Welfare Reform Bill

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would have raised the issue of data sharing. I recognise that this is a tricky matter. There is, as ever, a tension between protecting the individual’s privacy and ensuring that enough information is flowing to allow the system to work. Redaction, which is exercising the press and another place at this time, exemplifies that. It is heartening, given the Government’s ambiguous relationship with the sharing of information on citizens, that Schedule 3 does at least acknowledge limitation on the use to which this information may be put. Schedule 3(4), on page 72, notes that some of the information elicited from participants might well constitute evidence that a criminal offence has been committed. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, a little earlier. She was worried that evidence might be used to lead to a conviction of the drug addicts that we were talking about in the previous amendment. That is unsurprising, as we are talking about people who may be taking illegal drugs, but the Bill, as I understand it, specifically prohibits this. No information can flow from the social security office to any part of the court system, including the police. I hope that I have got that right. An exploratory interview about their lifestyles, necessary to form an individual action plan, may uncover more. Although I have been taking a harder line on the conditions that should be placed on drug takers than some noble Lords might like, I stand firmly by my position. I too see the logic of the provisions. No one would volunteer to get help with their addiction and get back onto the work programme if there was a risk that they could be prosecuted. It would be quite counterproductive for these purposes. Dogma ought to be set aside in favour of pragmatism. I will probably come back to this point; I reserve the right to do just that. I beg to move.