Clause
71
Revenue
and Customs
information
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 119, in
clause 71, page 44, leave out line
37.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 120, in
clause 71, page 44, leave out line
40.
No. 121, in
clause 71, page 44, leave out line
41.
No. 122, in
clause 71, page 45, leave out line
1.
Mr.
Hayes:
The clause allows for the sharing of information by
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be included in the
“information gateway”. It would allow information to be
shared with devolved authorities. Put simply, our amendments would
specifically prevent the disclosure of information relating to income
tax and tax
credits.
Again,
earlier we spoke at some length about the sensitivity that is abroad
about data and information sharing, not least because of some of the
scandalous errors that have taken place over recent months. It would be
unkind and unnecessary to speak at length about the Government’s
embarrassment or to blame
the Under-Secretary personally for the profound
incompetence shown by the Government, although of course he accepts
collective responsibility. With those few words, and not wanting to
exaggerate that point, I await the Minister’s no doubt ready
response.
Mr.
Lammy:
Sandy Leitch, as has been said, correctly
identified the need to improve the integration of employment and skills
as an important policy agenda. That would serve the goal with which the
Committee has been occupied over the past few weeks, of moving more
people who are out of work into learning and then into long-term
employment.
Clauses 71
to 75 will provide an all-important means for us to assess, in a
joined-up way, whether we are delivering on that goal. The intention
behind the clauses is simple: to enable data to be made available to
researchers in Government and beyond, and in the devolved
Administrations in Wales and Scotland, so that that assessment can be
made. The data will be used for two forms of analysis: first, to
determine whether low-skilled individuals are moving into sustainable
employment and then progressing in work, rather than falling back on to
benefits; and, secondly, to explore the economic returns on the
qualifications and skills that individuals achieve. Current legislation
puts a duty of confidentiality on Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions in
relation to the data that they handle. Unless the disclosure is lawful
for other reasons, or the information is in the public domain, an
express legal provision is required to enable data to be shared outside
HMRC. That takes the form of information gateways, which the Bill
creates.
All
of us as constituency MPs have come across people who might be in
employment for a month or two, but then fall out of employment simply
because they do not have the skills to progress in and hold on to their
jobs. The clause provides a means by which we can analyse those data to
see whether our qualifications and the routes set out by Sandy Leitch
are working, and whether we are getting the progression we want. We all
share those aims. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels
able to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
These are sensitive issues. People’s tax
affairs are private matters, which one would expect to be handled with
appropriate discretion—hence our amendments. We do not have
time, nor would it be appropriate, to debate the tax credits system
now, but we all know from our constituency casework that it is a
nightmare. In the light of what has occurred in recent months, there is
fear in every hearth and home in Britain that the Government are about
to spread personal data far and wide.
Having said that, this is not
the time to press the amendments. Our case has been made; the
sensitivities that I have described will no doubt ring loudly in the
ears of Ministers and, one hopes, these matters will be handled with
greater discretion in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Clause 72 stand
part.
Clause 73 stand
part.
Government
amendments Nos. 201 to 205.
Government new clause
7—Benefit and training
information.
Government
new clause 8—Revenue and Customs
information.
Government
new clause 9—Use of
information.
If no
one wishes to speak, I will put the Question that clause 71 stand part
of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say
“Aye”.
The
Chairman:
It is not for me to direct the Committee, but
the Government Members may have misheard what I said. The Question is
that clause 71 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion,
say “Aye”. To the contrary, “No.” I think
the Noes have it.
Mr.
Lammy:
Clause 71?
Aye.
The
Chairman:
My understanding, having read the amendment
paper, is the Government want to delete clause 71. May I
proceed?
Mr.
Lammy:
Yes, Mr. Bayley.
Aye.
Mr.
Lammy:
Mr. Bayley, can I move my
amendment?
Mr.
Lammy:
We have just had a debate on clause
70.
The
Chairman:
For clarity, let me say to the Committee that we
have just had a debate on amendments to clause 71, which the
Committee decided to give leave to be withdrawn. I made it clear to the
Committee that the next Question for debate was that clause 71 stand
part of the Bill, and I read out a list of other measures to be debated
at the same time, which are listed on the Chairman’s selection
list. My understanding is that the Government wish to replace clause 71
with a new clause; therefore, unless I misunderstand their intention,
when I put the Question that clause 71 stand part of the Bill, the
Government Members would say
“No.”
Mr.
Hayes:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. We
voted on clause 71 stand part and, as far as I could tell, it was
passed.
The
Chairman:
My fear was that Government Members
misunderstood on what clause I had put the Question, which is why I
made it clear that we were dealing with clause 71. I shall put the
Question
again.
Question put
and negatived.
Clause 71 disagreed
to.
Clauses 72
and 73 disagreed
to.
Clause
74
Wrongful
disclosure of
information
10
am
The
Chairman:
We have already had the opportunity to debate
amendment No. 201. I therefore ask the Minister to move it
formally—
Mr.
Gibb:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I would
have liked to hear the Under-Secretary’s explanation of
Government amendment No. 201 before the Committee
moved on to a new
clause.
The
Chairman:
I called the amendment, but no one rose to
speak.
Mr.
Gibb:
If the Government have tabled an amendment or new
clause, do they not have an obligation to explain its purpose to the
Committee?
The
Chairman:
I have to say that that is what normally
happens. However, I read out the group on the selection list that
includes Government amendment No. 201. I paused for quite some time,
but no Member on either side of the Committee rose to speak. We
therefore proceeded to votes. The opportunity to debate the measures
has now
passed.
Mr.
Gibb:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. My
understanding of what has happened here is that clause 71 was voted on
and was passed. You sensibly took the view that the Government Members
had misunderstood what was happening, so you put the Question again. My
point is that that was the Government’s opportunity to move
their amendments, but they failed to do so because again, I believe,
they misunderstood what was happening.
The
Chairman:
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned
that we have not fully debated this part of the Bill. Committee
procedure when amendments are grouped is that we have a debate on the
group, and amendments to later clauses are moved formally when we reach
the relevant clause. The opportunity to debate the Government
amendments to this clause has now passed. Of course, it is possible for
hon. Members to debate the matter further on Report, but the
opportunity to do so in Committee has
passed.
Mr.
Gibb:
In this case, I do not agree with your ruling. I
clearly heard you put the Question to the Committee, and clause 71 was
passed. We all know what happened—the
Under-Secretary of State misunderstood what was going on, so you
sensibly allowed the matter to be reopened. I do not see why you
allowed that, but did not allow the Government to properly explain
their new clauses and amendments.
The
Chairman:
Mr. Gibb, I am trying to be fair
to all members of the Committee. Normally when the Chairman
puts a Question, he says, “As many as are of that opinion say
‘Aye’; to the contrary ‘No’” After
the Chairman has heard the “Ayes” and
“Noes”, if the outcome is clear to him, he says,
“The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it,” or, “The
Noes have it, the Noes have it.” On this occasion, for reasons
we both understand, the outcome was not clear to me, because it
appeared to me that some members of the Committee had misheard the
Question I put. I therefore put it
again.
I
fully understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the
opportunity for the Committee to debate these amendments has gone, but
I am constrained by the rules of procedure, which require me to deal
formally with the Government amendments and new clauses when we reach
them.
Mr.
Hayes:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I am
sorry to drag the matter out, and I intend no discourtesy to you, but
during the exchanges that you described, in which there was some
confusion, the Minister clearly asked, from a sedentary position,
“Can I move my
amendment?”
The
Chairman:
He can move them, but he has to do so
formally.
Mr.
Lammy:
On a point of order, Mr.
Bayley.
The
Chairman:
Before I take any further points of order, let
me say that I understand hon. Members’ frustration, but if there
is fault on the part of members of the Committee, it is on both sides,
because when I called the group for debate, there was a
pregnant pause; I waited, but no Member on either side of the Committee
rose either to speak to amendments or to ask the Minister to comment on
them.
Mr.
Gibb:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I had no
intention of taking part in that debate. I wanted to hear a Minister
explain why the Government had tabled the new clauses.
Further to my original point of
order, the Question was put and Government Members voted
“Aye”. It was only someone outside the Committee who said
“No”, drawing attention to the fact that these matters
were not properly ordered. I contend that that expression of
“No” from outside the Committee was not in order, that
clause 71 has therefore been passed, and that the best approach now
would be to return to the matter on Report, where the Minister can
explain why the new clauses are
needed.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Further to
that point of order, Mr.
Bayley.
Mr.
Lammy:
On a point of order, Mr.
Bayley.
The
Chairman:
Order. I must answer the points of order
that Mr. Gibb has raised.
First, if Opposition Members
want the Minister to speak in favour of his amendments but the Minister
has decided not to do so, it is incumbent on them to challenge the
Minister to explain. That is why I paused. No challenge was
made.
Secondly, I do not agree with
the hon. Gentleman that the decision was made that clause 71 should
stand part of the Bill. If I had felt that that was the decision
of the Committee, I would have made it clear by
saying, “The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.” Because
there was clearly confusion in the Committee, I waited until members of
the Committee were clear on what clause I was putting the Question.
When I was satisfied that all members of the Committee were clear, I
took the
vote.
On
the final part of his point of order, the hon. Gentleman is correct:
there is the opportunity to pursue these matters on Report. From what I
have heard today, I am sure that that will happen. I am certain that
Ministers are aware that they will need to make statements and give
explanations. They might even want to discuss with Opposition Front
Benchers how to structure the debate on
Report.
Mr.
Lammy:
On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. I just
want to remind the Committee that on 22 February I wrote to hon.
Members explaining the nature of these technical amendments. Of course,
I am happy to discuss them in detail on
Report.
The
Chairman:
We will now move on to decision on the
amendments. I am pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that the
discussion that is necessary will take place on
Report.
Amendments
made: No. 201, in clause 74, page 45, line 41, leave out from
‘information’ to end of line 42 and
insert—
‘(a) used in
reliance on section (Benefit and training information)(1)(a),
or
(b) disclosed in reliance on
section (Benefit and training information)(1)(b) or (Revenue and
Customs
information).’.
No.
202, in
clause 74, page 46, line 2, leave
out ‘for the purposes of that section’ and
insert
‘in connection
with the exercise of an assessment function of the Secretary of State
or a devolved authority’.—[Mr.
Lammy.]
Clause
74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
