Welfare Reform Bill

Yes. Given the discussions we have had today and the range of concerns raised, I shall be pleased to do whatever I can between now and Report to engage on all of these issues. It is important that we do that. On Amendments 103 and 109, which concern the disclosure of information, as the Bill is drafted, paragraph 5(2) will allow regulations to provide that information obtained under paragraph 5(1) from the criminal justice system could be supplied by Jobcentre Plus to other third parties and to impose limits on the circumstances and the extent to which the information could be disclosed. These amendments would remove that ability. Instead, the new sub-paragraph would limit the use of information supplied by a claimant under paragraph 5 so that it can be used only for the purposes of determining the benefit claim. I can reassure the Committee that regulations made under the power in paragraph 5(2) can allow information to be provided to a third party only in relation to ensuring the accuracy of information given by claimants about their drug use, or where it is otherwise needed to operate the new drugs provisions. Paragraph 5(2) enables regulations to impose further limits on the circumstances in and the extent to which this information can be disclosed. The safeguards that I have already outlined will apply here too. The main purpose for which we need to rely on paragraph 5(2) is to allow information from the police, drug workers or the Probation Service to be passed on to the drug treatment provider who carries out a substance-related assessment. For example, when referring a person to a substance-related assessment it might be appropriate to disclose that they had failed to attend a police-required assessment. Therefore, our intended use of the power at paragraph 5(2) is limited, but it is important that we retain flexibility to authorise the supply of information to other persons involved in operating the drug and employment programme where it is necessary to properly assess a claimant’s drug use and to enable the programme to operate effectively. If the amendment is accepted, the operation of the drug and employment programme could be hampered. On Amendments 104 and 110, paragraph 5(3) has two functions. Under sub-paragraph (a), a recipient of information that has been provided from the police, Probation Service or other prescribed body can use that information to amend or supplement information already held by the recipient about the claimant’s drug use. The information already held would include the claimant’s answers to questions about their drug use or information obtained through the substance-related assessment or drug testing. For example, under paragraph 5(3)(a), where the claimant’s answers about drug use were inaccurate, the information could be used to amend them. The amendment would prevent this. Paragraph 5(3)(b), which seems to be a matter of particular contention, provides that when information has been used to amend or supplement information already held about the claimant’s drug use, it can also then be disclosed to others. However, let me be clear, it can be disclosed only to people who would lawfully be allowed to receive and use the original information held about the claimant’s drug use. It can be used only for the same purpose as the original information. So with information supplied by a criminal justice agency that has been used to modify or add to the claimant’s answers about drug use, or the results of a substance-related assessment or drug testing, this provision would allow the updated information to be used and shared in the same way as the original information. The amendment would prevent this happening. A practical example of both of the above might be as follows. A claimant denies that they use drugs, and says that they are not subject to a drug rehabilitation requirement. Information received under paragraph 5 from the Probation Service suggests otherwise. Removing paragraph 5(3) would mean that regulations could not authorise the information from them to be used to correct the claimant’s inaccurate replies. The result of this would be that the information could not form part of any reasonable grounds for suspecting that a claimant has a drug problem. This might mean they could not be referred to a substance-related assessment, even though the evidence suggests they have a drug problem. These amendments therefore would hamper the ability to use and share the information that may be provided under paragraph 5 in order to assess whether a claimant has a drug problem. We need to use, and in certain circumstances share, information supplied by the criminal justice agencies in order to identify problem drug users, to get them on to the new programme, and to provide them with the support and help that they need to gain employment. We are aware of the need to ensure that any information sharing we provide for in regulations is proportionate to our aims. The affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to the regulations so, before they come into force, they will have to be approved in draft by both Houses. The regulations will include a range of safeguards to ensure that the requirements are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that those lengthy explanations about our intended use of these powers were helpful and that noble Lords are reassured that the regulations will be proportionate to our aims and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the department will be subject to significant obligations to safeguard the confidentiality of information supplied under the regulations. Having said that, as I said a moment ago in response to my noble friend’s question, I am very happy to meet with noble Lords between now and Report to go through any of this in more detail if they think that would be helpful. Accordingly, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.