§ Mr. RookerI beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 31, in page 13, line 12, leave out from 'shall' to 'comply' in line 13.
No. 32, in page 13, line 14, leave out '(4)'.
Government amendment No. 33.
§ Mr. RookerThe three amendments cover points that were raised in Committee. The Ministers at the time conceded that we have a point on subsection (4) of clause 16 about privacy. Although there is no Government amendment on that, this is a probing amendment to see whether the Government will re-examine what was said. The same applies to subsection (2) on confidentiality.
581 On amendment No. 31, in the way in which subsection (3) is drafted, the Government appear to be saying the same thing twice. We wish to leave out the words
to the extent to which the request was reasonable".All the items listed in subsection (3) are reasonable. They are not onerous on the employer and he is asked to provide the information in a reasonable time. We cannot see the reason for those words.
§ Mr. NewtonIt is difficult to go over the points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised without taking more time than the House would wish. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the Government have not tabled an amendment to take account of what was said in Committee, Government amendment No. 33 is intended to take account of at least one of the points raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Pantypridd (Mr. John). It is now clear that the prescribed person to whom information is to be supplied is the Secretary of State and not just a vaguely prescribed person. Although that may not go as far as some hon. Members wish, it shows that we have taken cognisance of the points made.
On the issues that the hon. Gentleman touched on generally, I cannot add much except to say that the Government's view is that the requirements for the provision of information are the minimum necessary to make it possible for the authorities concerned with the Bill, including the adjudicating authorities to operate the provisions.
We do not believe they will be used unreasonably, except to the extent that there is always the possibility of unreasonable people behaving unreasonably with any information. There is no way known to the law of ensuring that an employer will not communicate information that he gained in the course of employing somebody to another person who, perhaps, rings him up and asks for a reference. One cannot totally safeguard against that within the law. Subject to that qualification, we are confident that the provisions do not constitute a serious risk to the privacy of individuals and that they are necessary for the effective working of the provisions of the SSP scheme.
§ Mr. RookerI said that I thought that the Government had not made any concession, but I missed the purport of amendment No. 33. I apologise to the Minister for that.
The Minister explained how he would ensure that the scheme works for statutory and adjudicating authorities; so that they can get to all the information they need. Will the inspectors—I do not want to transgress—appointed to operate under clause 18 be involved in this work? If the answer is "Yes", does the Minister feel that the possible proposals to use a different grade of civil servant on the inspection process from that which the Government use for National Insurance investigation will affect it in any way?
I ask that simply because the number of civil servants saved by the Bill is 5, 000 gross. However, about 2, 000 inspectors will be appointed to check over the scheme. Therefore, there is a net saving in Civil Service manpower of about 3, 000. There is no argument about that. It has now come to my attention, from figures we did not have in Committee, that the 5, 000 people the Government will save at the counter, as it were, cannot be used—only a few 582 can be used—for the 2, 000 inspector jobs. A paper, presented to Ministers, was written by Mr. Brian Bridges in room A628 and states:
The surplus staff thrown up on benefits sections in April 1983 will be mainly LOl1s is and they could not be diverted to SSP policing duties requiring LO1s without a promotion bonanza.I will not go over all these notes because it is unfair to produce them to Ministers at this time of night; there was no earlier opportunity to do that. One of the Government's ways out of that is set out on the second page of Mr. Bridge's memorandum; to downgrade the work of the National Insurance Inspectorate to LIIs. Mr. Bridges rightly stated that that would meet with "strong trade union opposition".
The Minister gave me the peg to ask this question because clause 18 will not be up for discussion because our amendment to probe this issue was not selected. However, the Minister's remarks just now have given me my gateway. He talked about ensuring that there is sufficient information for statutory authorities. I hope that he does not think that I am being unfair. Mr. Bridge's interesting memorandum requires some explanation, if not to the House now, certainly to the Civil Service trade unions before this scheme gets underway.
§ Mr. NewtonThe best thing for me to do at this time of night and in the way that the hon. Gentleman has raised his points is to congratulate him on his ingenuity, apologise to the rest of the House that I gave him his "gateway", say I do not know the answer to his question but that I will consider the matter and write to him.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettIt sounds generous of the Minister to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but there are, of course, many other people concerned with this matter. A more important principle is that at some time on Tuesday night we must decide whether to give this Bill a Third Reading.
Of course, the crucial aspect is whether the Government will make the amounts of savings in cash terms that they are expected to make, and they are important in our consideration of whether to give the Bill its Third Reading. The Minister ought to do a little better than that and say that he will supply the information to those hon. Members who are interested some time during or before Tuesday's night Third Reading debate so that, if the information is as worrying as it is suggested—
§ Mr. RookerI ask my hon. Friend to give the Minister more warning that the saving of £32 million is reduced by £19 million because of the seniority of the staff who are involved.
§ Mr. BennettI thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
§ Mr. Newtonrose—
§ Mr. BennettI am glad to see that the Minister wants to come back. I nearly intervened in My hon. Friend's speech to ask what the salary grades were in cash terms, but I decided that that would be unfair. We now need from the Minister a clear undertaking that before Third Reading on Tuesday he will make this information available so that we may know what savings have gone down the drain as a result of the information that my hon. Friend has given.
§ Mr. NewtonI am tempted to observe that, in the light of what has happened in the past few minutes, it may be superfluous of me to promise to make anything available, because it will reach the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) before it emerges from my Department. With that light-hearted remark, which perhaps has a bit of an edge to it, I am happy—I think—to give the undertaking that we shall write and provide the best information that we can on the matters that have been raised to those Opposition Members who are present and have thus proved their interest, and to any Conservative Members who say that they would like to have the information.
§ Mr. RookerI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 33, in page 13, line 21, leave out 'prescribed person' and insert 'Secretary of State'.— [Mr. Rossi.]