NURSERY EDUCATION GRANTS: DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION (Hansard, 19 March 1996)

§ Mr. Spearing
I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 8, line 26, leave out from 'Office' to end of line 29.
The amendment, which perhaps was missed in Committee, might be described as a gentle probing amendment. It proposes the deletion of paragraph l(l)(b), which states that the schedule applies to any person exercising any function by virtue of section 2 and any persons who are employed by (or are directors or other officers of) any such person or who carry out the administrative work of any such person. The schedule relates to the disclosure of information about social security
Paragraph 2 of the schedule states: The Secretary of State may supply to any person to whom this Schedule applies any such social security information as the person may require for or in connection with the exercise of any function relating to grants in respect of nursery education. The Bill is legally interesting: it is written in high legal code. In order to understand what the schedule means, we must find out what persons are involved in section 2—or clause 2, as it currently is. Clause 2 states: Arrangements under section 1 may provide for grants to be made, or other functions relating to grants to be exercised, otherwise than by the Secretary of State. I am glad to see that the present Secretary of State is here, waiting for Third Reading, to which we shall come shortly.
Because schedule 2 gives authorisation to "any person", the Secretary of State and her successors can ask any other person to take over any function relating to grants involving so-called nursery education. That person can be a provider; the provider could presumably be Capita or its successors, or any sub-contractor—if that is allowed in the contract—or, indeed, any number of people. The possibilities are mind-boggling.
That person could be an employee of such a provider of education, a director of a nationwide firm, or—dare I mention it again—of an international firm, who supplies education by virtue of being a provider, whether for one school or for a large number. Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to supply a whole range of people: sub-contractors, providers, some voluntary, some mutual, some, perhaps, private firms, with an unimaginable range 263 of information relating to social security. Later in the schedule is printed half a page of what will happen to those people if they misuse that information.
I want to know—I think that the Minister can now tell us—why social security information must be disclosed to such a wide range of people. It is unlikely now that even the head of a school—he or she would probably not dream of doing so—has any right to go to the social security office to obtain information about the circumstances of a parent. I cannot see that happening. It may happen, but I very much doubt it. Schedule 2 gives legal effect on a whole range of people who are not professional teachers or members of a local education authority, but who instead can be in a myriad of private firms involved in the execution of this important Bill.
Will the Minister explain why on earth that power is in the Bill? Will it go as widely as I think the Bill suggests? Should it not be cut down a great deal?

§ Mrs. Gillan
The hon. Gentleman has impressed us throughout the Bill with his concern on many matters, but I often think that he is just a little off beam. We are all concerned to maintain the confidentiality of social security information. It is essential that we exert a great deal of care over the way in which that information is used and who has access to it. That is why schedule 2 makes it an offence to breach that confidentiality and sets out the penalties that would be incurred by anyone who did so.
If the contractor appointed to run the scheme was unable to have access to the child benefit centre database, that would result in a poorer service for parents, the contractor would be unable to offer as much help over the parents' queries and it would take longer for voucher applications to be processed. It could result in more expensive administration. It would require the involvement of the child benefit centre in the administration of the scheme, which would add extra stages to the processing of voucher applications. Finally, it would give us a less secure system, because checks to prevent fraudulent requests for vouchers would be more difficult to carry out.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment would place an unnecessary restriction on the supply of that information and would be detrimental to the administration of the scheme. Therefore, I hope to be able to persuade him to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Spearing
I said that it was a probing amendment, and the Minister has been partly helpful. I was not deleting the penalties. Far from it; they are essential. It is clear that the administration of the scheme will be very much involved—rather like housing benefit—in the social security system. I put a big question mark over that. It might be necessary to obtain some information relating to social security to avoid fraud, but that is not one of the purposes of the Bill.
I conclude from what the Minister said that schedule 2 is a means of integrating the administration of the scheme, which is complex in itself, with the social security machinery of the locality, or perhaps a wider region, or even a national scale. That is new, and although it may be implicit in the minds of the Department and of Whitehall, it could perhaps be done in a more expeditious and economic way. That matter will engage those concerned in further stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.