Michael
Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend share my
concern—perhaps the Minister will address this in his
reply—regarding the security of the data? I am asking not my
hon. Friend but the Minister: by what mechanism will the data be
transferred between the DCSF and the ONS? What assurance do we have
that it will not all be lost in the post like other Government data in
the
past?
Mr.
Hurd: I share my hon. Friend’s concern completely.
It is a primary concern of most of our constituents. With his leave, I
will come to that in the next section of my speech, when I will be
seeking exactly such reassurances from the Minister.
How do the
regulations fit in with the new Coroners and Justice Bill, which
appears to relax controls on Government data sharing? Under that
proposed legislation, if I have understood it, information-sharing
orders will allow Ministers to move large amounts of personal data
around Whitehall. The orders will remove data protection restrictions
that require information to be used only for the purpose for which it
was taken.
Safeguards
written into the Bill mean that orders will be handed to the
Information Commissioner for approval within 21 days and then
considered by Parliament. A code of practice written by the
commissioner will set out rules on how data should be shared. How does
that process fit with the regulations? Has the Information Commissioner
been consulted on them?
On the point
raised by my hon. Friend, what comfort can the Government give that
they can be trusted with the data and the process of sharing? The
public can be forgiven for having lost faith in this
Government’s ability to manage data safely. The list of recent
Government data losses is long and scandalous.
The personal
details of 100,000 members of the armed forces and 600,000 potential
recruits disappeared from the Ministry of Defence’s main IT
contractor. Hospital staff details have been lost in the post. Justice
system employees’ data have been lost. The personal details of
thousands of criminals have been lost. The MOD admits that 658 laptops
have been stolen. Top-secret files on al-Qaeda and Iraq’s
security forces were left on a commuter train. A second batch of terror
files were left on a train. Some 25 million records were lost by Her
Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the “discgate”
scandal. Some 18,000 personal records from the Department for Work and
Pensions were found at a contractor’s home. The Secretary of
State for Transport admitted that 3 million records had been
lost. An NHS trust lost 168,000 confidential records.
The list goes
on. [Interruption.] It is a painful one; I am not
surprised that Labour Members cannot to bear to hear it any more. None
the less, it is the list that the public have been waking up to every
day. They are extremely angry about it. I have a constituent who comes
in every month with a copy of her Sun and thumps it down on the
table in front of me and says, “Why is no one accountable for
this?” There is genuine anger about it, and the
Government’s credibility is zero. What are they doing,
therefore, to restore public confidence?
Before we
give the green light to these ground-breaking regulations, let us hear
more from the Minister. Why is this measure a must-have? Exactly what
information will be shared and where are the boundaries? How do the
rules on disclosure by the statistics board tie in with
other Government legislation, and what assurance can the Minister give
us that the Government have learned the lesson of the past few months
and years and that the personal records of 7 million British children
will not be left in a skip or on the 5.15 to Waterloo. His answers may
decide whether we
divide. 10.51
am Jenny
Willott (Cardiff, Central) (LD): Like the Minister, this
is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship,
Mrs. Humble, and it is a great pleasure. A number of issues
that I wanted to raise have already been mentioned by the hon. Member
for Ruislip-Northwood, so I shall be brief, which will relieve many
members of the Committee.
On the whole,
I do not disagree with this instrument, particularly as it was
recommended by the Treasury Committee. As the hon. Gentleman ably said,
there are a number of concerns about the implications of the
measure—the reasons for gathering the statistics and what will
be done with them in the future.
The
explanatory memorandum says that, following the Treasury Committee
report, the highest priority has been accorded to the work of the
school census in gathering such information. I have a couple of
questions about what the next step will be. As the Minister is my
parliamentary neighbour, he will know first hand about the issues that
I wish to raise. The measure is about school statistics. Clearly, my
constituency, which is in a city centre, has an extremely high
population turnover. It is a university city, so a significant number
of older students move through the constituency regularly. Local
authorities must deal with not only the movement of schoolchildren and
the central Government allocation of funding, but the movement of
university students. From what I understand, the Government do not
count students as they come into a city, but as they leave. As some
cities, such as Cardiff, are delightful places in which to live, they
have a higher retention rate of students. Those students do not leave
and do not get counted in the figures that are used for an allocation
of funding. Constituents who are long-term residents—such as
those in the constituencies of both the Minister and myself—are
effectively, through council tax, subsidising central
Government’s allocation policy. Will the Minister tell us how
they will take account of a broader range of students—not just
those of school age, but those who are over 18 as well—when
considering the figures that they are collecting for local government
funding? Another
issue, which the Minister worked on in a previous role in government,
relates to children who are missing from education, particularly girls
who leave one school and then vanish off the school rolls. As the local
authorities do not hold much information, it is very difficult to work
out what has happened to them. That is a concern in a number of cities
across the UK. As no accurate records have been kept and the statistics
are vague, a lot of girls are thought to have left the country, and it
is suggested that some have been married abroad. However, because no
accurate statistics are held at the moment, it is very difficult for
local authorities and central Government to identify how much of an
issue that is and, therefore, what can be done to tackle it. Will the
Minister clarify whether the statistics are expected to make a
difference to the material that is being gathered on that issue, so
that those of us who represent cities in
which that is a concern know that there will be something in the future
that local authorities and central Government can do to tackle the
problem? As
has been mentioned by the hon. Members for Lichfield and for
Ruislip-Northwood, collecting and sharing personal information is a
hugely sensitive subject, particularly when it relates to children. The
Minister responded earlier with reassurances that the personal
information will remain secure and be used only for the particular
purpose. However, the explanatory memorandum states that the statistics
authority will release personal information about schoolchildren
only “where
it decides it is necessary and appropriate to disclose to a person
providing services to the Authority in connection with the purposes
listed at 7.6
above.” I
looked at paragraph 7.6 and no purposes were listed, but I could work
out that it referred to the provisions about gathering information for
statistical purposes. What sort of services does the Minister envisage
would be covered? In what circumstances might the information be
shared? That is not clear from the explanatory
memorandum. The
hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the Government’s
track record on the loss of personal data. That is a massive concern
for thousands, if not millions, of people whose data have already been
lost and who are concerned that that will happen again. When that
relates to children, there is particular concern. How, and in what
format, will the information be shared? That was touched on by both
Conservative Members who have spoken, but there are several ways in
which information has been shared, including CD-ROMs and USB sticks,
which have been biked around cities and the country and have gone
missing. I should be grateful for the Minister’s guarantee that
the information will be shared in a much more sensitive and secure way
than the evidence suggests has happened until now.
The final
things that I want to mention are responses to issues that may be
raised and future changes to the regulations. First, the explanatory
memorandum mentions that the DCSF, the statistics authority and the
Cabinet Office worked together to
develop “a
co-ordinated response to any issues that are raised by stakeholders
following the announcement of the
Regulations.” Clearly,
the Government are aware that there may be public concern. What issues
does the Minister anticipate will be raised, and what issues were
covered in the co-ordinated
response? Secondly,
I want to raise another matter that has already been
mentioned—the Coroners and Justice Bill. The regulations refer
to the legal duty on the authority under the Statistics and
Registration Service Act 2007 to use the information that it receives
only for the purposes for which it is disclosed. The Bill will clearly
row back on that completely and permit wider data sharing, without the
consent of those who disclose the information, which will thus not be
used just for the purposes for which it was disclosed. Will the
regulations be affected retrospectively by the Bill? What guarantees
can the Minister give that, if there is a retrospective effect, the
matter will come back before the House, so that hon. Members can take a
decision on the regulations in the light of the new information? Aside
from those issues, I support the
regulations.
10.59
am
Kevin
Brennan: I was a little confused when the hon. Member for
Ruislip-Northwood said that his constituent brought a copy of her
Sun in to visit him at his constituency office, but then I
understood that he was referring to a newspaper, not to the child who
might be subject to the regulations.
Hon. Members
have raised a number of issues. I am not sorry if my presentation was
passionless, because that was the intended effect. It is important that
we consider these matters seriously and do not range widely over all
sorts of subjects. I want to answer the serious points made by hon.
Members on both sides of the Committee.
Why is access
to the school census needed? Is this necessary? That is a legitimate
question for anything that we do in the House. Well, to understand
changes in our population, to produce better information for local
populations, to identify areas with high rates of population turnover,
to identify migrants, to track movements within and between local
authorities and to improve the estimate of the major population
projections, it is necessary if we are to obtain better
figures. The
hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood rightly raised the concerns expressed
by local authorities about previous population estimates and the needs
of our mobile economy and highly mobile society, which has changed
significantly since the census was introduced in the 19th century.
People did not move around much then compared with these days. The
railways were just being invented when the census came in. It is a
different world now, and action is necessary to improve our population
estimates. We could have a national registration system, as some
countries do—the Conservative party is very beguiled these days
by Scandinavia—but the regulations will improve our current
estimates without going to that
stage. Is
it worth the risk? The Government set up an independent UK Statistics
Authority to improve the quality entrusted in our statistics, and such
measures are part of a programme. Other measures will be introduced,
and they can be considered by the House in due course. The programme
will improve the quality of and trust in our national
statistics. What
about improving data security, given some of problems outlined by the
hon. Gentleman that have emerged in recent years? Significant
encryption programmes for laptops are in place. The MOD alone has
20,000 such programmes. There is a huge training exercise throughout
Departments to effect the culture change that is necessary to protect
data and ensure that there is responsibility at senior level for
information risk in Departments and that contractors adhere to the new
measures that are in
place. What
sort of contribution will the data from the school census make to the
migration statistics improvement programme? It will improve the
checking of the plausibility of the estimates that are currently made
by the ONS on the school-age population. It will enable the ONS to
develop and test new population estimates, including better uses of
linking and matching. The point about statistics is that it is not easy
just to come up with one figure. We have to take the sources available
and link and match them, which is why we need the identifier of the
individual. It is not good enough just to have the pupil number if we
want to compare the information
with GP records to find out how accurate the figures are. The linking
and matching that are needed make it necessary to disclose such
information to the ONS—albeit only for use in the way that we
have described this
morning. The
hon. Gentleman’s point about the difficulty of estimating
population is exactly why we have introduced the regulations. It is not
a simple matter of counting what is in the census or estimating
material from GP records. We need to use the sources of data that we
have available to improve estimates.
The hon.
Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central rightly referred to
confidentiality. Entry to areas within the DCSF where staff work on
school census data is by controlled access only. Such information is
transferred from schools to local authorities and the DCSF via a secure
limited access online data transfer system. The DCSF maintains the
confidentiality of the unique pupil ID by replacing it with a pupil
matching reference number on data provided to external contractors for
matching against the attainment data or other anonymised extracts. High
levels of data security are in place. The data will not be used by
civil servants in Whitehall, but by statisticians at the independent
arm’s length ONS. It will not be passed around civil servants,
but used by statisticians to produce the statistics that can inform
policy and resource
decisions. What
information will be used, and is it limited? For the record, the data
that are being asked for by the ONS under the regulations are the
anonymous pupil reference number; the pupil’s surname, forename,
middle name, any former surname and preferred surname; the
pupil’s date of birth, gender, ethnic code and source of that
ethnic code; the pupil’s first language; the pupil’s
dates of entry and leaving; the pupil’s boarding indicator; the
service children and source of service children in education
indicators; the pupil’s current address; and the school’s
name and address. Those items will be collected, and no
more.
Chris
Ruane: Will my hon. Friend consider recording the type of
dwelling? I am talking again about caravan parks and houses in multiple
occupation, because a key factor in poverty and deprivation is the type
of dwelling in which a person lives.
Kevin
Brennan: That is a very important point, but such data are
not currently collected in the school census, and the regulations
simply make the data that are collected in the school census—the
list of items that I just read out—available to the ONS.
Collection of other data could be useful for the purpose that my hon.
Friend mentioned, but it is not in the regulations. As I understand it,
such information is not covered in the school census, which collects a
pupil’s address
only. Legitimately,
hon. Members asked about the safety of the transfer of data. The DCSF
and the UK Statistics Authority will ensure that the proposed transfer
of selected information from the school census will comply with the
standards set by the communications electronic security group. No data
sharing will take place until both the DCSF and the UK Statistics
Authority are satisfied that those requirements have been
met.
When
possible, data will be transferred over the Government secure internet.
That is not always feasible with large amounts of information, but when
it is not possible, all individual data will be encrypted using the
communications electronic security group encryption software and
transferred by secure courier using double-envelope packaging and the
Royal Mail’s special delivery services. Nominated officials from
the DCSF and the ONS will ensure that arrangements for the transfer of
data are agreed in advance and that they are effectively co-ordinated.
I should add that ONS has a first-class record on data security,
despite the point that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made about
other
organisations. The
hon. Member for Cardiff, Central asked about students, who are not
covered by the school census data, and she is right that I am aware of
the issues in her constituency. The ONS is investigating the
possibility of using data collected by the Higher Education Statistics
Agency and hopes to propose regulations in
future. The
hon. Lady also asked about forced marriage and children who are missing
from education. Of course, the regulations will not directly affect
those things, because the data from the school census have already been
collected. However, as she rightly pointed out, it is vital that local
authorities collect accurate information about children who are missing
from education. The DCSF has been working to ensure greater consistency
in the methodology used by individual local authorities to collect such
information, which can be useful in monitoring forced marriage and
other things.
The hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned that people were uncomfortable
about the Government sharing children’s data. Of course, we
completely understand those concerns. However, I hope that the points
that I made on the security of the data, the ONS’s record and
the necessity of using the data will reassure the public. Can data be
shared more widely by local authorities? The regulations limit the use
of the data to population and migration statistics. Normally, it would
be illegal for the ONS to pass on data to anyone else.
On
retrospection and possible future legislation, the powers in
the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 will stand
alone, as they relate to sharing for statistical purposes only. Hon.
Members asked whether more regulations are to come. It is likely that
further regulations will be introduced, especially on data held by the
Department for Work and Pensions on pensioners and the working-age
population, but we are dealing only with the school census this
morning, not those
matters. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Statistics and Registration
Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Pupil Information) (England)
Regulations
2009. 11.10
am Committee
rose.
| 
