Dennis
Yes, I have been asked to comment on this. What I propose to say is:
1. I believe it is already the case that fraud investigators from benefits
agencies have equivalent powers of investigation to the police (they have warrant
cards, for example), and are already in a position to require information from
HEIs about individual suspect students, though they may have to jump through some
DPA hoops. The key difference to what is proposed is that it facilitates the
'fishing' approach to benefit fraud-detection. Although in one sense this
suggestion merely extends existing powers, it will substantially compromise the
stance on confidentiality that HEIs tend presently to give to students about how
we hold their personal data. This will affect the nature of that relationship. I
don't feel qualified to make a value-judgement about whether that impact is 'worth
it' for the potential benefit to fraud detection, but someone might be able to
mount a case based on the rights to privacy enshrined in the Human Rights Act? At
the very least, from a legal point of view, legislation would have to be carefully
drafted to reconcile with the provisions of the 1998 DPA, under which a student
may 'opt out' of certain types of disclosure of data (ie. the DPA would have to be
amended, inter alia).
The other concerns I have about this are practical, ie.
2. It won't work very well, and efforts to make it work better could mean HEIs
ending up bearing a significant extra burden of data provision.
a) Universities are large and diverse organisations and snapshot lists of students
have a very short shelf-life. Our data relating to currently-registered students
is many times more volatile than the staff data of large private organisations, so
the comparison does not bear real scrutiny.
b) Benefits investigators working with out-of-date lists will, for every fraudster
they identify, incorrectly place several 'innocent' students under suspicion. The
'losers' in that situation - in the interim before the correct facts are
established - will firstly be the students, and secondly the institutions in terms
of having to deal with more queries.
c) The tendency will be for agencies to start demanding updated lists on a more
and more regular basis, creating a further imposition on HEIs. They are also
likely - unless the format/content of data to be released is somehow defined
formally - to start requesting many variations on what data is supplied.
Institutions who have a presence in more than one benefits agency area will find
themselves having to supply different data on different timescales to each agency.
3. The only credible approach is via national databases. To combat fraud of any
scale and sophistication, the approach to data collection cannot be local and
piecemeal by local benefits agencies contacting local HEIs. As the paper in
question recognises, the more effective checking mechanisms will involve the
databases of national agencies. So, if one leaves aside the ethical dimension,
one suggestion would be that all such checks should be routed via a new database
held by HESA, containing a tightly-prescribed and cut-down set of data items which
HEIs would be responsible for updating at set intervals (most HEIs could automate
or semi-automate this).
Owen Richards
Academic Registrar
University of Sussex
Tel. 01273 877019
> From: "Dennis Barrington-Light" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:15:57 +0100
> Subject: Consultation on safeguarding social security
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> Reply-To: "Dennis Barrington-Light" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apologies for cross-posting.
>
> Has anyone else been asked to comment on the paper issued by CVCP 1/00/148
> concerning the 'Safeguarding social security: getting the information we need'
> paper from Social Security? This suggests that legislation may be introduced
> to compel colleges and universities to provide Social Security with a list of
> students attending so that they can check this against their claimants
> database? Although a section included states that the rights of the
> individual will be protected under the Human Rights Act and the Data
> Protection Act, the assurance only runs to five lines and states that the
> public has a right to expect safeguards under these Acts and that they
> recognise that they will have obligations under law regarding the processing
> of the data.
>
> What views do members have on Universities being compelled to release this
> data to Social Security?
>
> Dennis Barrington-Light
> Chairman of SROC
>
> Head of Student Records and Statistics
> University of Cambridge, 10 Peas Hill, Cambridge CB2 3PN
> Tel: 01223-332303 (Direct line) Fax: 01223-331200
> Email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|