Proceeding contribution from Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 30 October 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Skills Bill.
Education and Skills Bill
My Lords, as far as I am advised, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is wrong, but by the time I have finished speaking, I may have further inspiration so that I can give him a fuller answer. If I do not get further inspiration I shall ensure that he gets a fuller answer. I shall start my response to this important discussion by outlining some of the general points about the information-sharing provisions in the Bill. It is worth being clear again that this information sharing is not new. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, alluded to that. Information sharing between learning providers and Connexions and between Jobcentre Plus and Connexions has been in place since the Learning and Skills Act 2000, as my noble friend Lord Adonis made clear in Committee. Schools, colleges and job centres currently provide information to Connexions so that it can track young people and provide appropriate and timely support. Accepting the amendments would add bureaucracy and complexity to the system, although I understand the concerns that have motivated them. They would reduce the ability of local authorities to provide the timely and appropriate support to young people that is so important. We know that interventions that are rapid are most likely to be effective in getting a young person back into learning. That is what is so important. In addition, and probably most importantly, a number of safeguards are already in place. Under the Data Protection Act individuals have the right to request a copy of the personal information held on them by an organisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, if there are concerns about accuracy, that is the route for people to ensure that information is correct. The organisation must inform the individual if personal data relating to him or her is being shared, if notification is practicable. That is a very important safeguard. Amendments Nos. 14, 16, 17 and 66 require consent. There is a great risk of inertia in any system in obtaining consent, whether written or not. If consent were required, many young people or their families might simply forget or neglect to sign and send the necessary form. This is a particular risk for young people who have a wide range of needs and may have chaotic lifestyles. If a young person did not provide consent to his basic identification information being passed on, the local authority could not track the person or know when that person had dropped out of education or training. That local authority might not be able to provide that person with any support, let alone timely support that was tailored to their needs. I would also like to clarify, and to reassure the House, that although these clauses create powers to provide information, this does not remove the responsibility to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act, the common law of confidence and the Data Protection Act. Although they do not specifically require consent, it could be required by other legislation and in legal principles, which present a series of safeguards determining whether disclosure is lawful or not. A requirement to consent would add complexity to the system, placing considerable additional burdens on local authorities and other public bodies. It also has the potential to cause delay in getting important information to the local authority, which would in turn prevent it from tracking young people effectively and therefore from intervening to provide support that is timely and appropriate to their needs. I believe that Clauses 14, 15 and 16, as they stand, strike the right balance—and it is a balance—between enabling the local authority to deliver its functions of promoting participation and identifying young people who are not participating with respecting young people’s rights to prevent certain information being shared about them. These amendments on obtaining consent would do no more than obstruct the process that is already in place and functioning well. Regarding Amendment No. 15, learning providers have had arrangements in place to notify parents about information disclosures to Connexions since 2000. It is normal practice to write to all parents of pupils approaching the age of 13, letting them know that information about their children will be shared with Connexions unless they request that it should not be. That position will continue. On Amendment No. 19, the Data Protection Act means it is necessary to inform people when personal information about them is being shared, provided this is practical. It would be an unnecessary and inflexible burden to set in primary legislation such a specific time limit as set out in this amendment. I hope that, in the light of the reassurances with regard to the Data Protection Act, current practice and so on, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, given the safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked if we would think about Amendment No. 18, and we have done so. The question was whether we should add the border and immigration agency, now known as the UK Border Agency, to the list of public bodies under Clause 16. The list in Clauses 16 and 62 reproduces the list of Section 120 of the Learning and Skills Act. This was because we want Connexions to be able to access the same information under Clause 62 as it does under Section 120 of the Learning and Skills Act. We want it to have access to exactly the same kind of information as it does now. We have, however, worked with the Home Office to consider further the information-sharing powers available to the UK Border Agency, and it is clear that, through a common law power, they are already able to share information with local authorities. In addition, the new Immigration and Citizenship Bill will further support their role of promoting the well-being of young people. It is important to emphasise that this common law power already exists. Given the situation and the progress under way, I hope that noble Lords will accept that it would be inappropriate at this stage to add the UK Border Agency explicitly to Clause 16 as it could have unintended consequences for the common law provision. If I may quickly respond to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the information has to be in the possession of the school or college but must be relevant information in relation to the local authority’s functions under the Bill.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 704 c1753-5
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Related items
- Subjects
- Disability Criminal records Children in care Admissions Curriculum Discipline Appeals Courts Costs Adult education Attendance City technology colleges Fees and charges ICT Education Governing bodies Inspections Enforcement Fixed penalties Fines Learning disability Local government Qualifications Personal records Private education Pupil exclusions Prisoners Pupils Monitoring Part-time education Personal, social, health and economic education Standards Schools Special educational needs Training Vocational guidance Young people Young offenders Religion Regulation Testing Vocational education Travellers Youth courts School leaving Sixth form education Literacy Parenting contracts School councils Mature students Numeracy Border and Immigration Agency Parenting orders Specific learning difficulties Information sharing
- Legislation
- Education and Skills Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-12-30 19:04:26 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504830
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504830
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504830