| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the Minister responds to that point, and as a supplementary to it, I, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was persuaded by the instances the Minister gave. But given that there may be other circumstances in which we would not be so sympathetically disposed which as yet remain unknown--and given that we do not have the protection of the regulatory power and therefore the option of parliamentary scrutiny because obviously in some of the circumstances the Minister indicated that would be inappropriate--would it be appropriate to ask the Minister to consider whether he could give some undertaking that such conditions would be imposed only after consultation with the local authorities?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As regards the second type of case, I said that we were exploring with local authorities the possibility of their taking advantage of that. As regards the first type of case which concerns individual cases, I am not sure how far one can define the word "discuss". If we were saying to a local authority that a particular piece of information about a particular person must be seen only by a specific named official, I am not sure whether that is a case of our discussing that or not. I think it probably is not according to the definition of the noble Baroness. I cannot promise that we would be prepared to discuss these situations with local authorities if that implies that we might not proceed with other directions. In the kind of circumstances that I envisage, we would have concluded that it was essential to do so. It should be underlined that it does not stop the local authorities using the data. It puts tight limitations on who should use the data.
The noble Earl went into the realms almost of fantasy. I suspect that the kind of alliance to which he referred would ban the use of computers in any case, so the question would never arise. I am not in a position to say what checks and balances there are. I know that the noble Earl never means to apply his comments to ourselves, the party opposite, or even, I presume, his own party in the unlikely event that he described. But looking back over my lifetime, I have a reasonable faith that while governments have done things that I have thought were pretty daft, I do not think that they have gone way beyond the score in using the powers that they had in legislation. I have a naive hope that that will continue. I suspect that if a government wished to do the kind of things that the noble Earl sometimes conjures up, usually late at night, then they will drive them through Parliament anyway and we shall have to oppose them by other means.
When discussing a previous amendment, the noble Earl made the point that we had one Secretary of State per year. The current excellent Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, has been in post since the last election.
Earl Russell: I had a point on the tip of my tongue, but it has gone.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It must have been a joke about Mr. Peter Lilley.
In my intervention which piggy-backed on the comments of the noble Earl, I sought to establish that reasonable authorities would accept the constraints or conditions being imposed on the way in which they handled that information as being in the public interest. I wish to ensure almost the equivalent of a shared code of conduct between the department and local authorities in order that each understands where the other is coming from so that this subsection cannot be unreasonably applied to the hindrance of local authorities. Clearly we cannot do that through regulation. Clearly, that is not appropriate for a code of practice. But we need some way of ensuring that local authorities agree that what the Secretary of State would be doing is reasonable given the objectives that they are required to pursue under the Bill. We need some forum of consent to the conditions imposed on the assumption that no reasonable authority could object to what the Minister has outlined. Can the Minister help us in some way?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Help comes in different ways. I am not entirely sure that I can be helpful to the noble Baroness. I pick up the point made by the noble Earl, and with which no doubt the noble Baroness agrees. I refer to the issue of domestic violence about which the noble Baroness will agree with me as regards protection. When the husband of a victim of domestic violence works in the DSS, she can tell the DSS and we shall then make her record a sensitive one. It will be accessible only to a senior officer, and only specific local authority staff would be allowed to view sensitive records on a need-to-know basis. I hope that is helpful.
We shall certainly look at what extra protection may be needed within the housing benefit computer strategy which we are working out and discussing with the local authorities. I am not answering the noble Baroness in the detail she wishes, but I believe that my last point is relevant to the kind of directions we might give local authorities with regard to either some of the data or, in the case of their plugging into our system, all the data.
Earl Russell: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the point about victims of domestic violence. That is extremely helpful and I am very glad to hear him say it.
I have also remembered what I was about to say a minute ago. The Minister said that governments do not use powers in quite as extreme a way as I might have suggested. He will be familiar with the phrase used by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments: "an unexpected use of powers". The committee reach that finding on statutory instruments on average at least once every year. So it can happen.
Another point which very much interested me was the noble Baroness's use of the word "reasonable". Were we to insert into this clause the word "reasonable", it would make it possible for there to be a legal control on the type of conditions imposed. All the conditions the
Minister has proposed are reasonable. It might ensure that we had only those types of condition. Is that an idea that might indicate a way forward?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure whether I am glad or sorry that the noble Earl remembered what he was going to say. But at least I am glad that he has that problem occasionally--I thought it was just lesser mortals like myself.
I am not sure whether I can be any more helpful. The conditions will be specified by the Secretary of State and they will be notified to the local authorities, but only after consultation. I think I can give that assurance to both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness: it will be after consultation. As I tried to explain, although the conditions will not be subject to regulation, they will derive their force from this clause and indeed the Bill; therefore there will at least be some limitations imposed upon them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am very glad that we elicited from the Minister the point about consultation. As I say, we want those conditions to be such that no reasonable authority could object to them. The test was one of reasonableness. But if the Minister is saying that the test of reasonableness is in any case carried by this phrase, so that if any government were to overstep that they would be subject to judicial review, and that the provision will be accompanied by a concept of consultation as to the framework within which it will operate, then we have gone as far as we reasonably can tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 37:
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 39. The amendments are alternatives; however, at this hour of the night it is probably better to address them together.
The amendments deal with the relationship between the DSS and local authorities. In the fight against fraud, that relationship should be one of co-operation and trust, not one of regulation or of petty cross-charging.
Amendment No. 37 seeks to remove lines 35 and 36 from the Bill. Those lines enable the DSS to charge local authorities for supplying them with information for use in anti-fraud work. The amendment is therefore designed to remove that new power. The charge that is provided for could be a disincentive for cash-strapped local authorities or over-stretched staff relatively low down the line with relatively small budgets.
It is surely the job of all local authorities to co-operate in the fight against fraud in social security and other matters. The introduction of cross-charging is not a helpful concept. Such costs should surely be met out of general budgets. After all, the fees referred to--which are basically fees for retrieval of information--would be relatively small.
I am further puzzled since consulting the record of how this matter was dealt with in another place. The record shows that, while resisting a similar amendment, the Minister there said:
Whatever the computer configuration, it is is surely nonsense to establish a new arrangement by which one bureaucracy charges another for acting in the public interest to attack the crime of fraud.
As was remarked earlier, local authorities collect a large amount of money which was previously fraudulently claimed. In 1995-96 it was £220 million. Yet local authorities receive only about 65 per cent. of their costs for tackling fraud from central government--and that is a diminishing proportion according to them--in order to carry out those duties. In comparison with that, the amounts conceivable under these clauses would be minuscule.
I therefore wish to press the Minister to accept Amendment No. 37. If he does not do so and the Committee does not accept it, I ask him to pursue my subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 39, which is the reciprocal power. I do not accept the need for a permissive power for the DSS, but if there is such a need, then surely there is a need for local authorities to have a similar power in the reverse direction. After all, they will be faced with similar costs and similar administrative effort. If the power is necessary for the DSS, then logically it is difficult to see the argument against the provision if the Minister rejects the first amendment. I therefore ask the Minister and the Committee to accept one amendment or the other. I beg to move.
Page 7, leave out lines 35 and 36.
"We have no plans to use the new power to start charging local authorities for their participation in existing arrangements".
He then went on to describe, at some length but somewhat irrelevantly, the implications of the development of new integrated computer systems and the involvement of the private sector.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page