HC Deb 14 June 1989 vol 154 cc1025-7

`Schedule (Preservation of individual privacy) to this Act (which amends the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987) shall have effect.'——[Mr. Cohen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7:

`PRESERVATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

  1. 1. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as mentioned in the following provisions of this Schedule.
  2. 2. For the purpose of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988, section 26(3) of the Data Protection Act 1984 and Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 1(2) of the Data Protection Act 1984 (Interpretation of the First Data Protection Principal) shall apply.
  3. 3. In Section 20(2)(a) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 the words "only for a purpose associated with the proper maintenance of a community charge" shall be inserted after the word "inspect".
  4. 4. In Schedule 2, at the end of section 17(2) (Inspection etc.) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the words "only for a purpose associated with the proper maintenance of a community charge" shall be inserted.
  5. 5. Information concerning an individual who is subject to a community charge can only be disclosed by a registration officer or charging authority either:
    1. (a) with the consent of that individual, or
    2. (b) to another registration officer or charging authority for a purpose associated with the proper maintenance of a community charge.
  6. 6. It shall be an offence for any individual or organisation to hold or process personal data, as defined by the Data Protection Act 1984, that are wholly or in part obtained directly or indirectly from more than one community charges register, except where
    1. (a) two different charging authorities or registration officers hold personal data for the purpose of the management of community charge when an individual changes his address and becomes subject to a community charge in one of the authorities, or
    2. (b) an individual is subject to more than one community charge, or
    3. (c) the individual who is liable to pay a community charge, has consented to the holding or processing of his personal data.
  7. 7. Information relating to the date of birth of individuals liable to pay a community charge may only be retained by a registration officer or charging authority if:
    1. (a) there is more than one individual liable to pay a community charge resident at a specific address, and
    2. (b) the resident individuals have the same surname and initials, and
    3. (c) there is no other simple means of identifying the resident individuals.
  8. 8. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 are repealed.
  9. 9. Where a department of a charging authority or precepting authority is requested to provide information concerning an individual to a registration officer, the department may refuse that request if the department has reasonable cause to believe that the request for information:
    1. (a) may cause serious degradation of a service provided by the department to that individual, or
    2. (b) is unreasonable in terms of the cost to provide the information, or
    3. (c) will breach an obligation to meet a duty of confidentiality.
    1026
  10. 10. Section 20(2)(c) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, and section 29 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 shall be replaced by
An electoral registration officer shall not sell the electoral register for purposes not associated with the election process if the officer uses any community charges register as a means of improving the accuracy of the electoral register".'.

Mr. Cohen

I shall be brief because hon. Members wish to consider the dog registration scheme, which I support. The amendment is similar to my Poll Tax (Registration of Individual Privacy) Bill which appears at column 162 of Hansard on 14 February 1989. I shall not repeat the arguments. The poll tax has a commercial exploitation and police state potential. It presents opportunities for enormous abuse of individual privacy. Until now the Government have handled this aspect very poorly and adopted a couldn't-care-less attitude.

A farrago of misinformation and half-truths has been given to the public, and inadequate and inappropriate information has been given to local authorities by the Government, partly because they have not worked out the details properly. This is causing considerable and increasing consternation to the public. My measures restrict the collection and use of personal information by the community registration officer and the charging authority to purposes associated with the poll tax. This means that the information cannot be passed on for use for junk mail, determining credit ratings or vetting. My measures apply also to the principles and procedures of the Data Protection Act 1984 as they affect the collection and use of poll tax personal information.

There have been some odd questions on the registration forms that have been sent out in the past few weeks. Trafford has asked about the relationship of everyone in the household. Is that ultra vires? Hounslow and Solihull councils have asked who owns the furniture and where it is kept. Is that ultra vires? Croydon council has said that the local authority may use information for other "registered" purposes. That is not right. On 23 February, in an answer to me, the Minister for Local Government said: Community charges registration officers and charging authorities have no power to disclose data contained in registers to any third party other than those specified in 1he Local Government Finance Act 1988 and regulations to be made under it."—[Official Report, 23 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 732.] That message has not got through to Croydon or, presumably, other local authorities. Will the Minister confirm that the information must not be used other than by community charge registration officers and the charging authority or for any purpose other than the community charge? Will he confirm also that the information must not be used internally by a local authority for any purpose other than the community charge? The Minister must give an unequivocal assurance. Will he confirm that Croydon council is acting ultra vires?

Privacy rights are being seriously eroded by the poll tax. The likelihood that the abuse will worsen is a menace to hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens. It is better that the Government should adopt the protective privacy measures in my amendment and new clause.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I am happy to confirm my answer to the hon. Gentleman that the information which is requested for the purposes of the community charge may not be used for other purposes. We have been particularly concerned to protect people's rights. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a person who fears that he or she may be in some danger can even have his name removed from the list so that it is not available. It can only be shown; it cannot be copied or written down. An individual will, of course, see his or her own details on the list to ensure that it is accurate. The hon. Gentleman need have none of the worries that he has expressed. The law is very particular in the protection that it gives people and it gives community charge officers a restricted ability to gain information. They can gain only specific pieces of information—name and address being two, and age, when that is material to a person coming on to the community charge list at 18.

This is not the time of night to raise a controversial matter, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at his proposals and apply them to the Labour party's proposals to have two taxes, one of which would mean that local income tax information would have to be held in every town hall—which is an incursion into people's freedoms and rights. It would be interesting to see whether people in Leyton appreciate the idea that details of their pay slips and such would have to be held. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to apply his mind to that. Information on the ownership and value of everybody's home would have to be held also.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the Labour proposals one would pay the tax even on a tenanted property that one did not own? [interruption.]

Mr. Gummer

My hon. Friend should not be led astray by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who rarely speaks other than from a sedentary position. I fear that my hon. Friend is perfectly right in what she says. The tenant would pay on the freehold value of his house, even though he would not gain any benefit from it. 11 pm

Whereas the regulations under the community charge are tightly drawn and present no threat to civil liberty, I could not say the same about the two-tax system that the Labour party is putting forward and which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) supports—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not understand that, they should ask to see the letters which show the distinction between the two systems. I think that the country understands.

I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton will now accept that his worries are unfounded and that there is no need for his new clause.

Mr. Cohen

I do not accept what the Minister has said because both a system of rates and a system of income tax are currently in operation. I do not agree that privacy would be more adversely affected. I have already referred to my ten-minute Bill, in which I set out a whole series of invasions of privacy—such as women being hassled under the cohabitation rules. The proof will be in the eating and the Minister will face the consequences.

In the interests of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to