---

The Earl of Balfour: I wish to raise one or two points before my noble friend replies. I am not familiar with the fine details of the Bill but I have a feeling that one of the reasons for the word "prisoners" being added to the list is that if someone is in prison he is exempt from the council tax. However, in respect of,

"any other matter which is prescribed",

I wonder whether we need to include those who go into hospital. I say that because I am now over 70 and am on a state pension. I know that if I go into hospital my state pension is likely to be cut. I wonder whether the hospital point in that respect should not be written into the Bill. I fully understand the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for leaving out some words but I should like to suggest that we need to have these things specified. Whatever goes into the Bill should be prescribed on the face of the Bill.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) allows the extension of the provisions of the Bill to other types of information held by a Minister of the Crown or a government department to be supplied for the same purpose and paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 makes any regulations under this provision subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.

The general principle underlying Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill is that it is in the public interest to make specified relevant information held elsewhere in central government available to the DSS and the Northern Ireland department for the social security purposes set

11 Mar 1997 : Column 276

out in Section 122B(2) and parallel provisions. We have no immediate plans to make such regulations but we believe it is appropriate to have the ability to add other types of government information in the future. It is likely that in the future there will be changes in the types of information available or in the type of fraud committed. We recognise that the more we identify and close down existing opportunities for fraud, the greater the test of the ingenuity of professional fraudsters in finding ways of attacking the system. This regulation-making power is needed to provide the flexibility to take account of future developments. It is not good enough to be one step behind the fraudster. We need to keep pace with changes to ensure that we stay one step ahead.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, pointed out, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee reported on this provision. It did not reject the concept of extending the range of information which might be made available by regulation. It agreed with the Government that, in view of the wide powers potentially conferred by the regulation-making power, any such regulation should be by the affirmative resolution procedure. I would have been disappointed if the noble Earl had not raised this matter, as he has raised the matter on every other Bill in which I have taken part. His argument is the same. My answer is, I am afraid, also the same. In this case it is an affirmative resolution.

In addition, if we were intending to introduce any new provision, we would have to consult, thanks to the consultation required in the Social Security Administration Act, before the regulations were laid and then we would have the affirmative procedure. That seems to be the appropriate way to proceed. The only alternative would be for new primary legislation. We do not think that would be appropriate where no matter of new principle is involved. Any new information source, if I may call it that, would have all the restrictions of the Bill applied to it. It would have all the qualifications that are on the listed sources of information applied to it.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that I answered earlier this evening about the position of contractors. In fact Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act makes it an offence for a DSS employee and its contractors to disclose information unlawfully. So contractors could not possibly play fast and loose with data that they had in order to fulfil a contract with us. For a start they would be breaching our contract and we would take a very severe view of that. Secondly, they would also be acting unlawfully and would be subject to the same penalties in law as any DSS employee.

I turn now to health records. I quash the idea that we might use that power to gain access to health records. I can reassure the Committee that that is not our intention. In any event, personal medical records are held by the area health authorities and not by the Secretary of State for Health. So the power to add other types of information could not be used to make it lawful to disclose medical records. I hope that that assurance helps the noble Earl.

11 Mar 1997 : Column 277

As regards the CSA, information can be obtained under these powers in the Bill only for the purposes of social security. So information could not be obtained for the CSA under these powers. There are limited provisions in the Child Support Act for child support information to be used for social security purposes, but they are limited. I can assure the noble Earl that we have no intention of exercising the power in this section in relation to information held by the CSA. Such information would in any event be available only for specified purposes in the Bill relating to the prevention of social security fraud, etc. Therefore, I do not believe that what I suspect are the noble Earl's fears are justified.

With those two assurances about health records and the CSA and with the further assurance that we are determined that these measures will be decided by the affirmative order and that there will be consultation before the regulations are laid, I hope the noble Earl can feel satisfied that he has raised what I entirely accept are important issues of secondary legislation. He has brought to our attention once again the need for Parliament to be eternally vigilant against government.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for their contributions. The point made by the noble Earl about hospitals is well taken by me at least. I hope that it may also be taken by the Minister. It underlines the fact that my basic concern is not over the use of the power to prescribe information, but over delegating our power to consent to it being done. That is very properly named "delegated legislation" because, in effect, by passing a clause such as this one gives the Minister a power of attorney to act on one's behalf, not quite without further authorisation, but without further effective opportunity for control.

I take the point that what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has said is that the affirmative procedure is sufficient for scrutiny, but scrutiny and control are two different things. Our concern here is with control. If we were to have an agreement on all sides that it was perfectly possible to vote on these things, then I might be able to look in a rather more relaxed way on the conferring of the powers. But, as it is, I cannot but be unhappy at signing over to a Minister powers which we cannot check. I entirely accept what the Minister said about it not being their intention. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for what he said about medical records. I thought that that was probably the case, but I am glad to know that it is. I am sure that the Minister's intentions here are nothing but honourable and nothing to which I need to take any exception, but, when we put something on the statute book, it remains there for an average of about 20 years, I imagine, and during that time quite a lot of Secretaries of Sate may come and go--

10 p.m.

Lord Carter: One a year in most departments.

Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggests that the figure may be one a year in most departments.

11 Mar 1997 : Column 278

I do not know whether he is talking about the past or the future, but whichever it is we must be careful of conferring power. In order to save time in the few future exchanges that the Minister and I may have on the subject, I should say that I am not concerned about the intention--there is no problem there--but I am concerned about values. I am concerned about conferring a power. When I see a power being conferred, I look at what might be done under that power--not necessarily by the present Government, the next Government or the next but one--but at what the power would lawfully extend to doing. That is a proper approach for a Parliament. We shall return to this subject in many future debates and I hope that occasionally in another Parliament the Minister and I may be on the same side. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 22 to 30 not moved.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Authorities administering housing benefit or council tax benefit]:

Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 7, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert--
("( ) a person, body or authority authorised to exercise any function of such an authority relating to such a benefit where there is reason to suppose that fraud may have occurred,").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 40 and can again be brief. These amendments seek to have the Government ensure on the record that information may be supplied to any authority or body acting on behalf of another authority. They seek to clarify that bodies such as the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team, which rejoices in the acronym LOFIT, and the London Team Against Fraud (LTAF), which co-ordinates London-wide action against fraud, will be able to receive information directly from government departments and other local authorities.

The background is that in the early 1990s several London boroughs were reporting a growth in fraudulent applications for benefits and awards. There was evidence of organised fraud; for example, applications from demolished and empty properties and multiple applications from one-bedroomed flats. We have made it clear from these Benches that we are as opposed to fraud, whether by landlords or claimants, as the Government.

The Audit Commission also noted the rise in reported fraud. In December 1993 it published a report on the extent of fraud and corruption suffered by local government, entitled Protecting the Public Purse, which set out a guide to good practice in the prevention and detection of fraud and corruption and made a number of recommendations for local government, central government and the police. It now seems that the 1996 Fraud Initiative has been extended to cover England and Wales and that some 250 local authorities will take part.

For all those reasons--the extension of the Fraud Initiative, the large number of local authorities taking part, and the success of the London Fraud Initiative,

11 Mar 1997 : Column 279

which I understand in 1994 and 1995 helped the London boroughs to stop £350 million-worth of fraudulent benefit and award claims--we think that it is important to have an assurance from the Government that information can be supplied to any authority or body acting on behalf of another authority. I beg to move.

---