Jim
Knight: I will have just one last go by giving another
example. It relates to a data flow from a local authority to skills
funding, in respect of the National Apprenticeship Service. Local
authorities will need data
to identify learners who drop out of apprenticeships in order to support
and re-engage them as appropriate. If an individual has dropped out, it
is not practical to say to them, “Can we share your data because
it is in your best interests for us to re-engage you?” If we
have that information from the outset, it will enable the individual to
be properly
supported.
Mr.
Gibb: That all goes back to the debate about data sharing,
which the Minister referred to with affection. It is wrong for
information given for one purpose to be used to enforce a Government
policy, such as participation to the age of 18. I do not believe that
personal information should be used to enforce Government policy in the
way that he has suggested. If an individual does not wish to
participate in or engage with an apprenticeship, with higher learning
or with further education, it is a matter for that individual. It is up
to the state to provide high-quality provision, services and access to
education and training, but if individuals do not wish to access it, it
is not the role of the state to bully and badger them into taking
part.
Jim
Knight: I am not talking about bullying and badgering, but
about providing support. If someone has dropped out and become
disengaged, we must be able to support them. We need to know about them
to be able to offer that support. We do not want to bully and badger
them, but to help them to get
on.
Mr.
Gibb: I agree: the state should provide support, but
whether an individual decides to access that support is, at the end of
the day, up to him or her. The only reason that the Minister wants that
information flow from a local authority to the Skills Funding Agency is
to enable badgering to take
place. The
Minister has not convinced me. I do not believe that the flow of
information is necessary in any of the examples that he has given.
Where it is necessary, it is clear that the individual concerned would
want to give consent because without it he or she would not get the
particular type of education that the statement of educational needs
enabled them to access. The other examples are about either pursuing
Government policy or high-level aggregated research, which can be
conducted in different ways without jeopardising personal information
that is garnered for one particular purpose and should not be used for
another purpose. The state needs to adhere to that important principle
at all times. In the light of the unconvincing response to amendment
30, I intend to test the opinion of the Committee.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
18]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendment
422 New
clause 20—Sharing of information for education and training
purposes.
Jim
Knight: In speaking to amendment 30, I have already set
out the importance of the information sharing powers in clause 119. As
it stands, the clause extends local education authorities’
existing statutory powers to share information with each other. On
reflection it is thought that the existing information-sharing powers
are sufficient for local education authorities’ new
responsibilities under the Bill. We do not wish to extend information
sharing gateways where they are not necessary. Hence, new clause 20,
which we propose as a replacement to clause 119 in its entirety,
differs in only two respects. First, local education
authorities’ existing statutory powers to share information will
not be widened and, secondly, the new clause clarifies that a
“a member of the
Chief Executive’s
staff” includes
those appointed by him as well as those provided to him by the
Secretary of State. That clarity is necessary to provide consistency
with earlier revisions made to schedule 4, which make it clear that the
functions of the chief executive may be delegated to staff in either
category. We
propose replacing the clause in its entirety to aid Members in their
consideration of the clause. Therefore, I propose that new clause 20
replaces clause 119 and I oppose clause 119 standing part of the
Bill.
Jim
Knight: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bognor
Regis and Littlehampton before speaking to amendment
422.
Mr.
Gibb: I am still not clear why the new clause takes local
education authorities out of the list of persons to which subsection
(2) of clause 119 applies and replaces it with a smaller list that
omits local education authorities. The two subsequent subsections in
new clause 20 put back the power for LEAs to supply information to the
various bodies. Can the Minister explain the difference between the
provisions of new clause 20 and old clause
119?
Jim
Knight: The difference is as I set out. I take it that the
hon. Gentleman is referring to subsection (3), where local authorities
have been taken out of the list. In subsections (4) and (5),
“person” includes local authorities. My understanding is
that allowing local authorities to share information with Skills
Funding and the YPLA is necessary for the information sharing to work.
By removing those organisations from the earlier list, we are excluding
their ability to share information with each other. In essence, we
would regard that as unnecessary. If the situation is different I will
write to the hon. Gentleman, but that is my
understanding.
Mr.
Hayes: Will the Minister deal with the issue of what is
necessary and what is allowable? He said that the measure is about
excluding things that are unnecessary, but both the original clause and
the new clause bar only information that is not allowable in law. That
is not about necessity, but whether something is allowable. For
example, the original clause mentioned information that it would be an
offence to share or when other restrictions would prohibit
disclosure.
Jim
Knight: When I talk about what is necessary, I mean what
is necessary in order for the various LSC successor bodies to be able
to carry out their functions. Such data sharing is necessary for the
LSC, and we are simply transferring that ability to the successor
bodies in response to debate on an earlier
amendment. On
Government amendment 422, in order to administer the education
maintenance allowance, the LSC requires information held for tax and
tax credit purposes by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and
information held for social security purposes by the Department for
Work and Pensions, so that it can check the validity of applications
for the allowance. The amendment will enable such information to be
passed to the LSC successor bodies so that the existing arrangements
can continue. I hope that the amendment is agreed to in due
course. Question
put and negatived.
Clause
120 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6dissolution
of the Learning and Skills Council for England: Minor and consequential
amendments Amendment
made: 422, in
schedule 6, page 171, line 5, at
end
insert— ‘Education
Act 2005 (c. 18) In
section 108 of the Education Act 2005 (supply of information: education
maintenance allowances), in subsection
(3)— (a) in paragraph (b) for
“Learning and Skills Council for England” substitute
“Chief Executive of Skills
Funding”; (b) after
paragraph (b)
insert— “(ba) the
Young People’s Learning Agency for
England;”; (c) in
paragraph (f) for the words from “the Secretary of State”
to the end substitute “a person within paragraphs (a) to
(e)”.’.—(Jim
Knight.) This
amendment will allow information held for tax and tax credit purposes
or social security purposes to be supplied to the Chief Executive of
Skills Funding and the Young People’s Learning Agency (in place
of the Learning and Skills Council) for purposes relating to
eligibility for education maintenance
allowance. Schedule
6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
7learning
and Skills Council for England: transfer
schemes Jeff
Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): I beg to move
amendment 423, in
schedule 7, page 172, line 15, at
end insert—
‘( ) Where the transfer results in a
substantial change of terms and conditions, by the new employer or the
previous employer pre-transfer, that are to the material detriment of
the transferee, this will be seen as a breach of contract by the
employer.’. It
is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Mrs. Humble.
The schedule deals with staff transfer schemes about which LSC staff
are concerned. I am sure that other hon. Members have received e-mails
from LSC staff, who are probably also members of the in-house trade
union, the Public and Commercial Services Union. Their main concern is
compliance of the staff transfer
scheme with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers.
In effect, we are talking about the transfer of public
employees. One
e-mail that I received from a member of staff who lives in Mexborough
in my constituency sums up the concerns in a
nutshell. 1
pm
The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
