
not accept that that should be policed by employers. On that basis, I
hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister has accepted the principle that
sufficiency is important. Doubtless he will say in a moment that he
will add guidance, which is his usual fall-back position. However, I do
not wish to be cruel. He accepted that sufficiency matters and, because
I buy his argument that where the burden of policing and checking falls
is an issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|