Lords Sitting of 24 October 1983

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Mr. J. V. D. Webb: Tributes
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a brief statement. It is my sad duty to have to tell the House of the death of John Webb, who since 1977 has been the Fourth Clerk at the Table and head of the Judicial Office. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to his widow, who will be known to some of your Lordships, as she herself was a member of the staff of the House until recently.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to express his regret that, because he is sitting judicially this afternoon, he is unable to be present on the Woolsack. He has asked me to pass on to the House his own deep regret and his condolences to Mrs. Webb.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like on behalf of my noble friends to associate myself with the statement of the Leader of the House, and the message of sympathy and condolences to the wife of John Webb, whom I knew personally and held in the highest regard. He rendered conspicuous public service as Fourth Clerk at the Table and as head of the Judicial Office.

Youth Training Scheme: Response
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the level of response from companies to the youth training scheme.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): Yes, my Lords, the Government are satisfied that the response has been excellent.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the briefness of his reply, if not the information contained in it. I hope that in answer to this supplementary question he may perhaps give us a little more material. Is he aware that this scheme has been described in responsible newspapers as the most imaginative in Western Europe? What are the numbers of those who have currently agreed to enter the scheme and train for a year? Are the Government satisfied that the present rate of intake is matching their expectations?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will not conceal from my noble friend or the House that in the very early stages of what is, after all, a novel scheme we were a little anxious at the rate of take-up, but by 20th October over 200,000 young people had entered the scheme and during the first three weeks of October over 56,000 young people entered it; so things are now progressing well.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister for an assurance that those young people who are unemployed and who have not taken up places in the scheme will not have their supplementary benefit of £15.80 a week cut if they do not take up places? This was threatened in a circular to local government earlier in the summer.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I know of no such plans for any such cut; but I would urge young people that it is only responsible for them to take up the places which are offered and which are, after all, designed not to provide makeway activities but real training to enhance their possibilities of real employment in a difficult labour market.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of these schemes have been partially financed by grants from the European Social Fund, especially in the London area? Would he agree that that is a useful way of proceeding and of bringing to fruition more schemes, for the benefit particularly of areas of urban deprivation?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am aware of that. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has made additional applications to the European Social Fund for these purposes, which are precisely what it is for and is designed to fulfil.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the information and support being given in schools and colleges for youngsters to take part in these schemes? Secondly, to what extent are the unemployed 17 year-olds being recruited into schemes to fill the gaps which are not being filled by the 16 year-olds?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not dissatisfied because I have not been given information which might make me dissatisfied, but I will take up the point the noble Baroness has made and make sure that the schools are aware of this potential. From my own experience as a youth employment Minister two years back I know that the schools were co-operating with us very closely on that point. If I may I will take advice on that and on her second supplementary question, and will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, could the noble Earl he a little more frank? What percentage of the places available is represented by the number that has been taken up—the 200,000 that he mentioned? Is it not a fact that a lot of young people are reluctant to join this scheme because they realise that when it is finished they will become unemployed and that this is simply a postponement of their unemployment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is a relatively open-ended scheme so one cannot talk about proportions in that way. But it would certainly be misguided of young people to behave as the noble Lordsuggests, because while there can be no guarantee of permanent employment as a result of participation in the scheme, as I said earlier it does improve the odds in favour of real employment at a very difficult time in the labour market.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the objections of some Civil Service unions in preventing the taking up of some places including, I believe, a proferred place at Downing Street?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as the Minister in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service I have been engaged in quite sensitive negotiations with the unions on this very issue. I am optimistic that we shall shortly have a good result but I do not want to say more than that at the moment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that this could be a very useful scheme which could
4
bear very great fruit but that that will depend on the responsibility of the Government and that it is not so much the young people who are being irresponsible? If at the end of their training they end up on the dole they will naturally be more bitter than they were before entering the scheme. Therefore, is there not a need for a combination to carry on with this imaginative scheme and to reverse part of the Government's policy and have an onslaught on unemployment to make the scheme worthwhile?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said in the first part of his supplementary question. However, I am afraid that on the second part of his supplementary his assumptions are that the Government have control over the overall levels of employment in any given economy. In a free society that is simply not the case.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the Minister conscious of the fact that the Church is very deeply involved in this matter across the country and certainly in East Anglia? Does the noble Earl know that the Church is deeply involved in Norwich, Lowestoft, Thetford and King's Lynn with great encouragement and help to young people in giving them confidence for their own future?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am delighted to pay tribute to the Church as a very responsible employer, if I may put it that way.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in view of the skepticism among many young people, particularly unemployed young people, as I have found in Liverpool, which deters them from taking part in the scheme on the ground of the poor prospects of employment at the end of one year, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that enough is being done to persuade these young people, by various means, of the intrinsic value of training in a skill, notwithstanding the present and expected state of the labour market?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that one can ever be satisfied but I certainly think that all the bodies concerned—particularly the Manpower Services Commission in terms of its excellent direction at regional level on Merseyside—are doing everything they can and are spending the money that we give them well to promote the practical usefulness of the scheme.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend monitor the results of this scheme? If so, perhaps Parliament can be told after a given time how successful is the scheme and whether those who enter it are more likely to obtain jobs as everyone expects? Further, can my noble friend say whether there are arrangements to adjust the training in order that the maximum usefulness of the training can help provide jobs for these young people?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very happy of course to come before your Lordships at any time to report on the progress of the scheme; but, for what my own views are worth, this would be useful when we have had a little more time on the scheme, perhaps in six or seven months' time.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister inform us whether there is an upper age limit for admission to training under this scheme? I know someone aged 85 who would like to be trained.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will do what I can to pull strings for the noble Lord but he seems to have done very well in the ordinary course of employment.

Nuclear Freeze Proposals
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the Warsaw Pact countries' proposal for a nuclear freeze.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, a freeze on nuclear weapons would perpetuate current imbalances in favour of the Soviet Union and remove the principal incentives for the Russians to agree to reductions. Verification of an agreement to freeze nuclear weapons would be extremely difficult to negotiate. For these reasons we remain convinced that it is better to concentrate on negotiating reductions of nuclear weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in their communiqué of 14th October the Warsaw Pact powers made it clear that they are prepared to put into the bargain the scrapping and reduction of their own intermediate range missiles? What are the Government's individual reactions to that proposal?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the offer that was made by Mr. Andropov was a small step in the right direction but did not amount to very much. The Russians would still have about 500 SS20 warheads targeted on Western Europe and they have offered no constraints on missiles in Asia. The missiles in Asia could be moved within range of NATO quickly in a crisis.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, since there may be difficulties in the way of general acceptance of a nuclear freeze, more particularly in part of the United States, would not the Government agree that it might be more helpful and more productive to concentrate on the alternative proposal for a withdrawal of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons over a certain area on both sides of the dividing line?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the view that this and other NATO Governments take is that NATO Governments have shown a great deal of flexibility in the INF negotiations. We have offered a zero level or an interim agreement providing for equality in warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the freeze might be the starting point for
6
mutually balanced force reductions? Have the Government forgotten in a short time the scare which everyone had when the Korean airliner incident came about? Does she not consider that that makes it necessary to stop escalation and bring about a freeze as a first step towards a reduction in weapons on all sides?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. That is not a view taken by Her Majesty's Government. We believe that a freeze in INF at current levels would be unacceptable given the massive Soviet superiority.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Baroness perhaps not made sorrowful—though no doubt not alarmed—by the enormous number of different ways that the noble Lord finds to ask us the same question?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has asked questions on this subject many times, but then of course it is the right of a noble Lord to ask the question that he wishes.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Warsaw Pact suggestion that there might be a freeze on nuclear weapons is just another ploy on their part in the hope that we might delay siting cruise missiles in our country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it may well be, as my noble friend says, that this is one of the reasons for making this proposal, but of course the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that deployment will take place but at the same time that we shall continue to negotiate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is representing the Government's view that the deployment of cruise and Trident will take place anyway—which is an escalation—is it also the Government's view that it increases deterrence to raise the percentage of the human race that can be destroyed by nuclear weapons by 10 times? Is deterrence now to be dependent on the ability of the NATO Alliance to destroy the human race 100 times rather than 10 times?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated in answering some of the other supplementary questions, we continue to seek negotiations, but the fact is that the massive build-up of Soviet SS20 forces since the late 1970s has caused a disturbing imbalance in medium-range nuclear weapons. It was against this background that the NATO allies decided in 1979 to modernise their forces by introducing cruise and Pershing.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government agree that we already have negotiations and that what we now hope for is a solution in time to prevent the deployment?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. We have made it quite clear that, if there were satisfactory negotiations, this position could be reconsidered; but our intention at the present moment is that there will be deployment of cruise and Pershing towards the end of this year.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, as a matter of international law, when one nation accepts the armed forces of another in circumstances in which it abandons all control over their activities, does not that nation cease to be an independent sovereign power and revert to the position of a protectorate; and is that not what we are doing?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, that is not the case. If the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is asking a question about joint control of these weapons, I can do no better than repeat the position as stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
"The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles. We are satisfied that they are effective. The arrangements will apply to United States cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom whether on or off bases. The effect of the understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/83; col 435.]
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it the Government's view that even at this late hour in order to reach agreement in the INF talks in Geneva the United States should show flexibility in the negotiations?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; and, as I indicated in the answer to one of the earlier supplementaries, we believe that the United States has shown flexibility. We have offered the zero level or an interim agreement which would provide for equality in warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, what we are seeking to achieve is a parity between United States and Soviet weapons at as low a level as possible.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is one of the few occasions where we enter upon negotiations with the Soviets from a position of strength, and, judging by the reaction of the Soviet Government, does it not show?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, the whole intention of the dual track policy is that there will be deployment but that there will be a continuation of the negotiations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Baroness the Minister agree that there is considerable public anxiety throughout Europe on this matter? Is she aware that the very substantial demonstration that took place in London and elsewhere on Saturday is evidence of that anxiety? Is she further aware that on that occasion there were a number of people under the banner of "Tories against cruise and Trident"? Having regard to all these things, will she use the Government's influence to see whether it is at all possible, even at this late stage, to secure an agreement which will prevent the necessity for the deployment of cruise and Pershing?
Lord Derwent: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that supplementary, as I am sure she will, does she feel that a Starred Question provides a suitable time for a full-scale debate?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, which I have given already, is that we are continuing to negotiate. We would all wish to have a successful conclusion to that, but until we reach a successful conclusion both cruise and Pershing missiles will be deployed.

British Shipyards: Delivery
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any improvement in the last three months in the delivery performance of British shipyards building vessels and rigs for use on the continental shelf, enabling them to match foreign competition.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, only two deliveries have taken place in the last three months, both from the same yard to the same customer. One was slightly early and the other slightly late. No general conclusions can be drawn from such a short period.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply may I ask him whether there is any hope of this big £80 million semi-submersible rig at Scott Lithgow's yard being ready by the second agreed date, namely, next January? Can he say whether in fact Cammell Laird is out of the wood with regard to its troubles in particular the GVA 400 Sovereign Explorer which was eight months late last July when he answered my last question?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, these are matters between the individual customer and British Shipbuilders.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that we are continuing to lose orders to overseas yards because of the delays in British yards?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords; this is entirely true. The performance of British Shipbuilders is not as good as we should like to see it. A new chairman has just entered office and he is giving vigorous attention to these matters, but there is certainly a great deal of room for improvement.

The Arts and National Heritage: Sponsorship
3 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are examining the provision of additional incentives to encourage contributions from private sources towards the financing of approved initiatives relating to the Arts and National Heritage.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, business sponsorship of the arts is already running at a very encouraging level. Nevertheless my office is continuing to explore with the Inland Revenue and the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts whether there are further incentives which might be offered in order to attract even more support.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Conservatives' manifesto—the one presented to the public—promised to examine ways of helping the arts by giving tax concessions and so on to donors and contributors to public museums and galleries? Is he trying to take this a step further?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, the Conservative Party's manifesto is never far from my thoughts, and I am glad to say that a number of improvements to the tax incentives available to individuals and companies in respect of the arts, have been introduced during the life of this Government. There was a VAT concession in respect of disposals from historic houses, and a guide to general systems of tax reliefs available to private owners of works of art of museum quality importance was published by my office in July 1982. I am anxious to take this further step by step.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that so far as the theatre is concerned, a sensible consideration of reducing the VAT impost may very well produce extra financial resources for the Chancellor and at the same time encourage the earning of invisible exports?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have to confess to being rather a hawk where VAT is concerned. The problem with VAT, which is a comprehensive tax, is to have any exceptions whatsoever.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that while it is extremely desirable to encourage private contributions and support for the arts in every possible way, the main support must continue to come from public funds, both national and local, and will he give us some assurances on that point?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have made it clear both in the House and outside it that I look upon any benefits that we can receive for the arts from private funds as being in addition to, rather than in lieu of, continued public support.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will confirm that the Government are not prepared to accept the Rayner Report—the second Rayner Report, that is—which proposed the direct funding of the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden and the Royal Shakespeare Company?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is referring to the report made to me on the funding of the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company by Mr. Clive Priestley. I have now received this report, and it has gone out to
10
the arts bodies, to the Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company for consultation.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that however much easier it is made to get private sources to contribute to the purchase of works of art, and however more attractive it could be made to enable individuals to make private treaties with museums and gallaries, there is no substitute for an adequate purchase grant being given to the major national galleries and museums? Is the noble Earl aware that the asking price for a major work by an Old Master is now well in excess of the total annual purchase grant given to the National Gallery?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I tried to deal with the question of additionality (if I may put it that way) in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I am of course acutely aware of the high costs of great works of art on the international market. I have also to be aware, as I think the whole country is, of how very fortunate we are in this country in that so many great works of art remain here in both public and private hands.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition perhaps to incentives, will the noble Earl the Minister be prepared to take on board and consider that there are very many voluntary organisations which wish to be involved in aiding the arts, but find difficulty in getting launched? They are fairly confident that if they could get launched, they could provide reasonable wherewithal for the arts in general. Will the noble Earl be prepared to look at the proposition that voluntary organisations that could apply for some initial help would be considered?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to welcome a supplementary question from the noble Lord. It is precisely in order to meet his point that the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has been set up. A vigorous and successful young director has taken over from Mr. Luke Rittner, and I am very confident that the association will be able to achieve the purpose that the noble Lord outlined.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, with regard to the national heritage part of this Question, is the noble Earl aware that the British Tourist Association has designated 1984 as British Heritage Year, and within that there is to be a Christian Heritage Year, drawing attention to the great traditions of the nation from the Christian point of view? Will the Government give publicity, encouragement and support, if not in actual financial form, to that particular plan?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is very nice to be asked for support of a non-financial character, and I give it most freely.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, with regard to trying to help to keep works of art in this country, which was alluded to by the noble Earl, will he consider increasing the in lieu percentage—the so-called douceur—from 25 per cent. to at least 50 or even 75 per cent., as recommended by the Select Committee of another place?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, of course we all like more, but the fact of the matter is that I have no evidence at this stage that the douceur system, as it is so called, is not working satisfactorily.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Mansfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Maze Prison. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Young, who will repeat Statements on Grenada and the Lebanon; and this again will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who will repeat a Statement on the objectives for the chairman of British Rail.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Report stage of the Data Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales will be taken.

European Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the qualification of electors at elections of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities, so as to extend the franchise to British citizens resident in other member states of the European Communities. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bethell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2,
Schedule 1,
Clause 3,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 4 to 13,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 14 to 16,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 17 to 41.
—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it would seem to be the right time just to put in one plea to the noble Lord. I should like to suggest that in future he has some words with those who organise Government business,
12
so that on the first day that we return after a recess we are not faced with the Report stage of a Bill. I know that we were given long notice of this, but does the noble Lord not realise that those of us who do not live in London have great difficulty in examining the amendments that are put down to a Bill of this character in the week preceding our return, and that it would have been much better and the Bill could have been much better considered if the Government had postponed the Report stage at least for a day or two until we had had the opportunity of examining, and consulting together on, the amendments that we have been able to see only today?
Lord Elton: My Lords, of course I shall take on board what the noble Lord has said. I am quite accustomed to taking business on the first day and last day of every Session. It is easier if noble Lords are aware of what is on the Order Paper, but I dare say that the noble Lord could in fact have himself informed by post from the Printed Paper Office. Nevertheless, I shall pass the noble Lord's concern to my friends.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foster Children (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It consolidates certain enactments relating to foster children in Scotland. It is pure consolidation and is intended to make no change in the existing law. If your Lordships approve, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which will consider it and make its report to the House in due course.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Definition of "data" and related expressions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 24 leave out from ("performed") to end of line 26 and insert ("only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone during Committee stage. As your Lordships will recall, Clause 1(8) was introduced into last Session's Bill to exempt operations carried out on word processors solely for the purpose of text manipulation. The provision was generally welcomed, I think, when we discussed it in July, but my noble friend proposed an amendment to delete the reference to the actual equipment used in preparing the text of documents.
He argued that to speak of equipment designed for a particular purpose was too restrictive. Equipment never orginally intended to perform as a word processor might neverthless be used as one with suitable modifications to the software. He thought that a provision drafted solely in terms of the purpose behind the operations would adequately ensure that only word processing activities were excluded by the subsection.
I have to say that I gave my noble friend's suggestion a somewhat frosty reception last time. But we have nonethless given careful consideration to what was said at the Committee stage by my noble friend and by the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The more that we reflected, the more persuasive their arguments proved to be.
When the Government introduced Clause 1(8) we had in mind the purpose-built word processor which might or might not be capable of performing other functions. Clause 1(8) is therefore adequate to cover such equipment; but it is not, I now agree, entirely apt to cover equipment designed for entirely different purposes being used with the addition of new software for word processing activities. Yet, in data protection terms, the two situations are identical and ought to be dealt with in the same way.
The amendment therefore deletes the reference to equipment in Clause 1(8). As amended, the subsection will therefore exclude from the definition of processing any operation performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents. I ought to mention that when discussing my noble friend's amendment one argument used against it was that the deletion of the reference to particular equipment might encourage users to claim the exemption simply because the end purpose of their processing was to prepare documents even though the actual processing went beyond the manipulation of text. We have given careful consideration to this point and are now satisfied that the reference to an operation performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents should be sufficiently precise to avoid such abuse.
For these various reasons I commend this amendment to the House. I have had to start, upon the resumption after the Summer Recess, by eating a number of my words but the diet has not been entirely unpalatable. This only goes to show that the Government pay close attention to views expressed on all sides in your Lordships'House. I should like to express the Government's gratitude to my noble friend and to the noble Lords opposite for bringing this matter to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Those were sweet words to hear from the Minister at the outset of this debate. No one dislikes having his previously expressed opinions adopted by the Government. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will join me in that view. At the risk of seeming slightly sour after the sweet words, I have to say that in the opinion of my noble friends and myself this amendment is indeed necessary but it is not sufficient to rectify the difficulties that arise from subsection (8). In welcoming the amendment, it must be clear that we reserve our
14
position on the second amendment that is down for consideration by your Lordships.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having listened to our arguments. I share the hesitation of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in thinking that the amendment is sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it seems to me, from a study of the discussions that took place as a result of Lord Mottistone's amendment, that he had a point. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted it as valid and taken action at this stage of the Bill. I should like to ask one question for the purpose of clarification. If one has a system that is not primarily designed for word processing but is used in the normal course of a business for accounting and so on, and one uses text processing software on it, then that is the situation intended to be covered by this subsection, as I see it. The most common application likely to occur under the subsection is where the data user has the names and addresses of recipients of letters on file and he calls up those names and addresses for use in conjunction with pre-prepared text for the purpose of sending out an identical or similar letter to all the persons on the list. If he uses the names and addresses for that purpose and for no other, it seems to me that he would not be processing in relation to that data. I should he grateful if the noble Lord would confirm that my understanding is correct.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to apologise for not being in my place when my noble friend introduced the amendment. I thank him deeply for it. As my noble friend, I am sure, has told your Lordships, the amendment is similar to one that I advanced at Committee stage. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there is one lesson to be learned from the opening words of the Minister. It is that one should not be put off by his frostiness and should realise that there is a sun that will melt the frost and that deep consideration will always be given in spite of a frosty reply.
I wish to make a last plea that the Government should realise where they are going. Word processing, by this amendment, has now been removed, for all practicable purposes from the need to register. This means only, of course, when word processing is being carried out purely for that purpose. The Law Society has tried to point out the limitations in a memorandum, issued subsequent, I believe, to its knowing of this amendment. The Law Society points out that "essentially word processing operations" are really word processing operations that sometimes mention names. The names will then be interpreted as being a data subject. It gives an example, which is very much within the experience of solicitors, of where,
"a legal precedent is retrievable from the storage system by reference to the name of the client for whom it was prepared, although the purpose of the operation is pure word processing in the sense that the text is required for adaptation to the needs of another client".
Because it is being retrieved by reference to the name of a client for whom it was originally prepared, it will be caught, in spite of the Government amendment now before the House.

15
Before sitting down I should like again, with your Lordships' permission, to remind the House of precisely where we are going by these all-pervasive registration requirements under the Bill. From these Benches we tried to relieve the duties of the registrar and the urgencies of registration for one category as against the non-urgency of others, by endeavouring to ask for a phasing. That was refused by the Government.
However, I wonder whether your Lordships realise that we are now in the position that we are about to go through the final stages of a Bill under which, for example, if some industrious cricket-loving schoolboy cares to put upon the school computer the names of the first and second eleven teams and against them the number of runs that they have scored in the course of a summer, then the school will have to register that computer. This is not just a reductio ad absurdum: it is legislation ad absurdum.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking noble Lords for their kind reception of what was intended as a kind gesture, and to confim to the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, that the interpretation of the effect of the amendment is as he said. I am grateful to my noble friend for his reception of the amendment and for relieving me, I hope for the rest of this sitting, from the crick in the neck which I got looking for him at the beginning of the proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has addressed himself to a wider issue, perhaps, than that touched on by the amendment itself. However, I understand that what the Law Society would want to exclude is the use of word processors to retrieve information about individuals. The noble Lord is making it clear that I have misunderstood him. I can only say that if that was what he meant it was not, of course, what we intended to exclude. Where a word processor is used as a word processor only for the preparation of text, then I think we are all agreed that it should be excluded from the Bill. That is the intention of the amendment, and as far as I can see it goes no further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("otherwise than by reference to data subjects")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the sour part of the clause, and I am afraid I cannot apologise to the House for bringing forward in slightly different wording an amendment which reflects a pervasive defect in the Bill. Indeed, that applies not only to this amendment but to other amendments that we shall be considering this afternoon, because we have here the first example of the inadequacy of the Bill to protect the data subject from unknown, unauthorised or unwanted onward transmission of information about himself.
We have to talk about the matter first of all in respect of word processors, because, as has been made clear by the earlier discussion on the previous clause and as was also made clear in Committee and when
16
the Bill was before your Lordships on the last occasion, the difficulties of defining and restricting the definition of a word processor are virtually insoluble. Indeed, in moving this amendment in the way in which we are putting it forward we are in effect accepting that there is not really going to be any way of defining word processors and distinguishing text preparation from the communication of data, which is what, on the whole, the Bill is about. Therefore, we are looking for protection for the data subject in a different way.
I should not have thought that this amendment would be too difficult for the Government to accept since the way in which we are looking to protect the data subject arises from subsection (7) of the same clause, where, in the definition of "Processing", there is used in line 21 the following phrase:
"performing any of those operations by reference to the data subject".
That is the intention of bringing the processing of data into the scope of this Bill and of removing it from statistical manipulation, calculation or whatever numerical work is done by data processors.
However, if it is true that this is the right way in which to bring processing into the scope of the Bill, and if it is true that the role of the data subject in relation to processing is best defined in those terms, then surely is it not even more true when we come to subsection (8), which is concerned with word processing? The difficulty that we have with word processing is that the very act of manipulating text can in fact also be used to communicate confidential information and to transmit onwards confidential information as the use of data. Therefore, if the word processing applications, which cannot he distinguished from other applications, are to be brought effectively into the Bill, then the phrase:
"otherwise than by reference to data subjects"
ought to be brought into it. In that way the registrar and the public are protected from the indiscriminate coverage of word processing, which none of us would want, and yet the data subjects—those who are in fact going to be concerned by the use of manipulated text—are still protected.
The point is not new, and I apologise for repeating it. Indeed, it has been made many times before. However, it has not lessened in efficacy and it has not been answered in any way by the Government spokesmen at any of the stages of the Bill. I would urge the Government, in the spirit in which they recognised the justice of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in reference to the last amendment, to consider again whether it is not entirely logical to have the same protection in this subsection, the same restriction, as they themselves have put into the previous subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am inclined to support this amendment although it is a little difficult to visualise exactly the conditions in which it would be necessary. I suppose that if one were using a word processor to prepare a report on the Maze Prison escape, for example, one would describe the type of things we shall doubtless hear this afternoon in a great deal of detail, and one could alter it as one went along and further information came in. and one would not mention names. That, I suppose, is really the point

17
that is being made. If I have understood it correctly, I think it is right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have tried very carefully to follow what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has been saying and what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has been supporting in amplification of this amendment. I hope that I am in a better position now than perhaps I was during the Committee stage to explain why I believe his fears to be unfounded. I then sought to reassure your Lordships that there was not anything in Clause 1(8) which would reduce the safeguards afforded by the Bill to data subjects, and I should like to reaffirm that view perhaps more precisely today.
What this subsection does is to exclude from the provisions of the Bill those staightforward word processing activities which are quite incapable of causing anybody any harm. There has been widespread agreement that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to apply the registration and other requirements of the Bill to such activities, and I believe that the wording as now cast, following the previous amendment, is the best way of achieving the necessary exemption.
Your Lordships will recall that users of word processors were concerned that even the preparation of a series of standard letters to different addressees could be regarded as processing by reference to the data subject. It would therefore be caught by the definition of "processing" in Clause 1(7), since there was nothing to distinguish between the activity involved in such an operation and the search for names in a computer's data banks. It is the latter activity which the Bill is more obviously intended to cover, but, because word processors can perform a wide range of tasks, we found that we could not exclude them as such. Instead we had to describe the particular activities which we wanted to exempt. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is at one with us there. Thus, to qualify for the exemption, the activity must be performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents.
If we were to add the words suggested by the amendment, the whole point of subsection (8) would be lost. What the amendment does is to allow the word-processing exemption to apply only where the text of documents is prepared otherwise than by reference to data subjects. But, if a user did not prepare the text of documents by reference to data subjects, he would not be covered by the definition of processing in relation to personal data anyway. So, if I may use a favourite technical word, the amendment is "otiose". If he did prepare the text of documents by reference to data subjects—in the way that I have described by my example of standard letters—then he would not be satisfying the additional condition placed on the application of subsection (8) by the amendment; and so word processors used simply for text preparation would be back within the scope of the Bill. However, where I can offer reassurance is in saying that, the moment a word processor is used for a purpose other than text preparation, then the benefit of the exemption is lost. I believe that this is the safeguard against the kind of abuse feared by noble Lords, and it is achieved without amendment to the clause.
18
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord—and the definition within the definition is a very difficult concept—that subsection (8) does not require the protection that he has suggested and that he will not think it necessary to press his amendment. He is perhaps at the moment debating whether to consider what I have said at leisure by perusing Hansard to see whether it is satisfactory. I think that that is what I shall do with what he has said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would mind a short intervention which may lead him to write to my noble friend, myself and any other noble Lord interested on the subject. Having listened very carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, again I wonder whether the House realises (as I understand to be the case, but I may he wrong) that, if the Government Chief Whip decides on a word processor to send out a circular letter—and I assure the noble Lord the Minister that the same would apply to the Opposition Chief Whip—and that letter is to be worded in one way to Members of the Front Bench and in another way to Back-Benchers (and, therefore, on the word processor there is the indication that this goes out to the Front Bench and this goes out to the Back-Benchers), this would be caught by the Bill and the Opposition Chief Whip as well as the Government Chief Whip would presumably have to register. I ask this as a question and quite obviously I know that it will interest noble Lords administratively, logically and legalistically. Therefore, as I have said, if the noble Lord is not able to reply at the moment, I shall be grateful if he can do so between now and Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the House will give me leave, I shall reply straight away. This is exactly the situation that we wish to avoid and that is why we have amended the subsection. Perhaps if the noble Lord himself would be kind enough to write to me exemplifying the way in which we have failed to do this I should be better able—I hope—to dispose of his misconceptions or, alternatively, to correct my own. However, the present state of play is that the amendment achieves what I have described without the subsequent amendment offered to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I hope that he will not pursue it at this stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am struggling to comprehend the meaning of a definition within a definition. I am sure that there is something very subtle and searching in the words used by the noble Lord and, as he invited me to, I shall indeed study his words in Hansard rather than pursue this amendment now. But, in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, I still remain to be convinced that the distinction he is making, the safeguard which he is offering us, is not in fact still dependent on a distinction between the processing of text and the processing of data. I believe that such a distinction cannot be maintained without there being some difficulty at the boundaries. That is why it may appear to the noble Lord and to the Government that we are

19
attempting to say the same thing twice in protection of the data subject. As Senator Goldwater nearly said:
"Duplication in defence of liberty is no vice".
Leaving it out in defence of moderation is no virtue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maze Prison: Escapes
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Statement is as follows: —
"On 25th September at approximately 2.45 p.m. a number of Republican prisoners produced guns in H Block 7 of the Maze Prison. They overpowered prison officers and shot the officer in the block's central control room in the head. They put on the officers' uniforms. About an hour later, still in control of the block, prisoners took over a meal delivery van on its arrival, and the prison officer driver was forced at gunpoint to drive 38 of the prisoners to the main gate of the prison. On the way the van passed through two manned gates without being searched. At the main gate the prisoners disembarked and a fight with prison staff ensued during which a number of prison officers received serious injuries and a prison officer was stabbed to death. I deeply regret his death, and know the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to his family. The prisoners opened the main gate, but the exit was immediately blocked by a prison officer's car. The 38 prisoners then sought to escape on foot and were chased by prison officers. As a number of the escaping prisoners were wearing prison officers' uniform, and some of the prison officers were in civilian clothes, the Army sentry in the tower at the main gate could not clearly identify which individuals were prison officers and which were prisoners. He did however open fire and wound one escaping prisoner whom he had seen shoot a pursuing prison officer in the leg. Ten prisoners were quickly apprehended and returned to the prison. Immediately the alarm was given, the RUC and the Army instituted very extensive arrangements both in the immediate vicinity of the prison and more widely throughout the Province.
"Immediate contact was established with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, who readily gave their full co-operation. Within the next few days a further nine escapers were apprehended, leaving 19 still unlawfully at large. The search for them continues unremittingly.
"On the day following the escape, with the agreement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I invited Sir James Hennessy, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, to conduct an inquiry into security arrangements at HM Prison, Maze, bearing on the escape on Sunday 25th September; to make relevant recommendations for
20
the improvement of security at the prison; and to report to me as soon as possible.
"Sir James, who arrived in Northern Ireland the day after the escape, is aided in his inquiry by a full team of Inspectors and by other staff of HM Inspectorate of Prisons, numbering ten in all. It is not yet possible to say when the report will be completed. The House will understand that the arrangements at the Maze are inevitably complex and there are a great many witnesses to be interviewed, some of whom are still recovering from injuries. However, I know that Sir James and his team are pursuing the task with urgency as well as with a view to its being as thorough and searching as it can be.
"When the report is complete, it is my intention to make public as full an account as possible of the matter consistent with the future security of the prison.
"In parallel with the start of Sir James's inquiry, all governors of prisons in Northern Ireland immediately undertook urgent reviews of their security systems and procedures. Both in the Maze prison and elsewhere there has been additional searching of prisoners, cells, prison workshops and other areas. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army have assisted in searching prisons in line with long established procedures. Certain additional physical security measures are being implemented, including the provision of protective screens for the control rooms of each H block in the Maze Prison; and a more secure electronic locking system has been fitted to the main gate on a trial basis, which, if found satisfactory, will be linked to a specially constructed bullet proof control post. Other security measures are also being taken.
"The escape of so many prisoners and the killing of a prison officer represents a setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland at a time when terrorist organisations have been under increasing pressure. The security forces will in no way allow the pressure to be relaxed because of it. The escape also adds to the already considerable difficulties in managing the prisons in Northern Ireland. I am anxious, in reporting to the House today, to indicate what action has been taken since the escape as well as to outline the facts of the incident as far as they can be established in advance of the Hennessy report. The House can be assured that we shall do everything possible to identify why things went wrong on 25th September, and shall take all appropriate steps in the light of those findings."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, and first from these Benches to join in his expression of sympathy to the family of the prison officer who was killed and to the other prison officers who sustained injuries. We are pleased to have confirmation of the appointment of Sir James Hennessy to conduct this inquiry into all the circumstances of this escape, and to know that he has a 10–man inspectorate team to assist in that inquiry. It will be appreciated that there is considerable public disquiet and that there are many important matters

21
about which we shall wish to have answers. It is not the purpose of this afternoon's discussion on this Statement to list these points. We shall naturally await this report with considerable interest and concern.
The Statement said that, commensurate with security, the Secretary of State will make public so far as possible all the details in the inquiry report. May I ask for an assurance that in addition there will be a debate in this House on this important inquiry report when it is made available? Although there are a number of important questions to be looked into by the inquiry, may I ask the Minister whether the circumstances of the escape give an indication that there has been any departure from the original objective in the way the Maze Prison was constructed? Has there been a departure from the original intention? Each part of the H block was for a compound system of segregation. Is the Minister able to say whether there is any information as to when H Block 7 was last searched before the mass escape?
We are pleased to learn from the Statement that the Republic of Ireland gave promise of immediate co-operation. Can the Minister give any information at all as to the suspected whereabouts of the other 19 prisoners who are still at large? Is there any indication as to the countries to which they may have gone? If so, what co-operation is promised by those particular countries?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I wish from these Benches—both of them, or all four of them—to echo the sympathy to the family of the prison officer who was killed, and to express our great admiration of the fighting spirit of the prison officers in the Maze, who are essentially on extremely dangerous active service, and one must never forget that. What it seems to me remains to be said today is simply that the key moment was getting the guns into Block 7. Once guns are in a prison anything may happen. That seems to be the key to which we shall look for the answer when the inquiry is finally made.
Beyond that I do not think that we can make any comments or ask any very intelligent questions. It is enough really to realise—and I hope the inquiry will assure us of this—that neither money nor staff are in any sense responsible for any of the shortcomings which may be revealed by the inquiry. That would be crucial, because if that were the case then governments are to blame. But if it is at a lower level than that, it is difficult to establish blame except on certain individuals. We await with interest the report, and we support the noble Lord's request for a debate in this House when we get it.
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for their welcome of this Statement. It is true, as I think both noble Lords said or implied, that not very much can be said until Sir James Hennessy produces his report. As to whether there should he a debate in your Lordships' House once that report is forthcoming, or such parts of it as my right honourable friend feels should be published, that will be a matter for the usual channels to discuss in the normal way.
22
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked in effect whether this escape implies any departure from the original intention when that part of the prison, the cellular part, was constructed. The answer is no. Quite obviously things went wrong—and I can say this without in any way pre-empting Sir James or his inquiry—in that prisoners were able to pass from one H block to another and eventually right to the gates of the prison. Of that we can be most sure. But I can assure the noble Lord that there has been no departure from the original strategy conceived when the prison was built, and the tactics under which the prisoners are kept there.
The noble Lord asks when was the last search of that particular block before the escape. I am informed that searches are ongoing and that there is no particular laid down régime, because if there was the prisoners would know about it and it would be a good deal less effective. The noble Lord aked where the other 19 prisoners are. A lot of people would like the answer to that question, and they would then do something about it. So far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned I can assure the noble Lord that both at Government level and particularly in respect of the attitude of the Garda there has been complete co-operation ever since this escape took place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the key to the whole matter is the fact that guns were smuggled into the prison, and we shall no doubt look forward to Sir James's report in respect of that. But there was no question, if that was at the back of the noble Lord's mind, that any financial cutbacks either in staff or in the way in which the prison regime is maintained have been responsible for that. The financial and manpower resources available for prisons in Northern Ireland have not been reduced.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in view of the possibility that the events that took place at the Maze, the escape, could have wider implications bearing on the security of persons in other prisons who present particular security risks, will the noble Earl tell the House whether Sir James Hennessy has been asked in his report to make any recommendations regarding other top security prisons and the security risks that they may present in the future?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, Sir James is devoting his energies to the actual escape which he has been asked to investigate. I am quite sure that whatever comes out of his report will be studied with the greatest of care by the prison authorities and, insofar as it is applicable, will be applied in other prisons. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and he has enormous experience of this—that there are no prisons within the United Kingdom where we have such a high concentration of violent—one could call them vicious—prisoners, committed to a certain course of conduct. Therefore, it is unlikely that the conditions which pertain at the Maze would ever be reproduced in any other prison in Great Britain.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask the Minister for clarification of one question that I put to him with regard to co-operation from other countries? Is there any suspicion that some of these prisoners still at large

23
may have gone, say, to France or America? If so, have those or any similar countries been approached, and are they giving co
operation?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have no information about where these prisoners may have gone. However, I can tell the noble Lord that we have extradition arrangements with a great many countries and if the prisoners are discovered in those countries we will make every effort to have them extradited to this country, either on the basis of being escaped prisoners or in respect of the original crimes for which they were convicted.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
Schedule 1 [The data protection principles]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 31, line 39, at end insert (", used or disclosed.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may. I shall, with your agreement, speak to Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 together with Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 39: Page 23, line 10, after ("not") insert ("used for any purpose other than that for which they are held or").
Amendment No. 42: Page 24, line 10, after ("not") insert ("used or").
Although the three are in somewhat different form, they all address the same central point and all represent a similar slight tightening up of the controls in the three parts of the Bill. All three amendments can be explained by reference to the distinction that the Bill draws between the purposes for which data are held—that is, the very reason that the user has the data—and the subsidiary uses and the disclosures which may be made of data. This is evident in the second and third principles, which deal separately with holding, use and disclosure, and in the registration requirements for data users under Clause 4. The three amendments relate to three areas of the Bill where it appears desirable to take proper account of the distinction between holding, using and disclosing in order to ensure that there is no loophole in the controls established by the Bill.
First, paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 1 provides that, in considering the first principle and fairness of collection, regard shall be had in particular to whether the source was deceived or misled as to the purposes for which the data are to be held. As your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said, against the background of the Bill as a whole, the reference to the purposes for which the data are to be held may not embrace subsidiary uses or disclosures of the data. But deceiving or misleading a person as to such uses or disclosures can obviously be equally important when considering fairness, and therefore Amendment No. 3 inserts a reference to use or disclosure.
A similar point arises on Clauses 31 and 32(4), to which Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 relate. As cast,
24
the exemptions provided in these clauses apply where the data concerned are held only for payroll and accounting purposes under Clause 31 or for preparing statistics or carrying out research under Clause 32(4) and where the data are not disclosed other than as permitted by those clauses. There is at present, however, no express restriction on the subsidiary use which may be made of these data. The amendments will remedy this situation and will make it clear that, in addition to meeting the requirements which I have already mentioned, the data user must ensure that the data are not used for purposes other than payroll and accounting or preparing statistics or carrying out research if he wishes to benefit from the relevant exemptions.
These are relatively small amendments, but they represent, I think, a useful extra degree of precision and clarification in the safeguards for the data subject under the various provisions concerned, and I therefore commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton: My Lords. I was counting on loquacity to give me a moment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, discretion is the better part of more than valour.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 3, page 32, line 24, at end insert ("but, in the case of such data as are mentioned in subsection (1A) of that section, this principle shall not be regarded as having been contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in the information there mentioned if the requirements specified in that subsection have been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 22 to 24, 28, 44 and 45.
Amendment No. 13: Page 9, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) An enforcement notice in respect of a contravention of the fifth data protection principle may require the data user to take any steps that could be required by an order of the court under section 24(1) or (2) below.").
Amendment No. 22: Page 18, line 35, at end insert—
"(1A) In the case of data which accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party, subsection (1) above does not apply if the following requirements have been complied with—

(a) the data indicate that the information was received or obtained as aforesaid or the information has not been extracted from the data except in a form which includes an indication to that effect; and

(b) if the data subject has notified the data user that he regards the information as incorrect or misleading, an indication to that effect has been included in the data or the information has not been extracted from the data except in a form which includes an indication to that effecct.").

Amendment No. 23: Page 18, line 40, leave out ("Subject to subsection (4) below").
Amendment No. 24: Page 19, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 28: Leave out Clause 24 and insert the following new Clause—
Rectification and erasure.
(24.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, if a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data held by a data user of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate within the meaning of section 22 above, the court may order the rectification or erasure of the data and of any data held by the data user and containing an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.
(2) Where data accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party—

(a) no order shall be made under subsection (1) in respect of the data if the requirements mentioned in section 22(1A) above have been complied with; but

(b) if all or any of those requirements have not been complied with the court may either—

(i) make an order under subsection (1) above; or

(ii) make such order as it thinks fit for securing compliance with those requirements, with or without a further order requiring the data to be supplemented by such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the court may approve.

(3) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject—

(a) that he has suffered damage by reason of the disclosure of personal data, or of access having been obtained to personal data, in circumstances entitling him to compensation under section 23 above; and

(b) that there is a substantial risk of further disclosure of or access to the data without such authority as is mentioned in that section,

the court may order the erasure of the data.")
Amendment No. 44: Page 30, line 9, leave out ("24(b)") and insert ("24(3)").
Amendment No. 45: Page 30, line 12, leave out ("24(a)") and insert ("24(1) and (2)").
These amendments result from an undertaking which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee when he moved amendments to Clauses 22 and 24. My noble and learned friend said then that he thought that the noble Lord's amendments, which were, I must admit, a good deal simpler than those now before us, raised some valid points and that he would see whether they could be accommodated. The result of that undertaking is this lengthy and complex series of amendments which the noble Lord may have difficulty in recognising as the fruits of the small seed sown by him only a few months ago. His seed clearly fell upon fertile ground and has produced a plant the tendrils of which have spread well beyond the little plot in which it was sown, stretching as far as Clause 10 in one direction and Schedule 1 in the other.
The original plot, however, was Clause 22, to which Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 relate. That clause provides the data subject with a right to compensation if he suffers damage as a result of inaccurate data held about him. Clause 22(4), however, provides that, where the data have been received either from the data subject or from a third party and the user has marked them as having been so received, no liability to compensation arises. The noble Lord argued, with some force, that this did not go far enough to protect the data subject who applied for access to the data, discovered they were inaccurate and so informed the data user, who nevertheless retained the disputed data. On reflection, we think that the noble Lord is right. The amendment to Clause 22, from which all these other amendments stem, therefore provides that, where the subject does dispute the accuracy of received data, the data user will only be protected from a claim for compensation if he has marked the data not only to indicate their "received" status, but also to indicate that the subject has disputed their accuracy.
Moving on to Clause 24 to which Amendment No. 28 relates, the noble Lord will recall that, in response to another of his amendments, my noble and learned friend said that he thought that, where a subject had satisfied a court that received data were inaccurate, there might well be a case for giving the subject the
26
right to insist, through the court, that the data be amended to include a statement to that effect. On further reflection, however, it appeared that there were a number of different situations which ought to be catered for, and which might call for different responses from the court. What we have done, therefore, is to try to provide the court with sufficiently flexible powers to enable it to respond in the most appropriate way in order to protect the interests of the data subject. This has involved a recasting of Clause 24—hence Amendment No. 28.
The new clause provides that, where received data carry an appropriate indication, and, if appropriate, a dispute notice is also shown, the court cannot intervene. Where, however, "received" data are not so marked or where the subject has disputed their accuracy and the user has failed to record the dispute, the court is given the power to do a number of things. It may, for example, order the rectification or the erasure of the data: this is no doubt what it will do in most circumstances. Alternatively, however, it may decide to order that the missing indications should be included in the data or that a statement of the true facts should be included; or it may make both orders: that is, it may order, for example, the inclusion of a "received" status marker along with a statement that the received information has been shown to be inaccurate.
I hope that that makes clear to your Lordships the way in which the new Clause 24 is intended to work and explains what lies behind the changes. The remainder of the amendments may, I hope, be disposed of more quickly. The Amendments to Clause 40, which are Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, are of course purely consequential on the recasting of Clause 24. The more significant consequentials are the amendments to Clause 10 and Schedule 1, Amendments Nos. 4 and 13. It is part of the general scheme of the Bill that the registrar's powers should be consistent with those of the court. The amendment to Clause 10 is needed to ensure that, as well as being able to order the rectification of "received" data, the registrar is able, like the court, to order its erasure or the addition of appropriate markers, with or without a corrective statement.
This brings us at last to Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 1, which I originally rose to move. The effect of this amendment is to add a further gloss to the interpretation of the fifth data protection principle concerning accuracy, so as to provide that data shall not be regarded as inaccurate if they have been properly marked as "received" and any necessary dispute notice has been included. As a result, the registrar, like the court, is precluded from interfering with properly marked data. Although what we are seeking to do is relatively simple, the means of doing it proved to be rather complex. I hope that I have made them clear and I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has indeed cut a great swathe through a lot of amendments and paid due regard—for which we are grateful—to many of the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon.The only matter to which I wish to refer expressly at this stage is that Amendment No. 28 is, as the noble Lord will see, subject to an

27
amendment in my name and in that of my noble colleagues, but it may be convenient to discuss that matter when in the fullness of time we arrive at it. Otherwise, in so far as the amendments are by way of concession—if that is the right word—or agreement to what has been raised in different parts of the House, we are grateful.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister obviously has been employing his time to very good effect during the Recess. We warmly welcome what he has done here in the recasting of the clauses, and particularly Clause 24, which was necessary as a result of what had been put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so briefly in Committee. I want to ask him just one question and that is in relation to Clause 24, where the data subject can ask for rectification and erasure; and the noble Lord has described what happens if the data user fails to record the fact that he has received notice from the data subject that data is inaccurate in respect of him although it has been received in that form from a third party or from himself.
I wonder whether Clause 24 as recast prevents the data subject from going, first of all, to the registrar and asking for an enforcement notice to be issued under Clause 10—which allows the registrar, if he is satisfied that there is a contravention of any of the data protection principles, to issue such a notice to the data user.
The noble Lord the Minister has mentioned that what he has done here is to put a gloss on the fifth data protection principle which tells the data subject and user how that is to be interpreted. Presumably it also tells the registrar. Therefore, if the registrar is satisfied that the fifth data protection principle within the meaning now given to it by Clause 24 has been contravened he could issue an enforcement notice. This would be a cheaper and simpler procedure for the data subject who discovers that his correction has not been noted on the file than taking action through the courts. One presumes that that data subject would like, first of all, to go to the registrar and then, only if that is unsuccessful, to use the court procedures laid down in Amendment No. 24. If I am wrong in my recollection of how the system was supposed to work—which, of course, has not been altered by this amendment—I should be grateful if the noble Lord were to correct me.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder if the House will accept my apology for not being in my place when the noble Lord the Minister—and I ask him to accept my apology—was good enough, I understand, to refer to me in not too uncomplimentary terms. I am most grateful for the remarks which I know I shall read with pleasure in Hansard tomorrow. The only observation that, with the permission of the House, I want to make now is that there is something which I should rather like to raise on Clause 22 when we come then to his amendment. It is really no more than a question as to the meaning of the clause and the fullness of it. I wonder if the Minister and the House will allow me to refer to that matter when we reach Amendment No. 22.
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords, I am perfectly content with that. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will find that I was just as friendly to him in his absence as I was to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in his absence. I wonder whether, after the next little break, I shall be saying the same thing again. Finally, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the data subject can go to the registrar in the circumstances which he foresees. Therefore, I hope that these amendments achieve in every respect what your Lordships wish, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones wish to discuss the matter when they reach their appropriate places.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Grenada
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the situation in Grenada. The House will be aware of the violent events of last week on the independent Commonwealth island of Grenada. Her Majesty's Government join with those in the Caribbean region and elsewhere who have deplored the killings, and we view with grave concern the existing state of unconstitutional government and insecurity on the island.
"We are particularly conscious that there are some 200 British citizens on Grenada including a number of British tourists. The Resident Representative of the British High Commission has been active in maintaining contact with this community and reports that no British citizens appear to be in immediate danger. The Deputy High Commissioner also visited Grenada from Barbados yesterday to make contact with the new authorities and to speak with the Governor General. He found the island calm but tense and confirmed that neither the Governor General nor members of the British community appeared to be in any imminent danger.
"Nonetheless, the position remains extremely volatile. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Goverment have instructed HMS 'Antrim' to be prepared to evacuate our community should the situation worsen and make this necessary.
"Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the Governments of the other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, whose leaders have been meeting in Trinidad. We shall he discussing with them and with other interested states the best prospects of helping to achieve a restoration of constitutional government, peace and security in Grenada.
"I shall keep the House informed of developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Like the Government and the other Caribbean Governments, we deeply deplore and regret these tragic and unnecessary events. The Statement specifically refers to insecurity and volatility on the island. We are glad to have the report from the British High Commission that the 200 British citizens are in no immediate danger. Can the noble Baroness say whether there is any particular significance in the words "insecurity" and "volatility" other than that the constitutional Government has been overthrown by force? Are they in physical danger?
Is the noble Baroness satisfied that HMS "Antrim" alone can evacuate the 200 Britons who are there? Is she aware that we welcome the contacts which the Government have had with the other Commonwealth Governments? Are there any arrangements for a specific meeting, through, for example, the Commonwealth Secretariat, to discuss this matter; although, obviously, the Governments most closely concerned are those in the Caribbean itself with whom we are on the closest terms of friendship? Would the Government not agree that at this moment we should urge extreme constraint on the United States Government, in particular, given that they have 10 warships offshore Grenada and that we should do everything possible to ensure that the island is returned to a Government that is properly elected and protective of all human rights?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on these Benches also agree with the Statement and are glad to learn of the steps that are being taken. Would the Government accept that, in finding a way out of this dangerous moment, three things might with advantage he borne in mind? First, Mr. Maurice Bishop seized power by force from his predecessor, Sir Eric Gairy, and he did so because the latter was a corrupt tyrant; and all human experience suggests that it is difficult to get out of a vicious circle like that once you have got into it. Secondly, whatever the political colour of the Governments of the Caribbean may be, it is difficult to say that one of them must not have a long runway and thereby attract tourism when all the others do, and that is not a reason for intervening in their affairs.
Thirdly, can the Government confirm an impression that has been put about by the press that although Cuba is deploring the overthrow and murder of Maurice Bishop, the Soviet Union is backing the apparent new regime? If that is the case, is it not a new turn of events and one that should not be unwelcome to us? Lastly, may I say that I am sure the whole House will be sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead and Grenada, is not here to add his words on this occasion.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their responses to this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me first about security in Grenada. As the Statement makes clear, at present we believe that no British citizens appear to be in immediate danger; but if I take this further on a view about the regime, I think it would be only right to say that there are features of the reports about how the new regime came to power
30
which are deeply disturbing. But of course before taking any definite view we shall have to know more about the people and we can judge them by their actions.
On the point about HMS "Antrim", we believe that, should it be necessary, she could evacuate British citizens; but at the present time we understand that the Grenada Government will not put any difficulties in the way of those who wish to leave—tourists and other people—probably by charter flight. On the question of Commonwealth Governments and the Caribbean leaders, the noble Lord will of course appreciate that any exchanges with Caribbean leaders must remain confidential. We have not received any requests from the regional organisation in the Caribbean.
Regarding the United States Government, they have publicly explained that the movement of their naval task force into the area is prompted solely by the perceived requirement to be in a position to rescue any of their very sizeable community in Grenada. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised a quite separate point about the reaction both from Cuba and the Soviet Union.I can confirm that Prime Minister Bishop was a close friend and associate of Dr. Castro; and, not surprisingly, the Cuban Government have lamented his death and deplored the manner in which the new authorities have come into office. Their relationships with the new authorities, now that they appear to be in power, is however less clear. A considerable number of Cuban officials remain in Grenada. So far as the action of the Soviet Union is concerned, they do not yet appear to have taken a position on the recent events in Grenada, and I should not like to comment further on that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House deplores the violence on the island of Grenada and sends its sympathy to the victims. May I ask the noble Baroness two questions. First, will she state the Government's view that there should be no outside interference on this island whatever and that the British Government will give full support to any action which the Commonwealth Secretariat may take to mediate and assist in the reconstruction of a stable régime on the island of Grenada?
May I also take up the point which was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Kennet. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the British Government have any aid scheme in connection with the Government of Grenada? If so, will she give an assurance that this will not be diminished in any way as a result of these unfortunate events? Further, have the Government learned any lessons from the contrasting attitude they have taken to the necessity for a civil airstrip in Grenada for social purposes and the airstrip which they have financed in the Turks and Caicos Islands for purely commercial reasons?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the first question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is that our consideration of the situation in Grenada is concentrated on political, economic and financial measures which might induce the present rulers in Grenada to restore the rule of law and good order to the island. The answer to his second question about aid is that we are providing no new capital aid to

31
Grenada, and disbursement of the very small balance of project aid remaining from earlier commitments is being reviewed. I do not feel that this would be an appropriate moment to comment on the airstrip in the Turks and Caicos Islands, which I think is quite outside the terms of the Statement; but if the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on this subject at a later time I should be happy to try to answer it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, could steps be taken to obtain such assurances as are possible to ensure the protection of the property of British subjects on the island, some of whom have lived there, as I know, for generations? Whatever can be done in respect of their rights and property I am sure will be very welcome.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. Clearly this is the kind of consideration which will be taken into account. I will certainly pass on what he has said to my right honourable friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness did not answer the thrust of my original first question. Would she take this opportunity to state the view of the British Government that there should be no outside interference in the political affairs of this island from any source, and particularly to use the influence of the British Government as a restraining influence on the Government of the United States?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I do not feel at this stage, in a very serious and complex situation, that it would be appropriate for me to go further than the Statement that I have already made on this matter.

The Lebanon
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Early in the morning of 23rd October, in carefully co-ordinated attacks, two huge bombs exploded in premises in Beirut occupied by United States and French units of the Multinational Force. At least 160 United States marines and 34 French troops were killed.
"The whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the United States and France and to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy. We condemn without qualification those responsible for this hideous act.
"We have offered all possible help in the evacuation and treatment of casualties, both on the spot and in RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. We are in the closest touch with our partners in the Multinational Force and with the Lebanese Government.
"The safety of our troops is naturally uppermost in our minds at this time. The Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Land Forces, General
32
Kitson, is going to Beirut to consider on the spot what may need to be done.
"I would like to pay tribute to the coolness and courage of our troops in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The staff of our Embassy in Beirut is also to be commended.
"The contributors to the MNF want one thing: the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority and the independence of the Lebanon. Without the presence of the MNF contingents it is very doubtful whether the fragile ceasefire, agreed on 26th September, would have come about. Our own contingent, at the request of all the parties concerned, has been providing a guard for the meetings of the Security Committee set up to discuss the implementation of the ceasefire.
"National reconciliation talks are to open in Geneva on 31st October. In the light of this latest tragedy, it is now all the more important for all parties in Lebanon to get together urgently to settle their differences by negotiation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, and we wish to join her in expressing our profound sympathy to the United States and France, and to the families who have been bereaved. We also deplore and condemn this terrible act, which contravenes all standards of civilised conduct. As the noble Baroness said, we are of course also concerned about the British troops in Lebanon at the present time, and their safety is very much in our minds. We welcome the fact that the Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Land Forces, General Kitson, is to visit Beirut, and we shall be interested to hear what he has to say when he returns to this country.
Would the noble Baroness comment on the possible danger that the neutrality of the multinational force might be compromised, or could be compromised, by an over-partisan attitude towards the Gemayel Government, given that that Government is only one faction of a fragmented community? Is it not essential that the multinational force should in fact stand aloof from the different factions in that unhappy country?
Secondly, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the future of the British presence there? Would it not be advisable at the end of the day, if it is clear that the multinational force is not succeeding in its function, that British troops should be withdrawn at that stage? Further, would she agree that Syria is essential to the achievement of permanent peace in Lebanon? Could she say whether Her Majesty's Government have had any recent contacts with Syria, in the light of the importance of that country in the shaping of events there?
Lastly, in view of the alleged possible connection between this terrible incident and Iran, could the noble Baroness confirm that there is a move to bring the Iran-Iraq war before the Security Council of the United Nations? Is she aware whether or not there is truth in the report that the Soviet Union would not veto such a resolution before the Security Council?

33
Can she say whether Her Majesty's Government would support a move to have the Iran-Iraq war debated in the Security Council as a matter of urgency, in view of the possible connection between that war and what is happening in the region and this dreadful incident?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we on these Benches, too, should like to associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy to both the United States Government and the French Government as regards this appalling incident, and indeed to the relations of its victims. We should also like to express approval of the action of Her Majesty's Government in giving such instant help in the way of affording facilities for the wounded in Cyprus and elsewhere. That was very welcome.
But would the Government not agree—and this is embroidering something which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has just said—that the sole purpose of the multinational force is to help in keeping the peace during negotiations, and in no way to take part in what is a savage civil war? Up to now, I believe that the British and Italian contingents are to be particularly commended for having done their best to observe this rather fine distinction, but whether it will he at all possible to observe it for very much longer only the future and, indeed, the negotiations can tell. What seems certain is that the multinational force is in no way equipped, nor does it have sufficient strength, to participate in a war between rival and bitterly hostile factions.
What also seems unlikely—I do not know whether the Government would agree—is that there is any Soviet involvement in this affair. After all, we can judge the actions of the Soviet Government only by what we deem their interests to be, and we can hardly imagine that it would be in the interests of the Soviet Union, any more than it would be in the interests of the United States, to be committed to direct intervention in what is, after all, an international wasps' nest.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their response to this Statement and for the sympathies which they have expressed both to the United States and to France, and particularly to the families of the men who have died. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, commented on the need for the safety of our troops and this is a prime consideration at the present time.
It might be helpful, because both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the point about the role of the MNF in Lebanon, if I confirm that its purpose is to give general support to the Lebanese Government and armed forces in the Beirut area. I understand that the British contingent carries out patrols on designated routes throughout the city and reports back to the Lebanese authorities on what it finds. More recently, the British contingent has had the important task of guarding the meetings of the Security Committee which has been discussing the cease-fire arrangements. What is clear is that the presence of the contingent is very welcome both to the Lebanese Government and to all the Lebanese communities in the city.
34
On the future of our force, we are not going to withdraw our troops; but when we agreed to participate we made it clear that we would not undertake an open-ended and indefinite commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also raised the question of any possible negotiations with Syria, and I should like to confirm that we remain in contact with the Syrian Government. We understand some of their objections to the Israel-Lebanon agreement. They have legitimate security concerns, but these should be settled by negotiations with the Lebanese Government.
The noble Lord also asked me a question about the war between Iran and Iraq. I understand that this is currently being discussed at the United Nations, but I cannot comment on the outcome of this discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, also raised the question of responsibility for the outrage, and whether or not there was any Soviet involvement. The Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, which is a previously unknown group, has in fact claimed responsibility. As yet, we do not know who they are or what their affiliations might be.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the anxiety felt by the wives and families of the members of the British contingent, would my noble friend arrange for an early Statement to he made after General Sir Frank Kitson's report as to the steps being taken to give them the maximum protection, and, in particular, as to whether the patrolling (to which she referred in an earlier answer and which sounded to some of us to be a very dangerous operation) is being continued?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this matter. As I said in the original Statement, the safety of our troops is a prime consideration, and that is why General Kitson is going to the Lebanon to look further at what arrangements might be made. As I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, it would not be in the best interests of our own troops in the force if any of these arrangements were made known publicly. However. I should like to give this assurance. The fact that important steps are being taken will get to the wives and families of our troops out in the Lebanon, who must, I recognise, be very worried at this time.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, is not one of the most important aspects of this business the finding of a location for the reconciliation conference to take place? Until this conference meets, are we not liable to have further incidents of this sort? My recollection over many years is that the Middle Easterners tend to produce very rough incidents of this kind when international meetings are about to happen. Therefore, would it not be in everybody's interests that our Government, and the other Governments concerned, should do everything they can to hasten on the Lebanese meeting upon which so much depends?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is that the national reconciliation

35
talks are to open in Geneva on 31st October, so the timetable for those talks is, I am glad to say, quite soon.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, speaking for the Alliance a moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked if the Minister of State could confirm that the sole purpose of the multinational force was to help to put an end to the fighting, to keep the peace, to separate the combatants. The Minister of State then got up and said, "I can confirm that the purpose of the force is to help the Lebanese Government to reassert its control over the country". Can the noble Baroness really not see the difference between the two? I do not want to push her at this moment into taking one side or the other, but may I point out that there is a growing tendency on the part of the British Government to say that the purpose is to protect the present Lebanese Government and to help it to assert its control. Is there not a danger here? Is it not obvious that the quickest way to help the Lebanese Government to assert its control, if it really came to the point,would be to land very large armies and to drive all the factions back out of the country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I had hoped that in my response to the earlier question I had made clear what the role of the MNF in the Lebanon is, but perhaps I could add further to what I have said. The contingent is there at the request of and by agreement with the Lebanese. This is contained in an exchange of letters which was published as a command paper in the treaty series. Parliament has been informed of the subsequent extensions of the contingent's deployment. I should like to confirm that it is a peace-keeping force and that it is intended to support the Government of the country in the peace-keeping efforts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Baroness stated that the purpose of the MNF is to give general support to the Lebanese Government, did that exclude military support?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I really do not feel that I can add further to what I have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will know, the MNF is a peace-keeping force. There is a legitimate Government in the Lebanon. The purpose of the peace-keeping force is to give general support to the Lebanese Government and to try to help to keep the cease-fire and the peace in the Lebanon.
Lord McNair: My Lords, whatever the sole purpose of this force may be, may I remind the noble Baroness of a subsidiary function which it is in fact carrying out. If you drive through the Shatila Camp, every one or two hundred metres you see a sandbag emplacement, manned first by Italian and then by French soldiers. The House will readily imagine how reassuring this is to the inhabitants who are the survivors of September 1982. We can easily imagine what they would feel if they saw those troops being withdrawn. Therefore, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, in any discussions they have with our allies about withdrawal, to undertake not to withdraw until alternative arrangements have been made for this
36
protective role? In this connection, may I ask whether any move is envisaged to alter the mandate of UNIFIL, which might well take over this essential function?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in my answer to an earlier supplementary question on the withdrawal of our contingent in the Lebanon, we do not intend to withdraw, but when we agreed to participate we always made it clear that this could not be an open-ended commitment. So far as the American forces are concerned, I understand that the Americans will reinforce their contingent to make up their losses. So far as the French and the Italian forces are concerned, I understand that they are maintaining their contribution.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Schedule 1.
Lord Digby Lord Digby moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Data Protection Advisory Committee

(".—(1) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a Committee known as the Data Protection Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Committee").

(2) The Committee shall consist of:—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Secretary of State;

(b) Such number of members representative of data users appointed as aforesaid as the Lord Chancellor shall determine;

(c) such other members appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with such bodies as he thinks fit, to represent employers, employees, data users, data subjects and other persons or organisations interested in the use and safeguarding of personal data.

(3) The Committee shall keep under review and advise the Secretary of State and the Registrar upon the implementation and enforcement of this Act and may report to the Secretary of State from time to time with proposals for any further or amended legislation, orders, rules or regulations which may seem to them to be desirable.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Committee before making an order, rules or regulations under this Act (and the report of the Committee thereon shall be laid before each House of Parliament).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide a statutory data protection advisory committee to keep under review and advise the Secretary of State upon the implementation and enforcement of this Act. The only reason that I have reopened this subject is that all the local authority associations are unanimous in their conviction that this advisory committee, or something similar, is essential. The local authorities are not only vitally affected but wholly behind the principles of the Bill. They are trying to be constructive and not obstructive. Put simply, my case is that this Bill is entering uncharted waters. Therefore, it is essential that the registrar should have informed advice from those who have to implement the legislation and be the first to appreciate the problems as they arise.
I now turn to the details of the amendment. It differs from previous amendments on the same subject in significant ways but it is designed to meet the objections of the Government. The objection of my noble friend Lord Elton at the Committee stage was that a statutory committee would lead to rigidity in a rapidly changing field, and that a free rein would be equally unsatisfactory. The amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, Amendment No. 12, at the Committee stage did not spell out the duties of the advisory committee. This amendment does detail its functions, so we must consider whether they are too rigid or too wide. The amendment says that the committee shall keep under review and advise the Secretary of State and the registrar upon the implementation and enforcement of the Act. This seems to me to be a clearly defined function which gives flexibility to change advice as technology alters. But any function would have to be relevant to the Act. Therefore, it is not too wide.
I believe we are all agreed that the registrar will need advice, but the Government do not want to spell it out in the Bill. However, I must tell your Lordships that the Government's resistance to this amendment has made the local authorities suspicious of our intentions. I tried my best to convince them that the Government only wish to keep down quangos. But I have not convinced them; nor have I entirely convinced myself. Perhaps my noble friend can convince us all and allay our fears. Advice from users most affected is going to be needed. An advisory committee in some form is necessary and I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment which seems, with respect, to be an evolution or possibly even emanation from our earlier attempts to deal with what we regard as the necessity of the provision of a data protection advisory committee. I have had a communication from the United Kingdom local authority associations indicating that a large number of local authorities support this proposal—the Association of County Councils, of District Councils and of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Local authorities, after all, are one of the largest bodies of data users in the country and are responsible for the safeguarding of essential data related to sensitive areas, like social services, housing and education. It is very significant that they recommend that greater efficiency and integrity to what is proposed would be maximised by the creation of an advisory committee. I readily concede that what is now proposed is more satisfactory than what we originally considered.On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was able to make the attractive criticism that what was then proposed was a "motor car without an engine". That has been remedied now; it is still a motor car but its functions and powers are clearly set out in the terms of Amendment No. 5; the membership structure is made flexible, the appointments are to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and the terms of reference are set out in wide and satisfactory terms, in my submission.
I ventured to indicate last time round on this matter that there is a precedent for what is proposed in what was done in relation to the drug scene. But the need, I
38
submit, is to set up this data protection advisory committee now when it would, I would imagine, be most needed by the registrar. He has to cover a very wide range of duties in highly technical fields, and the expertise that will be provided by people chosen in the way proposed by the amendment would, I should have thought, be of greater value to him now than when the thing is set up. I confess I have not been able to follow the reluctance of the Government to set this up now and not leave us behind with some vague promise of good things to come in never-never land perhaps. Therefore, I hope that this time there will be a more forthright and more determined attitude on the part of the Government to give effect to what is proposed now and not postpone it for some indefinite uncertain future. This is the time to act and this is the time to give the registrar the biggest protection.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I only want to say a few words in support of this amendment because I think the ground has been very adequately covered. I think the criticisms the noble Lord the Minister advanced on the previous occasion have been very thoroughly and effectively dealt with by the noble Lord who drafted this amendment.
There are two points I would add to what has already been said. One is to remind your Lordships that in the original proposals of the Lindop Committee it was recommended that there should be an advisory committee and nobody has ever satisfactorily refuted the arguments that were then advanced. As the noble Lord, Lord Digby, said, the registrar is going to want to take advice, and so is the Secretary of State, presumably. The only question is whether you set that out on the face of the Bill or whether you leave it to the kind of informal consultations that the registrar would otherwise be bound to have.
I do not know what the British Computer Society feels on this and I do not claim to speak for them, but I should have thought they would certainly recommend if they were asked—and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister has taken their advice—that something on these lines should be established. I dare say they do not want to put forward their own views in case it should be thought that they are pushing the functions of their members on a body of this kind. But certainly the BCS with its vast expertise would be capable of producing members who would be helpful in the early stages, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said.
I always prefer to have things set down in Bills rather than left to the whim of a Secretary of State or an official in a post which is being set up under legislation. So I think it is incumbent on the Minister to say why the advisory committee is not required rather than for those who have put this forward at each successive consideration of this matter to show that it is required. There is no doubt at all that there will be many and complex problems that your Lordships have not uncovered during the discussions so far.
I think the noble Lord the Minister is nodding, because he sees that, even between Committee and Report stage, ideas have been advanced which on careful examination the Government have found to be valid. These have led to important amendments being brought forward by the Government only this

39
afternoon. So who can doubt that after the Bill becomes law we shall be found to have omitted certain things or to have failed to take into account technological developments which had not been anticipated? It is to meet that kind of contingency that I believe that a body of this kind is imperative. So I hope that, in spite of the cold water which the Minister has poured on this on previous occasions, he will, invigorated by his absence during the Recess, be encouraged to reconsider the views which he expressed on the last occasion and will accept what Lord Digby is putting forward.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee I was persuaded absolutely by what my noble friend the Minister said, which was that expert opinion will be necessary—in fact I think three-quarters of his speech was devoted to that—but that he did not see any reason to have a statutory body. I must say I do not see any reason to have a statutory body. I know that my noble friend has been kindly conceding all sorts of things to me and perhaps to other noble Lords. Perhaps he will have changed his mind, but my personal view is that we have far too many statutory bodies.
There is going to be an awful lot of advice. There is advice coming to the Government right now through your Lordships. There are going to be all sorts of subsidiary bodies set up to look into this problem. Whatever advice the Government are provided with from within their own ranks, whatever advice the registrar is provided with within his own ranks, will be supplemented by outside advice of all sorts. The question is why do we need to have a statutory body included in the face of the Bill as something that has got to be there whether you want it or not? And how is its advice going to be superior to that which will be coming from other sources? I would have thought that this was overdoing it and that the amendment was unnecessary.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords. I think there is one brief answer to the noble Lord, whose views we listen to often with respect. While it is true that the Government have been inundated with advice for the last several years, there is little sign that they pay any attention to it. Our belief is that, if the advisory body is statutory, much additional weight will be given to its advice and the Government may possibly be inclined to pay more attention to it than they otherwise would.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, one could add an objection to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of the Government's obduracy, which is, I hope, only temporary. Clauses 3 and 4 actually say what the advisory bodies should do. This does not apply to the millions of people who are giving advice. They have no limitations or instructions and, if one has a body which tells one what to do and which also must be consulted before changes are made, that is something very different from what the noble Lord says we have already.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may add to the general fulminations which have been directed at the noble
40
Lord, Lord Mottistone, after his early triumphs over the Minister, may I just say this? There is no point in setting up committees unless one pays respect to the research they do and their findings. The Lindop Committee spoke upon this matter. It said that there ought to be a statutory advisory council. It said that it was necessary very specially—I am paraphrasing its words—because we were dealing with a fast evolving situation in technology and, therefore, it was very necessary to see that there was a completely running advisory council which would not just be there for a day or a year but would be sitting in session to see exactly what was happening in this field, which would be changing week by week and year by year—I often think that it is a minefield in which we are operating—which council, as has been said, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and by my noble friend as well, would have the statutory dignity which will be given by this Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: And authority, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: And authority, my Lords, as I am reminded by the very helpful suggestion of my noble and learned friend. Advisory councils, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, can of course be set up. They are voluntary bodies. One does not know who their personnel will be, who will be the nominating authorities and, indeed, what work they will do. The amendment very clearly sets out who the responsible appointing bodies will be in order that this advisory committee—I repeat, recommended by Lindop and, so far as I can see, encouraged, too, by the White Paper that was issued by the Government—does have proper authority.
The weakness in the past has been overcome by the amendment presented to the House today. There were, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, weaknesses in the previous amendments which came before the House. In my view, it would be quite wrong if with this very comprehensive and limited amendment the House were to refuse this almost last opportunity of incorporating that advisory council so necessary to the registrar and so necessary to the Government in this very difficult field.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Digby for his explanation of the amendment and the concern that lies behind it in his attempt to snatch another stage of this Bill between the quickly succeeding Statements we are having to cope with this afternoon.
I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we have given this proposal very close consideration and I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that we have taken careful note of advice given to us, not only at this stage but in other stages of this Bill and, indeed, in the last Parliament. It is, therefore, a little unkind to say that we are obdurate in never listening to what we are advised to do. But we do have to exercise judgment on what we are advised to do, and we do not always agree with that advice. That, of course, will be open to the data protection registrar as well.
In one respect we and those who share my noble friend's anxieties are entirely at one. In that respect, I

41
can give him and them the assurance for which they are asking. We are absolutely agreed that the data protection registrar will require a considerable volume of expert advice drawn from a wide variety of people with different experience and divergent interests. To that I can only say. "Hear, hear". But where we differ, we differ not in principle but in practice, and I blame myself very much for not, it seems, having made this abundantly clear on earlier stages of the Bill. The difference is a wide one and must apply to any amendment of this nature and I may, perhaps, have concealed the general by dealing too much with the particular on earlier stages. Let me then deal with the general first and the particular, very briefly, afterwards.
A statutory body is created by legislation and it can only be changed by legislation. Legislation, as we are, I suppose, engaged this afternoon in proving yet again, is a ponderous engine that cannot often be applied for the same purpose. Once one has a statutory body, therefore, in whatever form, one is stuck with it and its terms of reference. One is stuck with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, helpfully reminded us, in a field occupied by very fast evolving technology and, therefore, fast changing and evolving problems. To suggest, as I think was done at an earlier stage, that changes could be made by subordinate legislation is, I am afraid, only half an answer. Where we part company with those who favour this amendment is on whether we should in law set up a quango to issue the advice that predetermines the occasions on which this advice is to be sought. I am much obliged for the welcome support of my noble friend Lord Mottistone in this respect. In other words, is an effective scheme of data protection best served by legislating for an advisory committee, or would we be better off leaving the registrar and the Secretary of State a free hand to take advice as the circumstances merit and from whomsoever is best placed to provide it?
In the course of our discussions of both this Bill and its predecessor we have been offered a variety of forms of advisory comittee for our consideration. I regret that not one of them has seemed to us to be satisfactorily designed. That is not a reflection on the skill of the architects of the proposals; it is an indication of just how difficult—I might even say how impossible—it is to foresee the circumstances in which advice may be valuable and to legislate precisely for those circumstances in advance. For example, my noble friend's amendment gives his committee the job of advising, broadly, on the state of the law, on possible amendments to it, and on subordinate legislation to be made under the Data Protection Act. I accept that the formulation that my noble friend has used, advising on the "implementation and enforcement" of the Act, does go pretty wide. But can he be sure that that will cover every possible circumstance in which the registrar may want advice? I am not saying it will not. I am simply doubting whether we can foresee everything. And, if there is a statutory committee with a remit that turns out not to extend to giving advice in the particular circumstances that present themselves, what will the registrar do?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the registrar wanted some advice which was not covered by the wording of
42
the amendment, why could he not take it informally as he would have to do anyway in the absence of such an amendment?
Lord Elton: My Lords, to use a metaphor which may not appeal to the nobleLord, he is hunting a little ahead of the hounds, but only a yard or two. I was about to come to that. That is the exact question I am asking. If there is a statutory committee with a remit that turns out not to extend to giving advice in the particular circumstance, what will the registrar do? He will surely be reluctant to ask the committee to go beyond its statutory remit and the committee will be equally reluctant to go beyond the duties and powers voted to it by Parliament.
Is the registrar to overcome that reluctance and to ignore the statutory advisory committee and seek advice elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, very sensibly suggests? If not, the net result could be that the existence of the statutory committee would discourage rather than encourage the taking of advice. But if he does, surely in that case he will be doing just what we expect him to do in every case if there is no statutory body. So, by solving the problem in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cogently suggests, and which is in fact the only way that will be open to him, he will be proving that the committee need never have been created, because he will be getting the advice anyway.
Lord Avebury: A flippant illustration.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not a flippant illustration; it is a very real one. If the man is to have a statutory committee charged with giving him all his advice, either he gets all his advice from it or he gets some from elsewhere; but if he can get advice from elsewhere, there seems to me little point in having the statutory body.
Let me take another example. With my noble friend's amendment, let us assume that perhaps 12 or 20 members are appointed to the committee, representing employers, employees, data users, data subjects and others as proposed.Once a statutory committee is established it must be the prime source of advice. I take it that that must be the purpose of the amendment, otherwise it is without purpose. But suppose the registrar faces an especially tricky question regarding a potential or alleged breach of the principles by a user operating in a particular field; and suppose the registrar wants some advice based on first-hand experience in the field concerned; and suppose further that the Lord Chancellor, for all his undoubted wisdom and foresight, has appointed 12 or 20 members of great eminence, but because of the competing demands for membership from so many different professions and disciplines—and data users will proliferate until they cover every discipline, trade and branch of commerce—he had not been able to find room for a person with quite the right experience to shed light on the problem the registrar urgently needed help on.
I suppose there is a third course. The registrar or the chairman of the advisory committee could ask the Lord Chancellor to appoint another member to the committee to make good that deficiency, and another,

43
and another, as each occasion arose. But suppose both the Lord Chancellor and the proposed recruits were available easily enough, and the business of appointment to the committee was crisp enough for the new members to be appointed in time to give their advice. I do see a certain oddity to the proceedings. First, can a committee recruiting new members for perhaps the majority of its agendas function as a committee at all? Secondly, what will be added to the advice of the new recruits of such importance that the registrar should be prevented from receiving it until they are appointed? Will they be allowed to give it before appointment? If so, why do they have to be appointed at all? If they are not, and if they cannot be got on to the committee to deal with the relevant matter before it has to be disposed of, again the statutory committee would prove to be either counter-productive or superfluous.
Once a statutory body is set up, it must be that body from which advice is taken, and that body must abide by its predetermined terms of reference in giving advice. Why we have reservations about a statutory body in the data protection context is because we cannot foresee with sufficient precision what the most appropriate terms of reference will be: nor can we be sure that the members of that body once appointed will be best suited to offer the most helpful advice in every circumstance. We therefore fear that a statutory body is unduly inflexible. Better to leave the registrar—and the Secretary of State—to decide for themselves whom to go to for advice in the light of the particular issue on the particular occasion. That will ensure that they retain the freedom to go to whomsoever is best placed to be helpful.
So much for the general principle. I am sorry if I have dwelt on it for some time but this is not Committee stage. I cannot return and I am going to say it all. There is little more to say because I have dealt with the general principle. I promised also to comment briefly on the detail of the amendment. It seems decidedly odd that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be asked to appoint the committee. It is not after all a judicial body. For all his wisdom and expertise, I am sure that my noble and learned friend would be the first to point out the inappropriateness of his appointing people to represent data users and subjects, employers and employees. Secondly, Iam puzzled by the duplication between paragraphs (b) and (c) of the new clause. Paragraph (b) requires representatives of data users to be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State; but then paragraph (c) requires more representatives of data users to be appointed after consultation with
"such bodies as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit".
I am not certain if that is intended. Finally, there is a strange itemisation in paragraph (c) of employers, employees, data users and data subjects. I think that one would be well advised to probe carefully what is to differentiate between employers and data users or between employees and data subjects. But these are minor points. My major difficulties with the amendment are those to which I have already referred at some length. Because of these I am reluctantly unable to support my noble friend's amendment.
44
I will in conclusion make one thing yet again abundantly clear. I am not objecting to the amendment because the Government do not think that the registrar will need advice. Quite the contrary. We believe he will need, and take, copious advice from a wide range of very expert people. We object because we think that on balance what is now proposed will limit his ability to get the advice rather than increase it. On that I can give my noble friend an assurance that that is not our intention. I hope therefore that if he withdraws the amendment he will take the opportunity to reassure those who have exressed concern to him outside the House that we have every intention that the data registrar will take at least adequate advice in every circumstance.
Lord Digby: My Lords, I cannot accept that this amendment limits the advice that can be given, which is the whole basis of my noble friend's arguments. He says that there might be a particular expertise that was not represented on the committee. No committee can have expertise from every field. If a particular expert witness is required, the registrar will still be perfectly capable of obtaining the advice. I still do not understand the Minister's objection to the general principle. I believe that this committee is necessary and I—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not doubt that I am being stupid in this, but the noble Lord has said that of course the committee will not have every sort of expertise and of course the registrar will get advice from the right experts when they are not on the committee. Therefore, what he has not now convinced me of is why we need to have the committee at all.
Lord Digby: My Lords, the registrar needs the statutory advice, in my opinion: a committee laid down for that purpose which will come into effect. It can always be said that anyone can take whatever advice he likes. Presumably the registrar can set up a committee of his own. But we have had no particular assurances from the Government as to what form that committee would take. I must admit that I feel that we have not had the assurances that we should have had.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Avebury. L.

Collison. L.

Barrington, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath. L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L.

Craigavon, V.

Birk, B.

David, B.

Bishopston. L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blyton. L.

Digby, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Briginshaw. L.

Elwyn-Jones. L.

Brockway, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Byers, L.

Gaitskell. B.

Chitnis. L.

Gallacher. L.

45

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hanworth. V.

[Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sandford, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger. B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Simon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Molloy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Mansfield, E.

Caccia, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Melville, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Croft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Pender, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portland, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glanusk, L.

Seebohm, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Soames, L.

Grantchester, L.

Spens, L.

Gridley, L.

Stamp, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathcarron, L.

Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathspey L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Headford, M.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L,

Teynham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tranmire, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vickers, B.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimberley, E.

Westbury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

British Rail: Objectives for the Chairman
5.16 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have listened carefully to the wide public debate on the Serpell Report and in particular to the views of the Select Committee on Transport. What emerges strongly from that debate is that it is for the Government to give the railways a clear framework and objectives, and for the British Railways Board to direct and manage its business in the light of them. Accordingly, I have today sent to the chairman of the board, Mr. Reid, a statement of the objectives which the Government wish him to pursue. Copies are available in the Vote Office and I will arrange for it to be published in Hansard.
"An efficient railway has a vital part to play in the transport system, but it must give its customers value for money. By giving customers the services they want at a reasonable cost, the railway can secure its own future, and the people who work in the industry can feel pride in their work. British Rail has already begun to introduce really significant improvements, to which I want to pay a warm tribute. The firm objectives I am now setting are designed to further that process.
"The board's latest corporate plan is clearly going in the right direction and the objectives I have set Mr. Reid build on it. In its 1983 plan, the board envisages a requirement for central government grant of about £635 million (in 1983 prices) by 1988. I am setting the chairman the objective of achieving that target—a grant requirement of £635 million in 1983 prices—two years sooner.
"The objectives I have set for the chairman make plain that it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. This puts paid to the scare stories about the network, about which we heard so much following the publication of the Serpell Report.
"This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense. It is for the chairman to consider new forms of guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
"The freight, parcels and inter-city businesses can and should work to a commercial objective. The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight. So we want as much freight as possible to go by rail, within the financial target for the business, which is to achieve a 5 per cent, return by 1988. The scheme of Section 8 grants for rail freight facilities will continue.
"The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives we have set.

47
"The railway is operating in a highly competitive market. So it is to the board's advantage to obtain rolling stock wherever possible by competitive tendering and to rationalise excess capacity within BREL as soon as possible. I have asked the chairman to complete by the middle of next year a review of the options for the future of BREL, including the operations for privatisation. All the options will be examined on their merits.
"Greater private sector finance and involvement can help to improve services for customers and keep down costs. I have therefore called on the chairman to continue to seek greater private sector participation in the development of the railway.
"The statement of objectives confirms the Government's intention to privatise Sealink, and it also calls for improvements in the railway's industrial relations machinery. With these objectives, the way is clear for the board to manage the railway so that it gives the country the good quality, efficient, service which we all want."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating this further Statement today, and also for letting myself and, I assume, other Lords concerned have a copy of the Secretary of State's letter to the chairman of the board, which fills in some of the gaps in the Statement. I find both the Statement and the letter to the chairman of the board disappointing except for the reference to the fact that the Government will not be pressing for a programme of major route closures.
Naturally, all of us want to see an efficient railway system, but in this Statement there is little encouragement for British Rail. So many points arise that it would require a full-scale debate on the position of rail in our transport system to deal with all of them. I shall take just a few. Why is there nothing in the Statement about investment except, in the letter to the chairman of the board, a trite statement that the Government will be sympathetic to any request for investment for financial and business objectives? There is no reference to a consideration of investment on social or environmental grounds.
Why is there nothing in the Statement about electrification? Your Lordships will recall that the Serpell Report dismissed main line rail electrification in one brief paragraph. Why does nothing appear in the Statement? The objective of the Government as to the public service obligation grant is to reduce the grant so that it takes effect two years earlier than the board envisages in its corporate plan; but the intervening years between now and 1986 will also present problems. Can the Minister confirm that a Statement has been made in the other place today making a cut already in the PSO for the ensuing year? Does that not present serious problems?
The Statement refers to freight services. Do the Government reject clearly the negative attitude of the Serpell Report towards the board's proposed expansion of the Speedlink freight operation service? Will the Government support greater devotion of resources to Speedlink as urged by the board itself? Do
48
the Government reject the references in the Serpell Report to the board continuing only with the minimum possible levels of rail safety? Do the Government accept the need for track renewal and replacement of rolling stock? If so, how is this to be achieved?
The Statement refers to possible privatisation of BREL, and urges the advantage of obtaining rolling stock wherever possible by competitive tendering. Does this not ignore BREL's expertise and export potential? Do the Government reject the suggestion in Serpell that rails and rolling stock might be obtained from overseas sources? There is nothing in the Statement confirming that.
Reference is made to Sealink. Is it the intention of the Government that the ferry services will be sold separately? Or is it intended that both the ferry services and the docks will be proposed together? One is tempted to ask whether all the proposals on privatisation in this Statement might not meet the same fate as the Government's withdrawal of the private testing of heavy goods and passenger service vehicles, on which we have had no Statement whatever.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are also grateful that the Statement has been repeated in this House. It is an important document. As already indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, it covers a wide range of issues, which makes it difficult (as the long list of questions that he has put shows) to handle a Statement of this sort in this way. I hope there will be an early opportunity to debate this whole subject, not just in relation to objectives of the chairman of British Rail but also the inter-relation between them and some sort of transport strategy for this country in the future.
British Rail will be glad to have some indication of the objectives that the Government wish to set for it. I doubt, however, whether they will be happy with some of the objectives in the Statement and the letter. We welcome the words on Serpell in paragraph 4. The paragraph is carefully phrased. It says that—
"It is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures."
Do the Government really mean that, or does the wording mean that the board should not embark on a major programme of route closures? There is a difference.
Does the Minister really believe that this Statement and the letter to British Rail will convince British Rail and its employees that there is a secure future for the railways that is both stable and hopeful? Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I find the Statement very disappointing.
Does the noble Lord not recognise that the absence of any support for a significant electrification programme, which many of us have been awaiting for a long time from the Government, and the fact that there is still relentless pressure towards privatisation—in many ways, apparently, for its own sake—together with the overriding monetarist flavour of the document, make it an extremely disappointing and almost despairing document?

49
When we turn to industrial relations, mentioned in the letter to the chairman, does the noble Lord not agree that the greatest help to industrial relations on the railways would be to improve the morale of everyone involved by giving them some hope for stability, for a dynamic future and for development?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his response, although I was a little disappointed by it. I am more particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his response. I should like to deal with some of the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, remarked that a Statement of this kind is very difficult to deal with, and that we should discuss it at greater length at another time. I am sure that the noble Lord recognizes that any arrangements along those lines must be made through the usual channels.
I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport made an announcement in another place earlier this afternoon in regard to the PSO grant for this current year, 1983, in terms of £819 million plus adjustments. So far as the reduction of PSO by 1986 is concerned, the figure of £635 million is that which is contained in the board's own report and it was only after very careful consideration that the department came to the conclusion that a reduction to this figure, as set by British Rail for 1988, could in fact be achieved by 1986.
As regards the particular question on Speedlink, it is really for the board to develop Speedlink within the targets for the freight sector as a whole. It is a question of this type and an answer of the nature that I have given that demonstrate quite clearly the distance that the Government wish to have between themselves setting the objectives, and the board itself managing the railways in accordance with those objectives. It would not be right for the Government to say exactly how Speedlink should be integrated.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about rail safety. There can be no question—and I said this when we discussed the Serpell Report earlier in the year—of any reduction in the standard of safety. In fact the chief inspector's report which is to be published very shortly will show that last year has been one of the safest years on record. It would be the Government's intention and, indeed, the board's intention to ensure that such a safety record is maintained.
As regards rolling stock, it must be good sense for the board to be able to look at all avenues and all areas for replacement of stock. That BREL has expertise, there is little doubt; that BREL has excess capacity, there is also no doubt. So it is not here a question of privatisation as such of BREL. Indeed, the Statement does not say that; what it says is that BREL has to be looked at, and where other privatisation can be achieved with greater efficiency and at less cost to British Rail, then that should be done.
I can only repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in slightly different terms that which is contained in the Statement with regard to route closures—namely, that this Government stand by the manifesto commitment about there being no programme of major route closures. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also mentioned industrial relations. It is a fact that much of
50
the industrial relations agreements and arrangements are over 30 years old. There have to be changes in the industrial relations machinery but those are of course for the board and the unions to negotiate. It has been widely recognised that the present arrangements are inadequate to cope with the need for rapid and smooth change. The previous chairman of the board in fact described the present industrial relations as being "too damned slow." That is why the statement of objectives calls on the board to secure improvements in this area.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what proof he has that privatisation will increase the efficiency of the railways? I see absolutely none on these lines.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, does not see any improvement opportunities offered by privatisation. I cannot offer proof. What I can offer is the view that privatisation is another means whereby the same, similar or a better service might be provided. It is for the board to look at the opportunities where greater efficiency and lower cost—in other words, a better service to the customer—can be achieved by this means.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, the Minister has proved to me that he cannot say that privatisation will improve the railways in any way at all.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister is old enough to remember privatisation. It is not very long ago since the railways in this country were all privatised—
Lord Mottistone: Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I do not have to ask a question; this is a Statement. Does not the noble Lord realise that the nationalisation of the railway network in this country has brought great benefits to the traveller? I want to ask him in particular whether he would expand or explain what seemed to me to be a specially menacing reference to the Conservative Party's manifesto. When he talks about there being no major route closures, those of us who live in the rural areas begin to get very concerned. It is not the major route closures that we fear. We are already suffering and have suffered for many, many years from the Beeching cuts and the minor route closures which still continue. Can the noble Lord tell us specifically where the Government stand on this matter? Do the Government regard the rural railway system as a public service for the social good of the rural inhabitants, or do they regard it solely as a commercial venture which must pay its way? If they take that latter view then further closures in the rural areas are inevitable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby for his very flattering remarks and so I will take shelter behind them and say no. Provincial services, which take care of the rural services, the cross-country services—all those services which are not in London or the South-Eastern sector or Inter-City—take up by far the most of the PSO grant currently put at £819

51
million for this year. So it would be quite wrong for there to be any assumption that the Government see the rural services as having to make a profit: that is not so. It is for the board itself to determine where such services are uneconomic and can be substituted in another way by other services.
The noble Lord referred to Beeching and the cuts. In the suggestions which we discussed when we debated the railways and Serpell, there were further guarantees with regard to any substituted service. It will be for the board itself to arrive at its conclusions and to present them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for approval in the event of any closure.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his letter to the chairman, the Secretary of State says that Sealink will be privatised as soon as possible. Is the noble Lord aware that in a letter to me three weeks ago Mr. Tom King, who was then Secretary of State for Transport, said that Sealink would be privatised before the end of this year? I assumed that that referred to this financial year and not to this calendar year. So if Mr. King was right, Sealink could be privatised before the end of April. I wonder whether the noble Lord could first clarify the position and tell us precisely what the Government have in mind? Secondly, would he deal with the question put to him by my noble friend when he asked whether ships and docks were to be privatised together or separately? Can he say whether the Government still intend to privatise Sealink as a whole or in part? Will it be possible, for example, to separate the Welsh ports from the English ports? Is he aware that there is a great deal of disquiet, worry and concern in Harwich, Holyhead, Fishguard and all the other Sealink ports because of the uncertainty of Government policy on this issue?
Would he ask his right honourable friend to go further than this tenuous letter and to publish a proper White Paper on privatisation, indicating precisely what is to take place in the railway ports of Great Britain, which have a long tradition of service to the nation? Is he aware that they do not deserve the treatment which is being meted out to them by the Government?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will forgive me if I say that I had no knowledge of the letter to which he refers. The noble Lord will of course accept that, to us in the department, there have been fairly traumatic changes in the last fortnight with regard to our leadership—traumatic in that there have been changes of emphasis, changes of style. I very much regret to tell him that I am unable to enlarge at all on the letter to which he refers. As regards ships and docks, I shall certainly undertake to convey to my right honourable friend the request that the noble Lord makes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that interesting insight into personal relationships within the Government, may I presume to probe a little closer into the exact status of this Statement and the letter to the Chief Executive of British Rail? Am I right in thinking that this is a Statement which is headed "Letter to British Rail",
52
but that reference to the Serpell Report comes in the first sentence of the Statement? Am I not also right in thinking that the Statement and the letter cover some, but by no means all, the recommendations in the Serpell Report, some of them in detail?
If that is the case, may we take it that this Statement and letter are now the definitive Government response on the Serpell Report and that we can expect to hear no more of the Serpell Report from Government in directions to British Rail? We should be grateful to have the Minister's confirmation of that simple point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Serpell Report has always been considered by the Government to be a discussion document; it set out to examine various factors. There is nothing underlying the letter that my right honourable friend has sent to the chairman of British Rail enclosing the rather formal statement of objectives which should give rise to the thought that appears to be in the mind of the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, that anything Serpell may have said in that report has been singled out in terms of recommendations. After all, we do not see Serpell as listing a number of recommendations; it discussed a number of options.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord elaborate a little on what may be the political consequences of the traumatic changes in emphasis and style which apparently the Government have been suffering recently? It is a most intriguing oberservation and we should like a little more light to be thrown upon it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord will recall that I said, "We in the department".
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with great respect I do not think that the noble Lord has answered my question. I understand that these are guidelines from the Government to the British Rail Board. I have not had the advantage of reading the letter. I asked him specifically whether it is the Government's policy to regard rural rail networks as a social service or as simply a commercial enterprise. The noble Lord has not answered that question and I certainly was not confining my attention to the South-East. There are many rural areas outside the South-East that require a railway service a great deal more than the commuters of the South-Eastern area.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood me, and of course I accept that it is probably my fault in not having explained the matter adequately. The rural services are necessary, but not necessarily in the same form in which we currently see them. I say "not necessarily"; it is for the board to decide. Certainly I said that of some £819 million PSO grant this year, the bulk will go to the provincial services which take care of rural services. I should have thought that if the bulk of £819 million of grant goes in that direction, it would be seen that the Government regard the services as being necessary and not as just a commercial

53
enterprise—otherwise they would not grant-support them to that kind of level.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sure that the House does not want to prolong this discussion but the noble Lord kindly answered my question by saying yes, a Statement had been made in another place that the PSO grant for the ensuing year was reduced to £819 million. Will the noble Lord confirm the actual reduction, whether that has been discussed with the board, and what will he the effect on next year's working?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I did not say that there had been a reduction; I said that my right honourable friend had announced a PSO grant of£819 million plus adjustments, and that announcement was made in another place a short while ago. I regret that, due to the pressure of business in your Lordships' House, I have been here most of the afternoon awaiting the opportunity to make this Statement and cannot comment further on what my right honourable friend has said in another place within the past one or two hours.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Insert the following new Clause:
Codes of Practice for Data Users.

(".—(1) The Registrar may make and publish advisory Codes of Practice for use by data users in order to give effect to the data protection principles.

(2) Any person or body may make representations to the Registrar that a Code of Practice should be made.

(3) Before any such Code of Practice is made the Registrar shall:—

(i) consult with any person or bodies which appear to him to be affected and thereafter make a draft Code of Practice,

(ii) give public notice of any such draft Code of Practice by inviting objections and representations,

(iii) give consideration to any such objections and representations received by him.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, by arrangement with my noble and learned friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Digby, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, Lord Avebury, and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. I do not want to harp on words that were used in the last intervention. It almost seems as though, in dealing with an amendment on codes of practice, we ought to have a look at some of our own codes of practice. However, I merely hope that what apparently is a very new mood of emphasis and attitude has, in the wind of change, blown from the Department of Transport also to the Home Office when it comes to the question of consideration of codes of practice.
We have been through what I believe my noble and learned friend said in an earlier amendment was an evolution in regard to the specific amendment he was moving, and we have certainly had an evolution in the amendments moved in regard to recommending to the House that there should be codes of practice. This was
54
of course a suggestion that was also made by the Lindop Committee, and I trust that yet again we shall not be throwing out a recommendation of the Lindop Committee. Where we appear to the Minister to have gone wrong in the past—and certainly to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who intervened so helpfully at the Committee stage; indeed, I might almost quote his speech as being my speech on this occasion, and it might be more effective if I did—in regard to codes of practice was that in our amendments we were giving them legalistic clothing which the Minister felt was wrong. If we gave them no legalistic clothing at all, in his view that would also be wrong because according to the wording of our amendment, it either could or could not be used as evidence when matters came before a tribunal.
We have sufficiently heeded the advice given by the noble Lord the Minister to come forward with an amendment which does not talk about any certificates, which does not talk about its being capable of being used as evidence before a tribunal. It merely seeks to help the industry and the nation when (if I may repeat a phrase I used before when addressing your Lordships on this particularly difficult technological area) it is difficult to see the future from your Lordships' Benches. This amendment merely seeks to make it permissive—not mandatory—for the registrar to make and publish advisory codes of practice. It also deals with the consultations that the registrar should have, and the publication that he ought to make, before these codes of practice are in fact introduced. They are to have no binding legal effect at all.
The Minister may answer this amendment by saying: "Of course the registrar could, if he wanted, introduce codes of practice, or encourage them. He does not have to have statutory backing for that. Of course people could make representations that there should be codes of practice. You do not have to have that incorporated in the statute". But those of us who support this amendment say that there ought to be codes of practice.Various industries need codes of practice for guidance, especially where you have a desire by industry, and a genuine desire, to see that what is meant in this Bill, and the principles set out in the schedule to it, arc in fact guided and advised on by the means of codes. You encourage that sort of thing by saying in an Act of Parliament that these matters are looked upon with favour. They are not made mandatory, but it is hoped that if this procedure is gone through codes of practice will see the light of day.
I end my submission on this amendment by saying that this is a completely non-political amendment which I hope all your Lordships will deal with on a completely non-political basis. The need in regard to this Bill is that we do the best job we can, and do not just adhere to a political mandate when we vote.
Lastly, may I say that during the Committee stage on 19th July the Minister himself, at column 1130 of the Official Report for that date, said this:
"There is nothing wrong with voluntary codes of practice. There is nothing wrong with the data protection register"—
the word is "register" in the Official Report, but it should obviously be "registrar"—
"assisting or advising in them. What I sought to point out was that this amendment"—

55
and that, I say in parenthesis, is the amendment we were then dealing with—
"gave the imprimatur of the data protection registrar which might lead to a tribunal's being asked to consider it as an indication that probably no infringement of a principle had taken place".
In my respectful submission that criticism does not apply to this amendment. I ask that the House support what Lindop recommended, and an amendment which now deals with all the objections which the Home Office has so far brought forward to the House in order to resist the statutory incorporation of a provision for codes of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Digby: My Lords, here again we have general agreement that there will be codes of practice. The issue is who will formulate them, and what will their status be in law. I had all sides of the Chamber against me—although I am not sure that Lindop was—when at Committee stage I suggested that the codes should supersede their principles. I entirely accept this, and this amendment makes the codes advisory.
Subsection (1) gives the registrar the right, not the duty, to publish these advisory codes, and makes it clear that the codes give effect to the protection principles and do not supersede them. Lindop said:
"The flexibility which we consider essential should be achieved by codes of practice."
They also said:
"We believe the best way, perhaps the only way, to achieve flexibility would be by codes of practice."
I cannot understand why the registrar cannot be given this power by statute. We are all agreed that these codes are going to be needed. Although codes of practice will provide extra work for the registrar at first, they will quite certainly save the registrar and data users much worry and work later.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to codes of practice I hope that in reply to this amendment the noble Lord the Minister will not do what he did last time, and that is to ask a series of questions which he knew could not be answered because of the rules of Report stage. It was inconvenient to have the noble Lord fire off a barrage of interrogatives, as he did, knowing that none of us who had already spoken was going to have the opportunity of replying, although there was a perfectly good answer, which was that the case that the Minister was constructing was one against the advisory committees as a whole. I hope that he will not construct a case against codes of practice as a whole by asking a similar series of questions on this amendment, because in other fields codes of practice have been extremely useful. I mention as one example the Health and Safety at Work Act, with which the noble Lord is no doubt familiar.
There is not any dispute between us that codes of practice are desirable. On the face of the White Paper we find at paragraph 8:
"The Government sees some value in codes of practice in this field and expects that some professional bodies, trade associations, and other organisations may wish to prepare such codes as a guide to their members."
What happens when a trade association prepares such a code of practice? Is it simply to be left to the members to decide whether it helps them to comply
56
with the data protection principles, or is there going to be any independent evaluation of those codes of practice such as would be bound to occur if the registrar took them on board himself under this amendment?
I suggest that if you are going to have codes of practice at all—and the Minister obviously thinks that there should be some—then it is not enough to let the professional organisations and the trade bodies decide on what these codes of practice should be of their own volition. They should submit them to the experience of the registrar, who, after all, knows more than anybody else (or he will do by the time he has finished) about the way that the data protection principles apply.
The objection has been mentioned—it was raised by the Minister on a previous occasion—that when it came to a case a data user would be able to establish that he had complied with such a code of practice and therefore that he was not in violation of any of the data protection principles. I suggest that the Minister was putting it too strongly. Of course such a code of practice would be adduced as evidence in such a case. There is no doubt of that at all. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would agree that the data user would be bound to say that he had complied with the code of practice. But it certainly would not be the kind of conclusive evidence that the Minister was attempting to suggest on the previous occasion.
If the code of practice was found to be wrong, then of course the registrar would have to amend it as a result of that case. That is precisely what would happen. I suppose it happens from time to time in the case of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the noble Lord will no doubt be able to inform us of the experience—
Lord Mishcon: And with the Inland Revenue.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is saying that it does in fact happen. I think the codes of practice would not be irrevocable; they could be changed as a result of experience and as a result of cases that were brought before the courts. But they would certainly be of enormous assistance to data users in enabling them to comply in detail with the data protection principles. If that is what the Government think, then let us give the status they would have by putting into the Bill that the registrar shall be responsible as set out here for making and publishing those advisory codes of practice, instead of leaving it as it would be if the White Paper were followed to the letter, that the trade associations, professional bodies and so on produced codes of practice in vacuo.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I might briefly comment before my noble friend answers, I think we have now come, as the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, was saying, very much closer together. The previous Amendment, No. 14, in Committee stage referred to the committee which we have just voted down for the second time. We now refer to the "registrar". I am intervening because if one looks at Clause 34 one finds in subsections (1) and (2) that we are nearly there. Subsection (1) says:
"It shall be the duty of the Registrar so to perform his functions …. as to promote the observance of the data protection principles"

57
and subsection (2), among others, says—to paraphrase—that he may give advice to any person as to any of the matters within the scope of his functions under the Bill. That is very nearly there. The only things that are not mentioned is the phrase "codes of practice" and the part about consultation in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause.
Knowing that my noble friend the Minister fully accepts that there is a place for voluntary codes of practice, and that he has given authority to the registrar to give advice to anybody on any matter which relates to him. I should have thought, without necessarily accepting this amendment, that it does not take much to narrow the gap down to his being able to give advice on voluntary codes of practice produced by individual bodies; whether they be companies or trade associations, I would not make that point. What we really want to encourage is major data users having codes of practice that they evolve for themselves, on which they seek advice from the registrar on whether the codes are appropriate and comply fully with the data protection principles. That is as far as we need to go. I do not think that this amendment is in part necessary because Clause 34 covers much of what it tries to say. Perhaps at a later stage or in another place we might go the whole way on the substance of what most of us in this House are agreed upon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that what one wants to see is various branches of the industry getting together, drawing up a code, going to the registrar and asking whether such a code would do. The registrar would then vet it. Everyone has been in favour of that from the word go, and it is clearly the most flexible way of handling anything as complicated and as constantly changing and developing as this industry.
We are asking that approval of this should be put into the Bill. If the noble Lord tells us that that power exists already, we all know that; that will tell us nothing new. We want it in the Bill so that people will realise that it is something of which the Government approve—the Government have said so; so I hope that the amendment in its present rather anodyne form will be approved.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I start by apologising if I caused offence or confusion by uttering rhetorical questions during the process of discussing the last amendment. They were indeed rhetorical. I thought I had answered them, but possibly not to the satisfaction of noble Lords opposite, though at least they had an answer. I shall try to avoid doing that further. We all know that we are on familiar ground here again. Indeed, my noble friend moved an amendment in Committee on this subject, as did noble Lords opposite. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great care taken by the movers of the amendment to take note of the objections that I voiced on that occasion.
By now the Government's position is fairly well known. Nevertheless, let me repeat that we are in favour of codes of practice, so let me explain in detail how we see them working in a useful, sensible and flexible way. We foresee users who have interests,
58
requirements and operating procedures broadly in common with one another coming together perhaps under the auspices of a professional society, representative body or trade association, as my noble friend has suggested to produce a code of practice applying to them, as my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Swinfen both said at an earlier stage. If codes are to fit the requirements of users they must he initiated by those users. So codes will be drawn up indicating how users might best be advised to go about their use of data in such a way as to avoid breaching the data protection principles. Codes cannot guarantee against breaches but they can obviously help to avoid them. That is welcome and will reduce the eventual workload on the registrar, as my noble friend Lord Digby said.
Once the codes are drawn up the users might simply promulgate them and indicate what domestic arrangements are to be made to promote compliance with them. Alternatively, some users may wish to get a view on their codes from the registrar. They may ask him his view on whether the code adequately and reasonably covers the ground or should be improved in any way. The data protection registrar could give such advice without prejudice to any future action he might wish to take in respect of a contravention of the principles. The users would then issue their code and if it is a good code it will reduce the occasions when the principles are breached. The users themselves will encourage compliance and may even agree on internal disciplinary measures in the event of contravention. The registrar will continue to supervise observance of the principles. They are the criteria he will use regardless of the details of any code which will be a matter for users in their own internal actions to promote good data protection practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, correctly anticipated our reaction to all this, and it is something that Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge already knows about because he has said so. I have to observe that all of this can happen under the Bill as it now exists. It does not call for any additional statutory expression. Users can produce codes already. Some already have codes in existence. If they so wish they will be at perfect liberty to seek the registrar's views on them.
Noble Lords will remember that the registrar has a duty under Clause 34, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded us, to promote observance of the principles and to disseminate information. He also has a power there, futhermore, to give advice. The registrar is, therefore, specifically equipped to respond positively wherever he can. In other words, the Bill already allows users to draw up sectoral codes of practice, but it does not equate observance of such codes with the observance of the principles that the registrar must supervise.
That, then, is what we want to see; but what would be the position under the Bill as amended by the noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend? Their amendment is clearly designed to meet a number of objections that I have raised in the past, but, as a result, it appears to impose certain restrictions on the registrar without adding usefully to the powers he already has. I criticised my noble friend's earlier proposals in this area because they had the effect of elevating codes of practice above the principles. Noble

59
Lords will recall that the crucial test was to have been not whether a user had complied with the principles, but whether he had complied with the code.
This new amendment cannot be criticised on those grounds. My noble friend and noble Lords opposite propose now that the codes should be merely advisory and should have no legal force whatsoever. That certainly meets my previous objection, but it seens also to bear out my view that there is no need for an amendment to the Bill to achieve this result. If codes of practice are to have legal status, provision needs to be made in the Bill. If they are not, then it does not.
It might be argued that if this is the case, the amendment does no harm. It could be added that stating the obvious does is no bad thing if it encourages the production of the codes of practice which all or us want to see. But I think the amendment may be harmful because it creates expectations which the registrar may be hard put to or, indeed, unable to live up to. In particular, it seems to vest in him either the initiative or a leading indispensable role for getting codes of practice under way and then seeks to place additional restrictions upon him regarding the discharge of that initiative. My noble friend Lord Digby referred to the extra work which would be involved in setting this up.
I should like your Lordships to be mindful of the enormous and rapidly growing number of computers and data users in this country already. The number of groupings that might wish, appropriately, for codes of practice cannot be clearly foreseen now but one thing is certain. It is likely to be extremely large. Another thing is certain. The process of devising a code of practice is going to be long and is going to be complex; and I am not at all sure that placing an arbitrary bottleneck of the process by suggesting in statute that the whole thing ought to be taken on board even without being forced to do it by the registrar, will not have exactly the opposite effect to that which the supporters of this amendment (and the very important and influential bodies which advise them) are seeking.
The day when workable codes of conduct are in effective use could, I fear, be considerably delayed by the process. The amendment is careful to say only that the registrar "may" make codes of practice and not "shall". It can be argued therefore that if the registrar finds that his resources are overstretched at any time and may be better used in other ways, he is under no obligation to spend time drawing up codes of practice. But by specifically drawing attention to codes of practice in the Bill we would be creating expectations and I think, as I said earlier, a bottleneck. By producing the expectation that it is the registrar who is to set about getting groups of users together and initiating the drawing up of codes of practice requiring a certain procedure to be followed, the amendment would discourage from doing so some users who wanted to take a different approach to drawing up codes of practice.
I have little more to say, but, from what I have said already, it will be clear that, while we are in favour of codes of practice, we remain of the view that they are best left outside the Bill. We do not doubt that some
60
users will wish to consult the registrar about advisory codes of practice, and I hope that many of them will. This they can already do under the Bill and the registrar has an actual duty and power in Clause 34 to meet that. May I suggest therefore that to give statutory expression to the role of codes of practice and to how the registrar shall respond to them may work against the best interests of all those concerned? The more we seek in the Bill to dictate particular procedures for codes, the more we risk unnecessarily fettering registrar and data users alike.
We are, of course, aware—and here I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—of codes of practice that are given legal status under other legislation. There is the Highway Code, for instance. There is the provision for codes under the Health and Safety at Work Act, to which he referred. There are codes allowed for under the Race Relations Act. But none of these offers a direct and satisfactory parallel. None of them envisages separate codes for a great mass of different persons, as would be the case in data protection. The Highway Code applies to all drivers, the code on racial discrimination in employment applies to all employers.
Then, these other codes address rather different and generally more specific issues. It is one thing to draw up a code on the safety standards for equipment or clothing or good practice in advertising job vacancies, but quite another to devise something meaningful to ensure that, in all the myriad circumstances that will occur, data are collected fairly. As we found elsewhere, what may be sensible and reasonable in one place cannot necessarily be transplanted satisfactorily to the field of data protection, which is a very large and very complex one.
In the process of the Report stage of this Bill. I hope to continue revealing a conciliatory and attentive approach to what is said by people on the other side of the House. I am sorry that where, as on this occasion, they are joined by my noble friend on this side of the House, I am unable to be more conciliatory and friendly than I have been.I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister will not be surprised to learn how much I disagree with what he has just said. But I do not intend to rehearse it. There was one thing,however, which really surprised me. It was when he said that there was a large and rapidly increasing number of computers and data banks. That is undoubtedly true but the question I have to ask is this. Can it be true that the number of codes of practice can exceed the number of computers and data banks? The whole purpose of codes of practice is to reduce the burden upon the registrar of individual computers and data banks having to be reported separately.
I should have thought that this was something which was very akin to Conservative philosophy. I should have thought that the Government would actually wish the various parts of the business community to do this work themselves in advance of full registration and make the life of Government agencies simpler and, therefore, reduce Government bureaucracy and demands on public expenditure. It is that business

61
aspect of codes of practice to which the noble Lord the Minister has not referred and it weakens his argument, I think.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the amount of work that would be required if the registrar was to make the codes of practice would be prohibitive. Would he, however, consider allowing codes of practice produced by data users (who, after all, know where they can be misused) to be authorised or approved in some way by the registrar so that the onus is on the data users to produce codes of practice that then have to be approved by the registrar as fitting in with the data protection principles?
Lord Elton: My Lords, by leave of your Lordships and contrary to normal convention here, because this is Report stage, may I respond to those two points? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I would say that certainly we do not expect one code per machine. That would be nave. We expect as many users of machines as possible to come together to create the minimum number of viable codes. That, I hope, will be the result. But the number of genuses of user is enormous because there is almost no public or private function which is not in the future going to be aided by machines capable of using personal data. Therefore, there are going to be very many codes of practice; that was all I wished to say.
We are entirely in favour of business getting on and organising its own code of practice. That is what I spent, I fear, perhaps seven to 12 minutes trying to say to your Lordships a moment ago. What we do not want to do is to put it into statute, for reasons which I will not repeat.
To my noble friend Lord Swinfen, may I say that I welcome his support but I would remind him that the onus is already on the users under the Bill to come forward with codes if they wish to do so. But what we cannot place upon the unfortunate data protection registrar is the duty to place an imprimatur on any code of conduct and then say that whatever goes amiss, whatever damage is suffered by private individuals as a result of some loophole in this code which he did not foresee until, regrettably, that damage was done and could not be repaired or compensated, will not be without the law and, therefore, will not be compensatable. That is not in the amendment but it was in what my noble friend asked me. I should not have spoken twice. I apologise.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think that a further lengthy speech is called for; nor would it be welcome. I want to make only one or two very brief observations. For the first one, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who handed me (since he himself has to be silent having spoken once) a copy of the Government's White Paper. The relevant paragraph when one deals with the question of the number of codes of practice that might be involved is Paragraph 8. I quote:
"The Lindop Committee recommended that the data protection authority should produce codes of practice which would be laid before Parliament and have the force of law. Some 50 or more codes would apply the general principles to the wide variety of situations in which personal data are processed automatically".
62
I end the quotation there, the quotation being relevant only from the point of view of the numbers that we are dealing with—which is not in thousands or in millions but, on this estimate, about 50 or more.
Having said that, the argument is one that is very simple. We dealt with the codes of practice previously. The points are known to all your Lordships. The Government had an objection and it was, if I may say so, reasonably argued. The amendment, the Minister recognises, meets the main objection and now there are further objections which are limited purely and simply to the question: why have it in an Act of Parliament when it can be done anyway? The arguments for its being done anyway have been advanced and I hope that your Lordships, in this completely non-political matter, will see fit to support the amendment.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bernstein, L.

John-Mackie, L. [Teller.]

Bishopston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Byers, L.

Longford, E.

Chitnis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon. V.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Digby, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

[Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rhodes, L.

Flowers, L.

Seear, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shannon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gregson, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V,

Tordoff, L.

Harrris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carrington, L.

Alport, L.

Cockfield, L.

Avon, E.

Coleraine, L.

Bath, M.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Boardman, L.

Croft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Daventry, V.

Caccia, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

63

Elton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Mancroft, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mansfield, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Gainford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Gisborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Mersey, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Morris, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Orkney, E.

Marylebone, L.

Portland, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayter, L.

Reigate, L.

Headfort, M.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Holderness, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ingrow, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kemsley, V.

Spens, L.

Killeam. L.

Stamp, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Strathspey, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Lawrence, L.

Teynham, L.

Lindsev and Abingdon, E.

Tranmire, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Lonsdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Whitelaw, V.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 [Registration of data users and computer bureaux]:
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 14, leave out from first ("user") to ("shall") in line 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the series of amendments to Clause 4, of which No. 7 is one, is designed to clear up any misunderstanding which may have existed about the registration requirements for data users who also carry on computer bureaux. It has been put to us in the past that the effect of Clause 4 (3), as presently drafted, is to require any user who also operates a computer bureau to register not only the details of the data he holds as a data user but also the details of any data which he processes as a bureau on behalf of others. Indeed, we debated this very point in Committee stage when my noble friend LordMottistone tabled a number of amendments aimed at clarifying the situation. My noble friend Lord Elton explained then that the clause imposed no such requirement, and indeed it would be a nonsense to require people who operate computer bureaux to predict what data their customers are likely to want processed.
Nevertheless, in view of the confusion which clearly existed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, promised to consider with great care what the noble Lord had said. I am bound to say that even after careful reexamination of this issue, we have still arrived at the conclusion that an amendment was not strictly necessary and that the clause as drafted achieved the right result.
Nevertheless, my noble friend succeeded in demonstrating that it was possible to be misled by the clause, and in all the circumstances we believe it would be churlish to refuse to clarify the situation. I hope therefore that these amendments which follow will put the matter beyond doubt and make it clear that, while a data user is required to provide all the information referred to in Clause 4 (3), the only information which is required in relation to bureau operations is the name and address of the person who carries on the bureau. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like very much to thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington, and of course my noble friend Lord Elton, for having taken on board what I proposed at Committee stage, and indeed for improving on the third of my amendments and repeating my first two. I am sure that they are right about the interpretation of the English over which we argued earlier. But I think it is most civil of them to agree that there might be room for error and for having therefore adopted what I proposed at an earlier stage. I am sure that the British Bankers' Association, who advised me on this point, will be equally delighted. I thank my noble friends very much.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is hard to resist the temptation—therefore, I shall not resist it—to note the greater readiness to meet suggestions of the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, than to meet equally valid and valuable suggestions from this side of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 en bloc:
Page 4, line 32, leave out from ("bureau") to ("shall") in line 33.line 34, at end insert—
("(4A) Subject to the provisions of this section, an entry in respect of a data user who also carries on a computer bureau shall consist of his name and address and, as respects the personal data to be held by him, the particulars specified in subsection (3)(b) to (f) above.")
line 36, leave out ("and 4") and insert (", (4) and (4A)")
line 41, leave out ("and (4)") and insert (, (4) and (4A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Applications for registration and for amendment of registered particulars]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("registration") to end of line 18 and insert ("shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and every application for the alteration of registered particulars shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this is what we might safely call a minor amendment which need not detain us unduly. In its present form, Clause 6(7) has the effect that both applications for registration and applications for the alteration of registered particulars must be accompanied by a fee. That rules out the possibility, which we might wish to consider, of charging no fee where alterations to registered particulars are concerned. The purpose of this amendment is to preserve that option. The existence of an alteration fee might make some users just a little reluctant to notify any changes, or to save them up until they considered it was worth their while to seek an amendment to their registered particulars. That is clearly understandable since the register should be as accurate a reflection, and as up-to-date a

65
reflection, of users' activities as possible. Further,it is possible that the level of the alteration fee might be so low as to make it uneconomic to collect and we would not wish to require the registrar to indulge in uneconomic practices. We therefore think it wise at least to allow for the possibility of waiving fees for alterations of particulars. That is the purpose of the amendment which I commend to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enforcement notices]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 13:
[Printed earlier].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Disclosure of information]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) The said section 2 shall not be construed as precluding the disclosure of information by any person mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) above or by any officer or servant of the Tribunal where the disclosure is made for the purpose of discharging his duties under this Act or for the purpose of proceedings under or arising out of this Act, including proceedings before the Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems—and I asked him to wait for it—from a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee. He was concerned that application of the Official Secrets Act to the registrar might prejudice his independence. In particular, he feared that it would, at least in theory, be possible for a Minister to prohibit the registrar from disclosing, as part of his duties, certain information he had obtained, thus preventing him from taking effective action against Government departments. I sought, unsuccessfully I fear, to allay his fears and undertook to consider the point further. And I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point, because in discharging that undertaking we have come to realise that Clause 17 could be better cast than it is.
It clearly is important to ensure that information obtained by the registrar is properly protected; otherwise data users would be 'reluctant to give him information for fear that it might be passed on to others with no right to see it. But our desire to meet this point led us, we now acknowledge, to duplicate the effect of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by creating a new offence in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 17 which covered the same ground. Subsections (3) and (4) are designed to protect information obtained by the registrar from private, as opposed to Government, sources: but Section 2 already does this because it applies to all information obtained in the course of official duty, regardless of its source.
This amendment therefore deletes the separate offence in subsections (3) and (4) which we now see to be unnecessary. At the same time, however, it seeks to clarify the position of the registrar under the Official
66
Secrets Act—in a way that I hope will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It provides that application of that Act shall not preclude the registrar from disclosing information, if it is necessary for him to do so for the purpose of discharging his duties under the Bill or for the purpose of proceedings arising out of the Bill. This brings us back to the point originally raised by the noble Lord, since the effect of this provision is to rule out any possibility, however remote it might have been, of interference by Ministers wishing to prevent the registrar from using information obtained by him from their departments to take action against them. As the amendment achieves the result desired by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and indeed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I hope that they will be glad to see it. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the gracious words he used in accepting this amendment and concession.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords. I am delighted to see that an amendment from the noble Lords opposite has also been accepted by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Right of access to personal data]:
6.40 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("in writing")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as it appears on the Marshalled List this amendment may give a slightly misleading impression. It may suggest that no longer do we see any need for subjects to have a written copy of their data when given subject access and that we are therefore reducing subjects' access rights. That is not the case. The effect of the amendment in fact is to extend those rights. Let me explain how.
Clause 21(1)(b) at present provides the data subject with the right to be supplied by the data user with a copy in writing of any information held about him on computer. The reference to a copy "in writing" was designed in the Bill as originally drafted as a safeguard for the data subject to ensure that the data user could not discharge his duty to give subject access by simply handing over a copy of an unintelligible computer tape. In the original Bill, therefore, these two words served an important purpose. However, thanks to an amendment made last Session to Clause 21(1), following representations made, as I recall, by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the Bill now takes care of this point by another means. Thanks to their intervention Clause 21(1)(b) provides that where the information is expressed in terms which are not intelligible without an explanation, it must he accompanied by an explanation, thus ensuring that the impulses on a magnetic tape must be rendered into meaningful form.
The words "in writing" have therefore become strictly unnecessary. But what is more, it has now been

67
brought home to us that they are in fact too restrictive. Computers may be used to hold information not presently in written form at all—copies of fingerprints, for instance, or pictures. A set of fingerprints, or a picture of an individual, could undoubtedly constitute personal data of a kind to which the subject should have a right of access and a copy of which he should be entitled to receive. He may wish to check that it is indeed his picture that is held and not a case of mistaken identity. But Clause 21(1)(b) as presently cast fails to deal with this situation since neither the picture nor the fingerprints can be reduced, despite what art critics may say, to writing.
The simple deletion of the words "in writing"should however be sufficient to ensure a subject's right to receive a copy of his fingerprints or picture if they are held on computer. And the rest of the Bill works satisfactorily without amendment in its application to this particular type of information. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the very clear explanation he has given to the House of the reason for this amendment, which is obviously desirable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 29, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)(b) of this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a point which has not been raised before. It seems to me to be rather an important one and I am quite prepared to be told that I misunderstood it. Here, with the leave of the House, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 36 to Clause 29:
Amendment No. 36: Clause 29, page 22, line 11, leave out from ("from") to ("or") in line 12 and insert ("only that part of the subject access provisions described in subsection (1)(b) of section 21 above")
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 29 to grant exemption to the subject access provisions include exemption from the seventh data protection principle, and I do not think that they should—that is, the principle of disclosure. If they did indeed, would they not be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention? Surely the point of Clause 29 is to exempt the data user from the obligation of disclosure of matter held as personal data but not from the obligation under the seventh principle to disclose that personal data are in fact held without disclosing what they are. It is rather a complicated sentence but I hope it is clear. It is therefore necessary to exclude the individual's right to be told that personal data are in fact held about him from the Secretary of State's powers of exemption in Clause 29. If anybody is unclear exactly what this means, I shall try to expand, but what I have said is in fact exactly the point. I shall be interested in what the noble Lord has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 36 are, I think, alternative means of achieving the
68
same end—that is, to ensure that where social work records are concerned individuals are always told whether data are held about them, even though there may be an exemption from the requirement to give access to the actual data. I had no difficulty in understanding that: but perhaps I ought courteously to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for a rough idea of his approach to this problem which may have helped me in my interpretation.
The amendment to Clause 21 would be appropriate only if the noble Lord's major amendments, removing the social work exemption from Clause 29 to Clause 21, which we shall come to in a moment, are accepted. The amendment to Clause 29, on the other hand, would be appropriate—indeed, can only be made—if those other amendments do not apply. The principle behind the amendments is simple. The intention is, as I have said, that where social work records are exempted from subject access, the subject should still be told that the data exist.
The noble Lord has suggested that there is a distinction to be drawn here between Clause 21 and the seventh principle. In fact, this is not so, because both contain the entitlement to be told whether data are held and the right to be given a copy of any data which are held. Any exemptions must therefore relate to both Clause 21 and the seventh principle, as they parallel one another. Inasmuch as the amendments make no reference to the seventh principle they are flawed, but I make nothing of that because the noble Lord is in search of information.
It is the overall concept behind the amendments to which I want to address myself, and on that I have to ask whether it is really wise to take decisions of this kind at this stage—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will forgive another rhetorical question because I am asking it of myself— rather than act in the full light of the consultation that is now going on with those involved in all aspects of social work. I shall have more to say about those consultations when we come to the next series of amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords opposite. Suffice it to say for the moment that the Department of Health and Social Security is consulting fully with the interested parties as to the form and extent of any subject access exemptions for social work data to be made under a Clause 29(2) order.
At this stage I suggest it would be rash to assume that we know what they will reveal, because not all the opinions are in. Although the deadline is passed, about a third of them are to come, some of them from influential bodies. In particular, I do not think it is at all safe to assume that we shall emerge from the consultations convinced that we need never provide for circumstances in which for his own good the data subject ought not to be told that data exist but are being withheld. There may quite likely be circumstances in which if data are being withheld from the subject because access would be harmful to him, it could be equally harmful to tell him that such data were being withheld for that reason. Certainly we should think very hard before amending the Bill itself now to provide that even where exemption from actual access applies the user still has to say, "We do hold personal data about you but we are not going to

69
tell you what it is". That could in itself have serious and regrettable consequences, so we should maintain the maximum flexibility in the order-making power under Clause 29(2) at least until we have the results of the consultation.
But I do not suggest that your Lordships should abandon your interest in this matter. Your Lordships will remember that the power is itself subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not suggesting therefore that your Lordships should let the issue out of your sight entirely. I am saying that neither your Lordships nor the Government have yet sufficient knowledge to make that decision with confidence. It ought to be made in due time with the full benefit of consultation, and that means making it using the order-making power as drafted in the Bill. Those considerations apply equally to both amendments.
In conclusion therefore I suggest that it is too early for us to reach final decisions on the nature of the exemptions for social work or to tie the Secretary of State's hands in the way proposed by the noble Lord. I hope I have made it clear why that is.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I do not propose to divide the House at this stage because it is a difficult point. However, it seems to me that a data subject who will be being advised, by definition, more or less, by professionals will from time to time want to know whether there is anything held about him. I think it would upset him very much indeed not to be answered. To say that there is a file on him but that he is not going to be told why, for the reasons dealt with in the next amendment, seems to me to he an impossible position, hut that is the position in which we are left at the moment.
The next question I want to ask the noble Lord is this. He says this can be dealt with later. How, when and where? Does he mean in another place, when the Bill goes there? How is it going to be dealt with? It seems to me there is something wrong here, and I want to know how it is going to be dealt with later. I am sure the noble Lord may answer with the leave of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, the noble Lord has asked me two questions. First, he asked for an illustration of a case where it might be beneficial to hold back such information. I do not speak from a brief, but the case that occurs to me immediately is this. Suppose there is a computerised national list of people suffering from a dangerous, noninfectious but incurable disease. Is it right that such a person should be told that his name is on the list but no more is to be revealed? Is it not better in some circumstances, with the advice of the medical practitioner in charge, to withhold the information that that person is on the list at all? It may be a bad example, but there are others, which need not be medical, where one can see the difficulty. We recently had a debate about adoption and establishing parenthood, in which we decided in the opposite sense. I do think there might be occasions when there would be advantage in preserving this power.
70
The extent to which I am right in saying that we should pay tribute to it by our legislative arrangements is something which will be easier to ascertain when we have received all the consultation papers and have digested them. It was apparent when the Bill was drafted that there would be this difficulty of timing. It seemed wrong to hold up the Bill in order to get this one issue out of the way. That is why there is an order making power which will enable the Secretary of State to make an order setting up the exemption as appropriate in the light of the advice when it is received.
The noble Lord is, I think, tempting me to say that the advice will be received and considered before this Bill has got beyond the premises next door, as it were. I really do not know the answer to that, but I am certain that the noble Lord's friends in another place will be quite competent to take up the issue if the information is available in time for them to do so with profit in another place.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I only want to say this because I think my noble friend may not have an opportunity to cover all the ground. The adoption problem which the noble Lord mentioned is really not relevant to the amendment under consideration because that is covered, speaking from memory, by Clause 33(2)(a), where there is exemption for disclosure of information which is otherwise prohibited by statute. That is dealt with, I think I am right in saying, under the Adoption Act.
The example the noble Lord gave was one in the medical field. We are not discussing that; we are discussing social work records. All my noble friend is asking is whether the Minister does not feel that there will be serious problems if, when a person comes to the notice of a social work agency and deals with the professionals, he then wishes to inquire whether there is information on him held on the computer under the control of that social work agency. He inquires and he is told that he is not permitted to know whether or not they hold information. My noble friend was seeking to suggest to the Minister, I think quite rightly, that if that is the sort of answer the client is given it will open up all sorts of serious problems of relationships between the client and the social worker. It is one thing to say that disclosure is prohibited for certain reasons which can he explained to the client: it is quite another thing to tell him that he is not permitted to know whether or not information is there. I think we are storing up serious problems for ourselves and making unnecessary difficulties between client and social worker if we are not to give him the bare information that my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my contribution will be a short one. I think it is extremely dangerous that we are dealing, not for the first time, with the question of social workers and the right of the data subject who is being assisted by social workers to information, first of all as to whether there are data and then what those data are. With great respect to the noble Lord the Minister, it is very difficult indeed to swallow the fact that at this stage, Report stage of the second time that the Bill has been before Parliament, the situation has not yet been reached on this vital matter where

71
evidence has been collated and the Minister has had a chance to consider it. It seems to me that this is one of the difficulties, both in the medical field and in the social work field, which became apparent the first time this Bill saw the light of day in the last Parliament.
For us to be told that we cannot make up our minds, and indeed that another place may not be able to make up their minds in time and that this will be left to an Order in Council—and we all know what happens to Orders in Council, with the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure—seems to me to be lamentable. Somebody is to blame, whether it is the Home Office or the Department of Social Security. There is not the slightest doubt that more information and evidence should have been available before we were asked at Report stage to deal with vital amendments of this kind moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would speak again only to say that in view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, the next amendment on the Marshalled List is No. 17.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, this is a long and complicated amendment and I propose to make quite a long speech. Would it not be better to dine first?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I think that that probably would be the right answer, if that is for the convenience of the House. I do not quite know how long the dinner Business will take, but to be fair to the House sitting on the Report stage I think that perhaps we should agree that, even if the dinner Business does not last that long, we will not resume the Report stage before 8 o'clock. I beg to move that the Report stage be adjourned until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales
7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellviin): My Lords. I beg to move, That the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
Section 14 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 requires the Audit Commission, after consultation with the local authority associations and the accountancy profession, to prepare a code of local government audit practice for England and Wales prescribing the way in which auditors employed or appointed by the commission should carry out their functions. The Act provides that the code shall not
72
come into force until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. The code was first laid before Parliament on 11th July and was approved in another place on 28th July.
Before describing the contents of the code now before us I would like, if I may, to explain some of the background to its preparation. Prior to the 1982 Act the responsibility for overseeing audit and monitoring audit standards in local government lay with the audit inspectorate which answered directly to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In 1973, under these arrangements, a local government audit code of practice was issued in the form of an annex to a departmental circular. Although it was lodged before publication in the Library' of the House. this 1973 code was, however, not subject to parliamentary approval.
With the 1982 Act the responsibility for overseeing local government audit practice passed to an independent body—the Audit Commission. In the debates on the new audit arrangements both here and in another place great emphasis was placed on the new Commission's need for independence and, in order to reaffirm the commission's status, the Government readily agreed that the commission's code should be subject to parliamentary approval. I am therefore here today to honour that commitment to bring the code to your Lordships' House for consideration.
I must. however, stress that the code is the commission's own, prepared by its members representing many interests in both public and private sectors. As required by the 1982 Act, the commission has not only taken account of its own members' wide experience of financial management and audit practice, but has also consulted local authority interests and the accountancy profession in drawing up the code.
The result is, I believe, a thoroughly worthwhile document and one which will provide a sound framework for the work of auditors in local government. The code takes account of developments in audit practice since 1973 and of the new audit arrangements. It also deals with the additional duties placed on auditors by the 1982 Act including the important duty to consider value for money.
Although the code itself is, as I have said. the commission's own. I would like to outline its main features to your Lordships and also draw attention to the points to which the commission attaches particular importance. Some of these essential features are touched upon in the introduction to the code which also explains the commission's intentions in drawing up a suitably prescriptive document. The main provisions of the code then fall into two sections. Section 1 prescribes the general duties of an auditor and sets out the three factors which the commission believe should characterise his work. These are independence, due professional care and recognition of the public interest. This section also describes how the auditor should communicate his findings to those legitimately concerned. The remainder of the code prescribes how the audit should be conducted and identifies the points to which the auditor should pay particularly close attention in discharging his responsibilities, including that in respect of value for money.

73
Turning next to the text of the code, the commission's basic philosophy is contained in paragraph 6 which stresses the special considerations which apply to the audit of public funds financed by compulsory levy. The code makes clear that in addition to considering whether such funds have been legally spent and accounted for, the auditor must also address himself to whether money raised from tax and ratepayers has been spent in a way providing value for money. That is not to say that the commission sees a role for the auditor in questioning spending policies. Indeed, at paragraphs 26 and 43 the commission later explains that the role of the auditor is restricted to examining the effectiveness of the arrangements for carrying out such spending policies.
The commission also stresses in the last subsection of paragraph 6 that both the auditors and the commission itself have a duty to ensure not only that the approach to the audit process is consistent but also that information about efficient procedures is transferred from one authority to others. In this way auditors will be able to help the bodies they audit to improve their efficiency. The code also recognises the need for an auditor to co-operate with internal audit staff and seek to understand the aims of the body concerned and what it is trying to achieve. At the same time the commission equally emphasises that the auditor must always bear in mind his responsibilities to the public at large. The code clearly states that if necessary an auditor must not shrink from making any criticisms public.
The code's stance on other possible conflicts of interest is also unequivocal; the independence of the auditor will always be of paramount importance. Thus, paragraph 8 of the code rules that an auditor may not undertake any additional work for the authority he is to audit unless either the cost of this work is de minimis, or he and the authority concerned can satisfy the commission that the auditor's independence will not be impaired and that the additional costs of using another auditor would be excessive. This bar on additional work also extends to the auditor's firm or any organisation in which he has an interest and the commission will enforce this aspect of the code by insisting that every individual case is argued separately before it and that the contracts with firms appointed reinforce the auditor's independence.
In addition to this independence the code singles out in paragraph 9 the requirement for all auditors to exercise due professional care. Even where audit work is shared with others the code makes clear that the auditor retains a personal responsibility and gives examples of the action to be taken to fulfill this requirement.
The final characteristic described in this section of the code is the auditor's responsibility to safeguard the public interest. His duties both to the authority and to those to whom the authority is accountable are set out in paragraphs 10 and 30. The commission have made a clear distinction between routine matters which the auditor should try to resolve with officers during the course of or at the end of the audit and significant matters which are of sufficient importance for the auditor to bring to the attention of elected members. This involvement of elected members was not to he found in the 1973 code and the commission have
74
stressed the need for an auditor to prepare a management letter for such members and to seek a meeting with them to discuss and amplify the points made.
Other procedural matters spelled out in paragraphs 14 to 22 of the code are how the auditor should respond to questions from the public, how he should handle objections and how he should express an opinion on the accounts when the audit is completed. The procedure for dealing with matters justifying a report in the public interest is described in paragraphs 23 to 29. Paragraph 24 gives examples of the kind of matter which might call for a report including unnecessary expenditure, inefficient financial administration or poor value for money. In paragraph 26, however, the commission stresses that although an auditor should not be deterred from making a report because its subject matter is critical or unwelcome, it is not his function to question policy. The auditor is not there to question a council's policy objectives although he may seek to show how those objectives could be more sensibly achieved.
The remainder of the code—Section 2—deals with procedures to be observed by the auditor and draws heavily on work done by the accountancy bodies. In identifying the matters to which particularly close attention should be paid, the commission emphasises the particular responsibilities of the local authority auditor in relation to fraud and corruption.
Finally, I would like to touch upon the last part of the code which deals with the new value for money responsibility to which the Government attach great importance. This responsibility which was conferred on auditors by Section 15(1)(c) of the 1982 Act requires an auditor to satisfy himself:
"that the body whose accounts are being audited has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources".
Paragraph 40 of the Commission's code clearly defines the specific meaning to be given to these three terms and the Commission again emphasises in paragraph 43 that, although an auditor has a responsibility to look at the effects of policy and the arrangements by which policy decisions are reached, it is not,
"the auditor's function to question policy".
The Commission has thus made it clear that the role of auditor is quite distinct from that of policy maker and that the auditor cannot question any policy decision as long as that decision is made with the eyes open and in full possession of the facts. This, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a significant and proper distinction made in a well considered and practical code. I should therefore like to commend this code to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Code of Practice laid before the House on 11 th July be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House or those of your Lordships who remain to survive the festivities in another place, will thank the noble Lord for having introduced the Motion. He is always most disarming in the way that he introduces Motions, or even Bills, in the House. He appears so reasonable, often with an air of injured innocence, that it seems

75
almost sinful to register a note of dissent. It is therefore with great regret that I have to register considerable dissent this evening.
This Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales is a prescriptive document. Section 14 of the 1982 Act gives to this quango the right to prescribe. It gives it the right to issue directions. This is rather an unusual function to attribute to a quango of this type. There is no option. The noble Lord's legal advisers have advised him that this becomes entirely prescriptive, unlike so many other codes of practice which are much favoured by his party which believes in voluntary compliance. There are City codes, codes, for example, for journalists and codes for all kinds of other things which act as a guide but which are never given a prescriptive right sanctified by a regulation. Therefore we have to examine this a little more carefully than is perhaps convenient to the noble Lord.
I refer in particular to the first part of the certificate to be completed by every auditor, whether of the old district audit service or a member of an outside firm of accountants. I must declare an interest in that my firm has made application to be considered for appointment under the provisions of the Act. That application may be a little academic in view of what I have to say. In the certificate, which as far as I can see is not optional, the unqualified audit opinion has to state that the audit has been,
"completed … in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Code of Audit Practice.".
I ask my first question by reason of the very detail that is contained in the code. If it is impossible by reason of time and the sheer volume of work involved to cover every part of the code, is it open to the auditor to be able to qualify the certificate and in place of,
"in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Code of Audit Practice",
insert the words. "with due regard to the Code of Audit Practice"? As I shall show, for a firm of outside practising accountants—and, I venture to think, a survivor of the district auditing service—to carry out all the requirements of the code would produce an almost intolerable situation. Something would have to give. The cost of the audit would have to go up very considerably or it would be virtually impossible for any auditor to cross his heart and say that every detail in the code of audit practice had been carried out. That is the first question that I have to ask. The noble Lord will find that the attachment to which I have referred does not have numbered pages owing to the efficiency of the Audit Commission, so I cannot give him the page, but he knows perfectly well which it is. It is the page that immediately follows the text.
The code of audit practice covers a very wide field. I am afraid that the ordinary practice of auditing in the United Kingdom is not something that excites much parliamentary debate. It certainly does not evoke much public interest. By and large auditing is a boring and technical subject and emotions are not easily aroused by discussion of its merits or demerits. For my purpose suffice it to say that the responsibilities of an auditor of an ordinary limited company, whether public or an ordinary private company, are themselves pretty formidable.
76
In accordance with the professional code. which members of professional bodies adopt voluntarily, even though the Companies Acts do not spell out in detail the duties of auditors, the professional bodies have evolved by their statements of practice a code to which most accountants have adhered in interpreting the various Companies Acts. Their task is quite formidable. It includes vouching all the primary documentation to make sure the books and records reflect accurately each particular transaction recorded. They too have to be on their guard against fraud and corruption. Their responsibility is to ensure that the financial statement presented to the shareholders—comprising normally a balance sheet and profit and loss account—presents a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs. For further elucidation. these days most accounts are accompanied by copious notes which the auditor thinks will assist shareholders and the public to arrive at a fair and balanced appraisal of the company's affairs.
At no stage in the auditor's normal duty. as distinct from his separate function as a management consultant or whatever he may be, is he drawn into a position where he questions management decisions as such or the efficiency in arriving at them. Unless he is separately instructed, he does not delve into the inefficiencies or otherwise that obtain within the company or firm with which he is dealing. That is not so in the case of a local authority and certainly not within the code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales.
Perhaps I ought to make it clear that I and those for whom I speak welcome any moves in order that an auditor in his more extended capacity in local government can contribute to assist a local authority to become more efficient so that all wasteful expenditure can be avoided. That will indeed be very welcome, and I think that my own profession would take easily to it as a public duty. The sole point is really whether it should be spelt out in the particular form in which it has been spelt out here.
We can pass over the code of practice in so far as it relates to independence, or in so far as it deals with the responsibility of auditors to plan their work. These are quite commonplace matters. They are already enshrined in most of the professional bodies' own charters and in their own statements of practice. So, from the outside auditors' point of view, we really do not need to be lectured on the necessity for independence. We do not need to be lectured on the necessity to plan our work or on the conduct of an audit. These are all matters which are our professional responsibility: and indeed in another context I remember a Minister of the Crown sitting opposite lecturing me when the new Companies Bills were going through. I ventured to suggest that they ought to particularise a little more, and the Minister's reply to me and to the House on that occasion was, "We can leave it to the good sense of the professional bodies concerned". The Audit Commission has not left it to the good sense of the professions concerned: it has spelt it out in very considerable detail.
If I may. I should like to refer to some of the extra responsibilities that are laid upon the auditor in

77
relation to value for money. In addition to his normal duties, he has to pay particular attention to:
"Systems of planning, budgeting and controlling revenue and capital expenditure … Manpower management … Arrangements concerned with the proper management of all the assets of the authority … Arrangements designed to take advantage of economies of scale or skill, particularly in procurement of goods and services. Specific initiatives that have been taken to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of the wide variety of duties which have to be carried out by the authority."
I detect a slight political intonation there. A slight departure from the apolitical is that we have to have "specific initiatives" to cover:
"the wide variety of duties which have to be carried out by the local authority."
That seems to indicate a pre-formed view that the less services that are carried out by the authority, the more advantageous it is going to be. The question I have to ask the noble Lord is: why has there been no reference to specific initiatives to investigate the efficiency or otherwise of private contractors by whom work has been carried out?
It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the Audit Commision, or the auditors in charge, had an opportunity to review, for example, the accounts of the Borough of Wandsworth and the Borough of Merton, which have conducted a series of experiments in substituting private contractors to undertake work formerly carried out by direct labour. I am a little surprised that there is no specific reference to them, becuase over the past few weeks there have been in the press numerous examples which quite clearly have revealed that in some cases—I do not want to enlarge the number—the privatisation of services has cost the local authority a good deal more money than if things had been left as they were. The question I have to ask the noble Lord is whether under this code those specific instances will in fact be brought to light and to the attention of the public?
The other new responsibilities of the auditors, over and above those which auditors in commerce and industry normally carry out, are to ensure the,
"Proper codification of responsibilities, authority and accountability",
and to monitor,
"results against predetermined performance objectives and standards".
These are really quite formidable tasks, if they are to be done diligently, as I am quite sure the noble Lord would wish, and thoroughly.
The noble Lord made a point that within the code itself there is specific mention of political neutrality. It has been made quite clear that it is not the auditor's function to question policy. That is a very general term. But what about decisions which reflect policy, or the generality of the policy—matters which normally are the responsibility of local officials and the councillors to whom they are responsible?
Under the code, the new auditor has an additional responsibility. First of all he has to pay attention to,
"Whether policy objectives have been determined, and policy decisions taken.".
This is quite normal, and it establishes the legality of what is done. Then he has to pay attention,
"To what extent policy objectives are set, and decisions based, on sufficient, relevant and reliable financial and other data, and with the critical underlying assumptions made explicit".
78
The words are explicit, and what they mean is that it is the auditor who really has to decide whether local councillors reach decisions on the basis of adequate data. I should have thought that that was the responsibility of the councillors, or of the councils themselves, and indeed of their officials. The code then refers to,
"Whether there are satisfactory arrangements for considering alternative options, including the identification, selection and evaluation of certain options".
I can understand that advice being tendered to councils, at their request, upon calling in consultants on a particular aspect. But to make it a statutory duty it is in effect a statutory duty—because it is prescribed—to go into all these matters is surely to introduce something totally different into the whole sphere of local government. There are several other points on those lines.
Then we reach paragraph 43 (f), and it is here where I think the auditor's decision, or view, may begin to impinge upon policy. The auditor has to decide in his mind, and has to pay attention to,
"Whether the costs of alternative levels of service. … have been considered, and are reviewed as costs change".
So is it to be the auditor who is to go along to a committee of the council and to the council, or to the officials, and say, "Well, of course, if you reduced home help from four days a week to two days, you could save this amount of money"? Is it required that the auditors should seek to assess the services on that basis? Is it right that when establishing a particular level of service the council should feel that it might be subject to criticism because it has decided not to cut down on that level on the grounds that it sees the value of the service as being commensurate with the cost? I should like the noble Lord's clarification on that.
Moreover, as the noble Lord is well aware and as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is also well aware, the determination of cost effectiveness, or value for money, over a very wide spectrum of local authority activities, is almost impossible. Some of the home and domiciliary services, some of the education services and so on, would defy, with knowledge as it is at the present time, any concept of whether this or that level of education comprises value for money or does not. These are matters normally outside the audit sphere. This is not to say—I repeat it for the noble Lord—that those of us on this side do not wish to see local authority services carried out with the utmost efficiency and effectiveness. Surely, every citizen must want this. But when, lurking in the background, there are highly trained personnel, known to be querying practically every aspect of decision making and practically every detail, it is not a very encouraging atmosphere in which to carry out local authority work, apart from the time taken to do the work. Speaking as an auditor who likes to he very thorough in his work, I should have to spend many hours if I were to carry out this code. I pass to the additional responsibilities of the auditor in connection with the interest of the public. Unlike the auditor of a commercial company, the auditor under this code, as under the former Local Government Act, has to give information to objectors. If your Lordships have read the report of a debate in another place of 28th July, they will be aware that the honourable

79
Member for Leicester, South rose to his feet and asserted that he had made 17 representations to the district auditor on a particular subject. One can imagine the time that is spent by an auditor in dealing with an objector of that kind. I do not say that he should not do it. I am merely saying that, for a private auditing firm, the cost of getting out the papers, of interviewing this particular Member of Parliament, of making all the necessary inquiries and reporting back, and of holding a series of 17 interviews together with all the ancillary work, would have been very significant. Under the old district audit system, it would have been lost in the broad general cost of district audit work, which was remunerated on a salary basis.
I pass now to the reporting of the auditor. In addition to his normal opinion that he has to give, he is required to draw to the attention of the public any matters that he considers, after complying with the code and the inquiries, should be so drawn. The code does not say exactly how he is going to draw the public's attention to the matter. Presumably, he has to publish something or someone will publish it for him. He has to prepare it. I am not disputing the principle. But it will he very time-consuming, as indeed will be the additional compilation of a management letter to the authority itself drawing attention to the various defects, real or imagined, that he has unearthed. All this is not going to make for the saving of time.
I turn to the form of opinion which is put on the various attachments to the code itself, where the auditor has to state that, in his opinion, the statement of accounts presents fairly, in accordance with the accounting policy set out, the financial position of the authority. We in the auditing profession wonder why the term "presents fairly" was selected instead of, as is normal in the auditing profession, the "true and fair" certificate that is required in the case of limited companies, where we certify that the accounts present a true and fair view. What is wrong with the audit of a local authority being certified on the basis of true and fair? Indeed, if your Lordships recall the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, when it came to the preparation of accounts in respect of functional works being carried out by maintenance departments of the local authority. the accounts and the balance sheet are required to show a true and fair view.
Why depart from "true and fair view" in the certificate that is required? After all, the auditor in his normal practice uses both "true" and "fair". Why do we use these words? It is because we are enjoined by our own professional codes to present the truth as we see it. But we also have to present it fairly. It is possible to present the truth marshalled in such a way—put in certain type or without notation—that, even though it may be true, it is not fair. That is why my profession always adopts "true and fair".
Why, then, "presents fairly"? I think that it is possibly a consciousness of the knowledge that the accounts of local authorities, on their present structure, cannot present a true and fair view of the affairs of the local authority. There is one very good reason. The accounts of a local authority, unlike those of a limited company or commercial enterprise, are
80
not required to disclose to the public the assets that the authority owns. To certify the accounts of a local authority as true and fair would make it necessary for its asset position to be disclosed. This was brought out clearly in the Layfield Report, to which reference was made many times in the course of proceedings on the Bill. Is it precisely because of the terms of the opinion, as presenting fairly, that the Audit Commission considers itself absolved from making any observation on how the assets of a local authority are being used?
Will the noble Lord answer this question? There are a number of local authorities who, under directions from the Government and, indeed, by legislation, have been selling houses at half price. Someone has to determine the price of a house and therefore to value it in order to determine what half price is. It is therefore no case to say that a local authority cannot, or finds it impracticable to, evaluate its assets.
I want to ask whether the auditors will be instructed to reveal to the local electorates how much loss has been incurred of ratepayers' money, paid over many years, by reason of selling off properties at half price. Will it be their responsibility to disclose that?
I should like to ask the noble Lord a further question. It is well known that, where many local authority services have been privatized, the equipment of the local authority has been sold to the new private contractor. I should like to know whether the accounts produced, or the audit report thereon, under the audit code, will be obliged to inform the public what losses have been incurred in flogging off the equipment to the private contractors who have taken over the job.
It is no case to say that local authority accounts have always been drawn up in the way in which they are now and that therefore it is not in the public interest to change them. The Minister himself has taken power under Section 23 of the Act to prescribe the form of accounts that a local authority shall keep. Presumably he did not take that power frivolously. Why therefore will not the Minister direct the local authorities to prepare accounts in such a way that the electors can arrive at a true and fair view not only as to the way in which the income of the local authorities be used but also as to the way in which the capital resources of the local authority, accumulated over the years and costing the ratepayers considerable sums of money, are being used or are being disposed of? It is within the option of the Minister exactly to make those directions so that the accounts of a local authority can present a true and fair view.
I would much have preferred—and, indeed, my profession would have preferred—the Code of Local Government Audit Practice to lay down a series of guidelines which would have been readily understood by the profession and which would have been applied by them diligently and with due regard to value for money in the work that they do. It is true that my profession were consulted about this; but I am bound to say that the amendments made at a later stage by the Consultative Committee on Accountancy Bodies did not find any particular echo in the code with which we are now confronted. So it would be quite unfair to suggest that the code as now written has the full support of the Consultative Committee on Accountancy Bodies. That is no reason of course for the House to take a dim view of it. The accountancy profession is

81
a separate interest and the House—and, indeed, the Government—have to consider a wide diversity of interests outside those of the profession to which I have the honour to belong. But we think—and we are experienced practitioners in this—that it is very unwise to issue a directive (because that is what it is) of this kind which will be most difficult to carry out in practice if it is to be done, as I believe the noble Lord wishes it to be done, with a degree of thoroughness for which my profession is I hope held in high esteem. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of those provisions of the Act which enable this code to be revised. There is I believe a statutory provision after five years.
I have tried to address the noble Lord in as reasonable terms as it is possible for me to address him on this subject. He and I have had many conversations about this and I did give his private office notice that I was going to raise matters of this kind. I hope that the noble Lord will take note of what I have said, with a view to seeing whether even at this late stage it is possible to introduce amendments which, while not cutting across in any way his general drive which we entirely support, are far more practicable and in the end will become more cost effective.
My final question to the noble Lord is as follows. Will he take steps to ensure that the Audit Commission itself publishes its accounts with due regard to all the relevant factors that have been outlined in the code of practice so that we shall have an opportunity, following its first report, to be able to judge just whether we have had good value for money or not?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this Motion with his customary persuasiveness. It seemed to me that the noble Lord dwelt in his speech particularly on two sections; namely:
"Report in the Public Interest".
paragraphs 23 to 29; and
"Responsibility of Auditor in relation to value for money",
paragraphs 40 to 44.
I have only one question which I want to ask the noble Lord. Does not the requirement not to interfere with policy matters—and that is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to as "political neutrality"—put the auditor in an impossible position in relation to the guidelines under paragraphs 23 to 29 and 40 to 44?
It will not surprise the noble Lord if I tell him that that leads me inevitably back to the Islington affair which we debated before the Recess. Can the noble Lord tell me where the auditor would have stood in that case under this code? If the auditor has no status in such matters, would not the noble Lord agree that the case for legislation against that particular abuse of public funds remains very valid?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced and explained this code, although perhaps it is stretching the terms of that convention to put it quite like that when there have been only seven of us in the Chamber. Nevertheless, we are grateful. I think that local government is grateful, too.
82
It is true that there have been consultations with all the associations and, despite the strictures of the noble Lord opposite, which certainly came from a rather different source, I think it is true to say that the local government associations—not only the ADC but also the AMA—are content with the code.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, intimated—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, too, with this rather wider range of responsibility stretching into economy, efficiency and effectiveness—it will not be all that easy to distinguish between inquiries into those factors and inquiries into matters of policy. But we are grateful to the commission for having spelt out that distinction more clearly and we are also grateful to the noble Lord who has done so tonight as well. But again as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quite rightly said from his experience, all this extra work will cost a great deal more.
Local government wants to hear—and if we can hear it tonight from the noble Lord so much the better—what the extra cost of this will be—not in terms of pounds of course but in terms of the percentage increase in the cost of auditing. Local government is under a great deal of pressure both from their own ratepayers and from the Government to economise and we do not want to face extra costs, as undoubtedly we do here, without the House knowing what that extra amounts to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships who have contributed to this discussion and I certainly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his detailed observations. I thank him very much for having been in communication beforehand. It is always most helpful when that happens because it enables one to give a more detailed reply at the time.
I should like to try to deal with the various points. First, let me make it clear that to the best of my knowledge the accountancy profession generally has expressed itself to be very happy with the code. I say that based upon what I am told and following up the reservation which the noble Lord had earlier. There may very well be those in the profession who are less happy than others, but that is what I am told and it is obviously very important that it should be so.
Let me deal first with the specific question as to what I would say about the term, "and with due regard" about which the noble Lord spoke at some length. Section 14(1) requires the commission to prepare a code which will prescribe the way in which auditors are to carry out their functions. Therefore, the code must be followed. Discretion to pick and choose which parts to follow cannot be given, and it is not impossible for all of the code to be covered by auditors. I am not sure how far the noble Lord will think that is adequate. We are talking here about technical definitions, and I say of this, as I say of anything else to which I may refer in a moment, that if the noble Lord thinks that what I am saying is inadequate he knows that I will gladly follow it up if he raises it with me.
However, I want to comment on some of his other points. He referred to concern in a political connotation. He asked: why no reference to specific initiatives of private contractors? He mentioned Wandsworth and Merton, and he called them experiments. I wish he had not done that. I do not consider them to be experiments at all. I consider them to be

83
natural extensions of the process of finding out how you can provide a service at a lower cost; because the fact is that they are not costing more, they are costing less—very much less. Exactly how much less will come out when the auditor draws attention to it, as he presumably will if he thinks it is proper to do so. But he may in fact consider that, if there are political overtones, it is something that he would rather not do. However, that would he for the auditor to decide at the time.
The noble Lord said that if the authority had reduced its number of home-helps the auditors may care to suggest that that was a good or a bad thing. For myself, I should not have thought that the auditor would get anywhere near commenting upon whether that was good or bad. He may draw attention only to the cost to the whole of the authority, but he would certainly not make any observations as to the politics of it. Indeed, what comes out very clearly from what I have said about the code is the extreme extent to which the commission, whose own code it is, has gone to emphasise, to stress, its concern not in any way to be involved with policy decisions. I must say that when I read it I was very impressed by that. I think that when the noble Lord, who is very assiduous in the way in which he goes into these matters, looks very carefully at that he will not need to be as concerned as he is.
The noble Lord specifically asked what would be said about a situation where an authority had sold council houses and given a discount of, say, 50 per cent. He asked whether the auditor would then disclose how much had been lost. He would presumably put the same question as to whether the auditor had a duty to say how much profit had been made. I would suggest that unless he felt it had an impact of significance upon the accounts the auditor would not normally go into that, but it would be for him to decide and clearly I would not want to say.
Then the noble Lord asked whether the auditor would tell the public how much had been lost in "flogging off equipment". I might have referred to it slightly differently, but I know what the noble Lord means. I would apply the same response. He asked whether the auditor would have the duty to report to the public on how much profit had been made. I suspect that unless it was in itself significant in the context of the totality of the accounts, he probably would not; but again it would be a decision that he would have to make at the time in the light of the totality of the accounts he was auditing.
The noble Lord raised the point about "true and fair", which seemed to worry him a great deal. This is certainly a very technical point. I think that the commercial term "true and fair certificate" was not considered appropriate to local authority accounts, which are primarily designed to show the financial position rather than the state of affairs. The code, excluding the forms of opinion, has of course been agreed with the Audit Practices Committee of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. So certainly the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage in what is clearly a highly technical term. But, again, if he is not satisfied with what I say on that he will come back to me and he knows that I will pursue the point still further.
84
The noble Lord asked whether the Minister will direct local authorities on how to prepare accounts. No, certainly we would not do that; they would not take kindly to us doing that. Apart from everything else, what will result from the work of the commission—and it is what we have said all the time—is that there will be greater standardisation of accounts. It must be right that there should be. After all, authorities want to draw meaningful comparisons. They know very well if there are circumstances which explain the difference in cost for the provision of a service in their local situation. In my former incarnation, in order to have pointed out that it costs more or less for my authority to provide a service than others, I would never have had the slightest concern that comparisons were drawn. I am sure that if others have proper explanations it will not trouble them, either.
Indeed, I go further. Frankly, I would want to know that there are others who are doing something else. Perhaps I can learn from them. That is what local government is very much about, as the noble Lord himself knows. The noble Lord went on to say that, although this was passed in another place, there may yet be time for amendments. I should not have thought that that was likely. Indeed, tonight I am asking your Lordships to confirm this Motion and to approve this code of practice. I hope that, with all his reservations expressed, at least the noble Lord will feel able to support that. I feel sure he will.
My noble friend Lord Sandford was concerned about costs. Yes, in view of the extra work which they will be carrying out it is very likely that the fees will be more than was previously the case. But surely what is important here is that, if we believe that value-for-money auditing can achieve a great deal, it should very much more than repay an audit of this kind of information that it will produce. I am very enthusiastic about that aspect of it. The betterment that an authority can achieve by having what I believe the auditor will produce by way of value-for-money experience and knowledge will, I think, offset time and time again any additional fees that there may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked where the auditors would have stood in the Islington situation which he previously described. To the best of my knowledge I do not think that they would have been involved in that at all. In fact, the auditor would have been in a pretty impossible position in many ways. I agree that he may be in a difficult position in deciding whether expenditure is or is not lawful on some occasions, but, then, the auditors have had some experience of dealing with these matters. I think that the noble Lord's genuine complaint there is rather more against the state of the law than the state of the auditor who has to decide on the extent to which what is taking place is within the law. But that is for another occasion.
I am grateful to those who have spoken on this rather complex subject. Frankly, personally I am enthusiastic about what we have here; I am very impressed. I think that the Audit Commission has done an extremely fine job in drawing up this comprehensive document so quickly. As I have said, the local authority associations and the accountancy bodies have been fully involved in the preparation of the

85
code. I think that it provides a sound professional framework for the work of the auditor in safeguarding the public interest and in ensuring that ratepayers' money is well spent. With that, I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept the Motion. I certainly commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.58 p.m. to eight o'clock.]

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Consideration on Report resumed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 17, line 38, at end insert ("or the information is held for or acquired in the course of carrying out social work in relation to the data-subject")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments, with one or two more to Clause 29, is designed to reopenthe discussion we had in Committee on the difficult problem of exemptions from the subject's access rights to social work records. Here I want to make it clear that I am specifically avoiding the question of medical records. I understand, through discussion with my old friend and colleague Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd, who is chairman of the Patients' Association, that things are still under discussion with the DHSS and they are hoping to move things later on, perhaps in another place but not here tonight. Therefore, I am dealing this evening only with the problem of social work records.
The principles involved apply today really more to manual records than to those to which this Bill applies, which is computerised records; but increasingly we have to expect manual records to be kept in a form available and ready to be put on a computer. Anyway, I do not see how one can discuss the one without the other, so I make no apology for treating the problem rather generally.
With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 to Clause 21, and Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 to Clause 29 at the same time.
Amendment No. 18: Page 17, line 38, at end insert—
("; and
(c).if he cannot comply with that request without disclosing the identity of a person who has requested that his identity remain confidential where that person, not acting in a professional capacity, has given information to government departments, local authorities, voluntary organizations or other bodies carrying out social work in relation to the data subject;")
Amendment No. 19: Page 17, line 38, at end insert—
(";and
(d) if the request is for access to information held for, or acquired in the course of, carrying out social work in relation to the data subject, and the request is made by a parent whose
86
child is the data subject, and that data subject does not consent to such access by the parent; unless, in the event of a dispute as to a child's capacity, a court has ruled that the child does not have the capacity to consent; and where a court has so ruled, or where the lack of capacity is not in dispute, a parent shall have a right of access, save that one parent shall not be entitled to see confidential information about the other without, where practicable, obtaining the parent's consent.")
Amendment No. 20: Page 17, line 39, after ("(b)") insert ("(and (c)")
Amendment No. 35: Clause 29, page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 37: Page 22, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
This is not an easy subject. I raise it in a probing spirit and not a controversial one. Our proposal is to exclude social-work records from the exemptions contained in Clauses 21 and 29, with the exceptions in my two amendments, Nos. 18 and 19, which are added to Clause 21(4). These two amendments are proposed on the assumption that Clause 29(2), and preferably (3) as well, be deleted. These amendments are also to satisfy the most serious exceptions indicated in the DHSS circular to which I shall refer later.
As a result of these changes in the Bill—if they are accepted—clients of social work would have a general right to access to anything filed about them, with the two special exceptions in my two amendments referred to. It would not be necessary therefore for the Secretary of State to have special powers to override this right—the special powers which are given to him in Clause 29. As to whether a refusal to respond to a request for information was or was not covered by one of the exceptions, the Minister himself has suggested that a right of appeal should exist, so the intervention of the Secretary of State would not be needed.
I hope that this is a clear statement of what we are trying to do. In a sense we are doing it the other way round from the Bill. We are giving the clients of social work reports a total right to information about what is said about them with the two exceptions which I have listed and which we shall discuss. The right response of anybody who does not entirely agree with us in my opinion would be to add further exceptions, but not to go back to the principles of the Bill as they stand.
I hope, as I have said, that this is a clear statement of what we are trying to do. Whether our series of amendments does it effectively is something on which the Government will doubtless have a good deal to say. I readily concede that there may be technical faults in our drafting, but the Government have brilliant draftsmen to draw on if they agree that our way is better than the much looser method in the Bill. I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the proposed amendment to Clause 21(4)(d) which deals with the issue of social work files and third party information. It is quite normal for files of this sort to contain such information, and to exclude subject access on this ground would unjustifiably deny social work clients access to the reasons for many of the significant decisions made about them.
I should like to quote here, without mentioning names, the procedures in one large county social services department. This operates on a country-wide system with a central computer jointly available to the social services department, the health authority, and the police. Clients have no access to the information

87
on file, and staff are discouraged from mentioning the existence of files. Joint use of the computer must mean that the files are available to the police. This is only one anonymous example but it is a well-documented one, and one can assume that there are similar systems elsewhere in operation.
It seems to me clear that my amendment that we discussed last, No. 16, enforcing data protection principle No. 7, is really most necessary. The least we need is that any client can ask (a) whether there is a file on his or her case; and, (b), what is in it. Under my amendments, (a) could in no circumstances be refused; and (b) could be refused only if it could be shown that the material was covered by (4)(c) and (4)(d), which are my two amendments in question.
I should like to say a word now about the reasons for this proposed change. My noble friend raised the same general point in rather a different way in Committee in our discussions on Clause 29. Incidentally, there were no amendments to Clause 21 in Committee. The Minister, during the discussions, said:
"The Government are convinced that there are difficult issues here that should only be resolved after the fullest consultation." [Official Report, 21/7/83; col. 1305.]
There has been discussion—perhaps a little hurried—and the DHSS circular LAC(83)(14) of 24th August is the result. This recognises the major change in the thinking of social work organisers and social workers about the correct attitude to clients, but it does not go far enough for most of the people concerned.
In Committee, I referred to the views of the family service units, with which I had previously been connected, and my noble friend mentioned the British Association of Social Workers and the Children's Legal Centre. These three organisations and most others working in the same field, including the National Council for One Parent Families, MIND and the National Association of Young People in Care, are disappointed at the circular's failure to make a clean break. Their views amount to the belief that social work records should be kept in such a way that they are confined to facts rather than opinions. The British Association of Social Workers' document on this subject goes so far as to say:
"A records system should reflect the fact that the perception, interpretation and recording of complex human interaction is always biased by the personal make up of the recorder and the social context in which the records system is created and used and therefore should he designed in a way which minimises these effects".
It goes on:
"It should reflect the fact that recording is a residual activity which will be done when no more important activity is required".
It goes on to say:
"Restricted information on an individual, collective or family file should be kept separately with a note being made on the file that information exists which is restricted and its whereabouts.".
These extracts show how completely the attitude of the social worker has changed in the last 10 years or so. In my day confidentiality was a fundamental factor in the notes which workers exchanged with one another about their clients. The reaction against this is healthy and ultimately it may well be more disturbing to a client to be told that, for whatever reason, he or she cannot see what is in his or her file than to see the
88
contents of the file, whatever it may contain. The same point was made earlier this evening.
It has taken me a good deal of thought to come round to this view as my past experience has been so different. But most social workers are young and this House, not notable for its youthfulness, should try to legislate for them and their clients and not for their grandfathers.
There are long and weighty arguments which I could have used, but we are at Report stage and must be concise. The noble Lord the Minister knows the arguments and has doubtless seen the documents on which they are based. He is aware of the fundamental change in attitude to clients which is taking place. I hope I have said enough to give a full and frank airing to these views, which are very strongly held by social work clients and their representatives and by a large section of the new generation of social workers. I beg to move.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as my noble friend has reminded us, we had a discussion on some of these difficult problems when we covered the order-making powers in Clause 29 at the previous stage. The Minister then said that those provisions had been included to allow full consultation to be undertaken before, with a view to deciding what restrictions on the right of subject access there should be, if any, in relation to medical and social records. One can appreciate that, when the Bill first saw the light of day, it would have been impossible to define the limits on subject access. Therefore, as originally drafted, it was necessary to give the Secretary of State an unfettered discretion to restrict that right where personal data were held for carrying out social work in relation to the data subject, if the Secretary of State considered that otherwise the carrying out of that work was likely to be prejudiced.
I should remind your Lordships that it was only a week before the previous discussion that we received the Government's consultation documents. I thought it was a little unfair of the Minister to complain at that time that he was given only 55 hours' notice of the amendments that we then tabled, when we had read the consultation documents, taken advice on them, drafted our amendments and tabled them between a week and three days before the debate took place. I do not think that it was bad going to have given a preliminary airing to the subject after only four days' study of the documents.
My noble friend and I have now had the opportunity of further discussion with the various organisations that he mentioned. We concluded that, out of all the contra-indications to disclosure which were mentioned in the two discussion papers, the protection of sources of information and the protection of children from their parents, which are points (c) and (e) in Paper I, are valid.
We thought it was essential to social work that a person should be able to give information without risking disclosure of his or her identity. The obvious example is that of a neighbour who sees or hears evidence of an assault on a child living next door. That neighbour should be able to give the facts to a social worker knowing that it would not lead to unpleasant

89
confrontation with the alleged assailant. That was one of the paragraphs dealt with by my noble friend's amendment. We were convinced also by the argument in Paper I that the interests of parents and children may not always coincide. We think that that should be recognised explicitly in the Bill.
Paper II says that children's rights are the same as those of adults, but, if the child is incapable of exercising the right by reason of his or her age, the parent or guardian may exercise the right of subject access on behalf of the child. Our amendment would stop that parent from accessing records unless the child consents or a court has ruled that the child does not have the capacity to consent.
In the opposite direction, we were not satisfied that the damage to reputations or relationships which might follow disclosure of information on the data subject's file to third parties justified the withholding of the entire record under Clause 21(3)(b). We have dealt with that in the second of our amendments to that clause. We appreciate that opinions on this matter vary considerably among professionals in client organisations and that some people maintain that social workers may restructure their records in order to exclude froma particular individual's file information which may be highly relevant about other family members or associates. The obvious way of dealing with that problem would be to specify a field in the data subject's record in which the file's references to other relevant individuals would be stored.
It was interesting to note that, on the form used by the county council to which my noble friend referred for recording the information then to be fed into the computer, the only information asked for on other members of the household was the name, date of birth, sex and marital status. That was factual information which would be known to the client himself or herself. If there was relevant information on other members of the household which the social worker needed to access in full consideration of a particular client's case, the social worker would need to look into more than one record. I understand that they sometimes keep whole families on one record when they are held in manual form: but it is an incidental result of computerisation that that will become more difficult. So I think that, because social workers will need to reconsider very carefully the form in which their records are kept, it may not be so difficult as was presented to us by some of our advisers to separate out the individual records of members of families one from another.
I must say that we were agreeably surprised by the tone of the DHSS consultation papers, and we welcome also the recognition in the Government's circular No. LAC 83/14, to which my noble friends have referred. Nowadays, the emphasis has shifted towards the right of subjects to know what is reported and away from the right of officials to say anything that they please about individuals under the cloak of a blanket of complete secrecy. I particularly welcome the forthright statement in Paragraph 4:
"The Secretary of State believes that the need to refuse requests from clients to know what is said about them in case records will arise only exceptionally."
That shift needs to be visible in the Bill itself instead of being left to show itself in other orders, and we hope
90
very much that the Minister will accept these amendments.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with this complex series of amendments we return to the difficult question of the extent to which the right of subject access should apply to social work records. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, both for his notice and for his patient exposition of the intention of these amendments, because I have found them a little difficult to follow. Now let me recap on their effect. Clause 29(2) provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power to exempt from the right of subject access or to modify that right in relation to social work records. As I explained during Committee stage, we have included this power because, while there is general agreement that some special provision will be needed concerning subject access to such records, the precise nature of that provision must depend upon the views of the practitioners in that field. That is why the Department of Health and Social Security issued a consultative document on the content of the order under Clause 29(2), ensuring that the relevant professions and other interested parties had a full opportunity to express their views. Responses to their document, I gather, are still arriving. As I have said earlier, I think that about two-thirds have arrived, and we await others. The department has yet to digest fully the representations that it has received.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, puts before us a proposition to consider that we should do away with the order-making power in Clause 29(2), and, in the process, he also does away with subsection (3), although that applies equally to the order-making power under Clause 29(1) concerning health records, which ought perhaps to be retained. However, I let that go.
In its stead, these amendments would provide two new paragraphs in Clause 21(4) setting out two circumstances in which subject access to social work records may be refused. I gather that what the noble Lord fears is that the Government have it in mind to allow more grounds for refusing subject access to social work data than he wishes to see. Certainly the Government in the consultative document on the Clause 29(2) order, have set out certain possible ideas which allow for further grounds for refusing access than would be permitted under the noble Lord's amendments. Equally, in a recent circular referring to the general issue of access to records, manual as well as computerised, the DHSS, after consultation, has indicated that it sees those further grounds as being justified. It suggested, for example, that access might be limited in certain cases to protect the subject or to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive judgments, or to prevent access to information about other individuals covered by the same record.
In a profoundly interesting speech, the noble Lord argued that certain of the professional bodies concerned believed that it would be unduly restrictive to withhold access to that extent; and he sides with those bodies. I do not for a moment underestimate the force of the views of the bodies cited by the noble Lord, but I understand that expert opinion is not all on one side and that various other organisations, commenting

91
on the question of access to records generally, felt that the DHSS proposals struck broadly the right balance. These included the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Residential Care Association and the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations.
Therefore, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that what this demonstrates is the need to allow adequate time—and I am sorry that noble Lords feel that such time ought already to have been adequate; but, frankly, it has not been so—for the fullest consideration of these difficult issues and of the differing and sometimes conflicting views being expressed. It would be wrong to pre-empt all further consideration by setting the exemptions in tablets of stone now. I do not think that that is what the noble Lord is proposing. I think he is proposing that we should at least adopt an attitude now which forecloses answers other than those which he himself favours.
I do not think that I or the Secretary of State, or the Department of Health and Social Security and its Ministers, would wish to foreclose any of the options remaining open until they had considered all the views expressed, both those which have come to hand and those which are awaited. I think that there is nothing dilatory or pusillanimous about that: I think it is a matter of proper prudence. If we ought to have had the information earlier, well, I regret it; but since we do not have it we are in the position of having to await it.
The issuing of the circular on the general question of access to social work records does not mean that the Government have effectively taken decisions on the exemptions to be granted from subject access to computerised records, although I accept that a sensible starting point would be the presumption that the same arrangements should be adopted for both types of record. The Bill creates a different situation raising new issues by conferring a legal right of access; and different provisions may, therefore, be necessary. No final decisions have yet been taken with regard to the contents of the Clause 29(2) order.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also contributed a most interesting dilation on what I can best describe as the cascade of levels of confidentiality envisaged by him and his noble friends. Those I shall refer to my colleagues with great interest. But I think I made clear that there are broad reasons why the Government think it appropriate to deal with the subject access to social work records as the Bill proposes, thus not closing any doors. There are, as the noble Lord suggested, a number of drafting defects. I do not think that that affects my judgment at all. I am not addressing myself to them. I would hope that what I have said will persuade the House that the Bill as cast adopts the proper approach and that the noble Lord would agree that I have justified what we now propose.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there is not the slightest doubt that this is a most difficult part of our consideration. Quite a different approach has to be made, as has been pointed out, to medical records from the considerations which apply to social workers' records. Almost the only consideration in regard to medical records is whether or not it is for the good of the patient to know what is upon them. But when we get
92
to the question of social records, very different considerations apply. On one side, are you limiting the power of the social worker to do good by limiting the things that he records? On the other side, are you stopping someone from pointing out that there is a grave error?—and grave errors have administratively occurred in many directions affecting mental health and things of that kind. Are you stopping him or her from putting right what is wrongly on a record by withholding the information from the client of the social worker?
I feel, and my friends feel with me—although this is by no means something which political parties can deal with on the basis of a political decision because it is very much a human matter on which one can hold very different views without any consideration of party loyalty—as I tried to express before, that to leave a matter of this kind to the haphazard future that it might have by way of statutory instruments or orders-in-council is to divest Parliament of a heavy responsibility which Parliament ought not to shift in this way.
I repeat—and I hope the noble Lord the Minister will not think me a nag for doing it—that with a Bill which appears for the second time before Parliament, with all the intervening space that has occurred as a result of the Bill's having died in the last Session, not to have accumulated all the relevant information from the bodies concerned and to have assimilated that information and come forward with a judgment so that this House and another place might debate it is, if I may say so, quite irresponsible. I am left with the suspicion that the reason nobody has tried to expedite this is because it is a very difficult decision that the Government would have to make in affording guidance. One does not make a decision any easier by leaving it to an order-in-council with, as I say, the procedure in regard even to an affirmative resolution, one that we well know.
I leave the Dispatch Box with complete unhappiness in the sense that there is no proper guidance upon this matter. I am so grateful, as are my noble friends, to the mover of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for having brought out these principles perfectly fairly and properly and for saying that they are doing it for the purpose of achieving a discussion of these matters which is so vital. If the Government have to leave it by opposing this amendment and saying, "Leave it until the consultation is over and it may be that will be a date after the other place has considered this matter and this has become an Act of Parliament", I repeat that this is a very unhappy state of affairs. It is one which, if I may say so—and I am not trying to use dramatic language—has some flavour of cowardice about it in front of what is a very, very vital matter for so many social workers and so many clients of social workers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not the custom for Ministers to join in twice on other people's amendments, but I feel I must respond to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just contributed. I am not concerned to defend the Government's record as to the speed with which they have sought advice because I do not think that is

93
germane to our debate; but I do say it is necessary to have the advice in order to make the right decision. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that the decision should not be remitted by Parliament to another body. If that is right, then the proper answer to the argument is simply to detain or delay legislation until the advice is to hand. That was an alternative which presented itself to us when we first went for the advice. Because we saw that we could not get sufficient advice in time for legislation in the timetable, we decided to go for the order-making power. I think that was the right decision.
The noble Lord—and I am sure he will repent of this—suggested that this was a cowardly decision because the decision was going to be a difficult one to make. The degree of difficulty will depend very largely on the balance that is finally presented in the different bodies of advice given to the Government. If they are equally balanced it will be a difficult decision; if they are very preponderantly on one side it will be a great deal easier. I do not think, with respect, that the noble Lord advances his cause by suggesting that the Government are influenced by cowardice in this business. I do not intend to make an issue of it but I do think it would he imprudent to proceed ahead of the knowledge that we genuinely need to come to the right and, as it may prove, difficult conclusion. The way to do that is not to legislate now in one sense and to exclude the possibility of the other. The Government's mind is not made up: it will remain open.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Government's mind is not made up. That takes us a long way because this is a changing situation in the thought of the people concerned. I have changed my mind completely in the past year as a result of talking to the people who are concerned. I am very surprised at having been able to do so; but I am quite clear that this is right and I hope the Government will follow.
I rely on my noble friend, if I may so call him, Lord Mishcon, to do the "rough stuff" and so I will not say any more—just as when we want to attack the Labour Party we rely entirely on the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. But I think I must say that the Second Reading of the original Bill was on the 20th January. I think something needs an explanation, although I do not ask for one tonight, because the consultative paper was sent out only in July. That is not a very prompt response to a new situation. My complaint is that this is what we get every time both from the Home Office and the DHSS. We get a very slow response to a new situation. This is a new situation: it is new to me and to my friends and to the noble Lord who is replying. It is new to all of my generation and a couple younger as well.
We used to regard confidentiality as the one thing you had to insist on, and the workers now do not like it. They are against it, I think to a man really. Some of the organisers of social work are on the other side; but there is hardly a single social worker in the field, so far as I can make out, who does not believe that access to what is recorded about you, not only in a computer but also manually—though that does not concern this Bill—should be available to you.
I do not want to go into all this again because we
94
have been through it before. I should like to say just one thing, and I refer to Clause 29(3). I shall not speak to it when we come to that amendment because we shall withdraw it but Clause 29(3) is absolutely extraordinary. It says:
"An order under this section may make different provision in relation to data consisting of information of different descriptions."
Could I have a short essay with a dozen examples of what that means? It seems to me almost entirely meaningless. I think that to give Secretaries of State the right to do something that is meaningless is going too far. So I say that when we come to this clause I shall not speak on it but I think we might take a verbal vote anyway, because it is really such nonsense.
Having said that, I said originally that this was a probing amendment. I wanted to get this matter discussed. It has been discussed and the people concerned on both sides will read what we have said. It will not end there. I think it has been useful and I appreciate the trouble that the noble Lord has taken in replying to us. On that note of sweet accord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
8.40 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Exercise of rights by data subject not to be condition of employment.

.—(1) It shall not be a condition of employment or of a contract for service or an offer of employment or of a contract for service or of the provision of goods or services that a data subject exercise his rights under Part III or furnishes to any person a copy of the file obtained in accordance with the provisions of Part III; and any person who attempts to impose such a condition shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 an employee shall be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason or principal reason for his dismissal is that he has refused to exercise his rights as a data subject under Part III of this Act and/or that he has refused to furnish to his employer or any other person a copy of the file relating to him obtained in accordance with the provisions of Part III of this Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on the face of it, this would seem to be a somewhat academic matter, but it is not at all so. It is a provision regarding the possibility—which in the United States has proved to be more than that; namely, indeed, the probability—in respect of a certain type of employer, that he will seek to compel the employee to exercise his right as a data subject to be informed of what is on the record about him and then to communicate that information to his employer. This would require the employee to find out what there may be, or is, about him in some form of data processing and then to let the employer have that information. The employer may indeed ask that every six months he should be informed of what there is on whatever data process may be relevant about him; for example, a social security report. The employee would then be required to make that available to his employer and so perhaps be compelled to incriminate himself on something that may be erroneous, or be required to rectify what is erroneous and embark upon a wholly complex and possibly expensive procedure. Once a system of access if formalised, we fear that the practice may develop of some employers demanding some form of certificate

95
of good conduct from prospective or even current employees.
Curiously enough this matter arose in Washington, D.C. and was the subject of a report to a conference held in October, 1982, in the Inner Temple on computers and the law at which Commander Williams, the head of the National Identification Bureau, spoke. He indicated that this practice was, in fact, being used in Washington, D.C. to the intense anger, embarrassment and difficulty of the employees concerned. We think that any such practice would be intolerable. To be accurate, the relevant document would require regular up-dating, considerable expense for the employee and of course a heavy administrative burden on the staff of the index involved.
This experience in Washington, D.C. has proved to be not an idle and purely academic risk; and it is something which, now that this Bill is going through Parliament, will in due course become law. We think it right that the exercise of rights by a data subject ought not to be a condition of employment and, indeed, that any person attempting to impose such a condition on his employees should be guilty of an offence, as subsection (1) indicates. It would be a monstrous, as the French say, abus de pouvoir on the side of the employer and we feel that it ought to be legislated against, even as a possibility, at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has explained the concern which lies behind this amendment and it is a concern which I fully understand. It is, I think I am right in saying, the first time that it has been raised in the context of this Bill and I am afraid that we cannot do it the justice which we could have done it had he raised it at Committee stage; but I shall do my best. The noble and learned Lord is anxious lest the right of subject access should prove in some circumstances to be a hindrance rather than a help to data subjects; in particular, in the field of employment. This is a possibility which had not escaped us and we have, in fact, considered whether something might be done to avoid the sort of abuse which the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
There are however a number of difficulties. In the first place, it is not easy to see why a prospective employer should necessarily be prohibited in all circumstances from asking a job applicant for written confirmation—which is accessible by exercising the right of subject access—of certain details given by the applicant in his application form. After all, as things stand at present, if the applicant says that he has certain qualifications, nobody I think would object if the employer were to ask to see written evidence of them in the form of a certificate, an O-level or whatever. Similarly, there would I think be no objections to the manager of a road haulage firm asking prospective employees to produce a valid driving licence, which, unlike the O-level certificate, may reveal evidence of convictions for motoring offences. What then is the difference between these cases and others where we might say that a requirement to produce information by exercising subject access rights, was improper or unfair? I suspect that the answer lies in the circumstances of the individual case
96
and has nothing to do with the manner in which the information is obtained. In other words, much depends upon the type of information which is being sought and the relevance of that information in the particular circumstances. But the noble and learned Lord's amendment does not recognise such considerations and imposes an absolute ban on employers requiring information to be obtained for them by the data subject under Clause 21.
We are here very much in the field of employment practice, rather than data protection. We accept, after all, that an employer should be able to ask for references from an employee and that he may ask referees for as much detailed, personal information about the employee as he considers necessary and relevant. If this is not an unfair employment practice, I wonder whether it is right to say that it is unfair to ask the subject himself to provide the information. In either case, the subject may refuse to comply with the request and may as a result fail to get the job. But I am not sure why the employer who has asked directly for the information should be penalised while the one who has asked for the same information from a referee should not. It seems to me that if there is a problem here—and there may indeed well be—it is one which needs to be looked at in the context of employment practice generally and not simply against the background of data protection.
Moreover, it is I think worth pointing out that a provision of the sort proposed by the noble and learned Lord would be likely to give rise to a number of difficulties of enforcement. It is, after all, unlikely that an employer would put in writing a request to see a copy of data obtained by the subject under Clause 21 if he knew that it would be an offence to do so. Equally, successful applicants would have no reason to go to law. Any prosecution therefore would resolve itself into a dispute between a prospective employer and a disappointed applicant and I can foresee that there might be considerable difficulties in attempting to distinguish between genuine allegations and malicious ones prompted by a failure to get the job in question for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I have tried to explain the general range of difficult questions of both principle and practice raised by this amendment, which touches on very important ground. I do not suggest that it does not address an area which is well worth consideration. But I do suggest that it appears to be aimed at removing from prospective employers a right which at present they exercise without question—in most cases at least—and that it may present fairly considerable difficulties in enforcement. These are matters which would have to be teased out with some care before we concluded them in one one way or another. I certainly could not advise your Lordships to accept them in our present state of knowledge; and Report stage, I regret, does not offer a sufficient means of improving the amendment in this House. I am sorry that I cannot be more friendly to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I recognise that there is a matter of substance here, but I do not think that we can cope with it at this stage.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I did not quite understand the noble Lord's argument. As I see it, the amendment states that it shall not be a condition

97
of employment—not that the employer should be forbidden to ask the man to do it, but that it shall not be a condition of employment and any person who attempts to impose such a condition shall be guilty of an offence. The entire argument of the noble Lord seemed to me to be that there was no harm in the employer asking the man to do it. Of course there is not. The point is that he cannot enforce it. I do not know whether I have misunderstood both sides, but it seems to me that the amendment is perfectly clear and that the noble Lord's answeris entirely irrelevant to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has indicated that there is a possibility of further consideration, even if for another place rather than in this House. That is a small step forward and I am grateful to him for it. When the Government give the matter further consideration, may I ask them to consider two things which were lacking from the noble Lord's statement?
First, the noble Lord gave a number of examples, which were quite incontrovertible, where an employer would have to seek confirmation of what was being claimed in terms of academic degrees, or a valid driving licence, or whatever it might be. Unless I misunderstand the amendment, this is not what either the amendment or the Bill are about. We are talking about data subjects. This is itself confidential and will be dealt with in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. It may be that this amendment needs to be revised in order to make that absolutely clear, but information which is obtained under conditions of confidentiality and which, under the provisions of the Bill, is made available to the data subject is quite different in nature from that which is publicly available, such as a driving licence or an academic record. When the Government look at this matter again, they ought to make that distinction and consider a future amendment which takes into account that distinction.
The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made is that this is an issue of employment practice rather than of data protection. That is true of a large number of the subjects of this Bill. The Bill is about the way in which data processing impinges on all sorts of aspects of our lives, but the fact of the matter is that the availability of data processing and the possibility of abuse of data processed information affects employment practice as well as affecting various judicial practices and various social practices and other aspects of our life. It is no criticism of the attempt to include a provision of this kind in this legislation to say that this is a matter of employment practice. In so far as employment practice is changed by the availability of mechanically processed data, then it should be a part of the Bill.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, would it be helpful to reconsider the wording of the amendment so as to deal rather less ambiguously with the distinction between employment and prospective employment? It seemed to me, listening to the debate which has taken place, that you cannot impose conditions on a prospective employee because you have no sanctions on him. On the other hand, once he has become an employee, an inquest into his past ought surely to be brought to a close—a sort of res judicata. If the
98
wording could be redrafted so as to make it a little clearer that there is much more latitude in considering prospective employment than in imposing conditions on people who have been employed, I believe that it might be a way past the difficulty where the noble Lord. Lord Elton, wants to be helpful but cannot quite see how at this moment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl very often helps the House and I believe that he may have helped the House on this occasion, but I should like to add one very short point. In this Bill we are for the very first time affording rights to data subjects and casting duties upon data users. It would be an entirely wrong way of adapting the principles of this Bill if what we were doing was to give somebody outside both classes of data subject and data users rights which they never had before this Bill was passed. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has said, we are not dealing with examples that the noble Lord the Minister gave of producing a driving licence, and so forth. That is there to be produced and is a perfectly proper requirement, and the driving licence will have endorsements upon it if they are there to be seen. It has got nothing to do with producing a certificate relating to the award of a diploma or degree. But what it does do for the very first time, if we are not careful, is that it enables an employer to say, whether by way of an offer of employment or the continuance of employment, that he wants to be sure that that person has rights under the Bill, that he wants to enforce those rights so far as that person is concerned, and that it is a condition of the offer of employment and of the continuance of employment that he applies under Part III of the Bill and produces it. This must be wrong.
However, the noble Lord the Minister has said—and it is a perfectly fair comment—that this point was not raised at the Committee stage. I say in all frankness that it was brought to the attention of my noble and learned friend and myself between Committee and Report stage, but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will say at Third Reading what the Government's attitude is to this point and how far he can help, because I believe it is something which this House ought to attend to. We should not just leave it to another place.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, so many of your Lordships have trailed your coats that perhaps you will allow me to tread briefly upon them. I think the tone and content of the speeches has absolutely borne out my point that it is a Committee stage proceeding that we need. I shall deal briefly with the points which have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that the amendment was addressed only to those who sought to make it a condition of employment that information should be provided, but as soon as they seek not to appoint someone because they have not provided this information they will be imposing a condition. Therefore the process would seem to me inevitably to follow. If an employer wishes to know if somebody has a criminal record, he is entitled to ask; but as soon as he asks, either the answer is no good to him, if the applicant tells him to go and get lost, or the

99
applicant is not appointed and the suspicion is that he is not appointed because he has not provided the information. I hope the noble Lord will not return to that charge. I merely wish to illustrate the difficulties that I see which could not be dealt with at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invites me to come to a conclusion by Third Reading, which is only a few days off. I cannot undertake that, but what I can undertake is to take the various items of concern expressed by noble Lords, principally by the noble and learned Lord himself but also by those who spoke, to my honourable and right honourable friends so that they may be apprised of them before the Bill reaches another place. With that, it would be an abuse of the procedures if I were to reply to the other detailed points which were made because they can be made better in Committee elsewhere.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I appreciate that this comes to the House for the first time, but the fact is that it comes from the context that the problems we have raised have arisen in actuality in not entirely dissimilar conditions of employment. As we are creating a wholly new scene which can make its impact on employment relationships, this is a matter which ought to be clarified. I quite see the difficulty of pressing the view that there should be a decision between now and Third Reading. As the noble Lord has undertaken to draw this problem, in all its seriousness and all its actuality, to the attention of his Ministerial colleagues, this will come as a message (and I do not mention this as a threat) to my noble friends and to our honourable friends in another place, and even if nothing further can be said by the Government at Third Reading I do not promise there will not be some observations about it then. In all the circumstances, and stressing the importance of this safeguarding measure preventing abuse by the unscrupulous, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 22:
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 with Amendment No. 4. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wants to make an observation on Amendment No. 22, and I therefore move only Amendment No. 22.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is very courteous. I did have an opportuiity to give him very short notice of the point I am about to raise. This amendment deals with a very important matter; that is, the compensation that can be awarded to a data subject by reason of an inaccurate record. The amendment says:
"In the case of data which accurately record information received…by the data user from the data subject or a third party, subsection (1)"—
that is the one that gives the right to compensation—
"does not apply if the following requirements have been complied with."
There are certain requirements which I need not read, but they are important requirements which, upon
100
being fulfilled, deny the right of the data subject to his compensation.
The question I put to the noble Lord is this. The amendment has got no date in it by which the data user can exempt himself from this liability by complying with these requirements. For example, the inaccuracy may be there for a very substantial period of time, and the minute before the matter comes before the court for the claim to compensation information may reach both the court and the data subject that these conditions have now been complied with. In the meantime, the poor data subject has suffered all the wrong by reason of the inaccurate information being there, and only at the last minute has the matter been put right. There is nothing here about the fact that it would have to be done immediately, within a reasonable time or by a given date. My query is: when have the requirements to be complied with in order to deny the data subject the right to compensation?
I say, frankly,that this is how I read the amendment. It may be that I have missed something, and the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual graciousness, will point out the error of my ways or the omission of which I am guilty. But if it happens to be a point that has some substance I believe your Lordships would want to know about it, and that is why I have raised it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me warning. The date that he is looking for is the date in Clause 22(1)—the date on which the subject suffers damage by reason of the inaccuracy of the data. That inaccuracy must exist at the time the damage is caused, and subsection (2) cannot on any reasonable construction nullify that by allowing the user to remedy the inaccuracy after the damage has been caused and so avoid liability. So the idea of somebody coming up to him on the steps of the court and saying, "Sorry, old chap, but I put this right last night", does not arise.
However, I have had but little time to take advice. I will take further advice and will make myself 110 per cent. sure that this is the case. If it is not, I undertake to let the noble Lord know and to take the appropriate steps.
Lord Mishcon: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.8 p.m.
Clause 23 [Compensation for loss or unauthorised disclosure]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27:
Page 19, line 19, after ("data") insert (", or access having been obtained to the data,").
line 23, leave out from second ("to") to second ("in") in line 24 and insert (", or access by, any person falling within a description specified pursuant to second 4(3)(d) above").
line 29, leave out ("or disclosure") and insert (", disclosure or access").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will take with Amendment No. 25 the other two amendments to Clause 23, Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. Clause 23 provides the data subject with a right to compensation if he suffers damage as a result of a data user's failure to take adequate security precautions. It thus provides a cause of action where there is damage caused by a breach of the eighth data protection principle. The failure in security may result in the loss, the unauthorised or accidental destruction or the disclosure of data without the authority of the data user; and, as cast, Clause 23 deals with these situations.
But these are all cases of deliberate disclosure. There is no provision in the clause as drafted for negligent disclosure, which may, after all, be equally improper and equally damaging to the data subject concerned. Inadequate security may lead to unauthorised persons gaining access to personal data. In some cases unauthorised disclosure will also be involved, but we have come to realise that this will not invariably be the case. A person may, for example, secretly tap in to a user system without there being any positive disclosure of data to him;or because of inadequate physical security that person may be able to gain direct access to the equipment and operate it illicitly himself. Clearly, if a data subject is harmed as a result of poor security allowing someone to gain unauthorised access to data held about him in these ways, it is right that Clause 23 should allow the subject to obtain compensation. That had always been our intention, but Clause 23 did not perhaps fully give effect to it.
These amendments, therefore, insert into Clause 23 the appropriate references to unauthorised access, thereby ensuring that there is no barrier to the subject claiming compensation in the kind of case I have described. I think this is an aim with which your Lordships will sympathise. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 to 27.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Rectification and erasure]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 28:
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is another to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): As an amendment to this amendment we have Amendment No. 29.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am sorry my Lords, but have we passed by Clause 28? I was hoping to make a comment on it.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 28 has been proposed and we now come to Amendment No. 29 as an amendment to No. 28.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was endeavouring to speak on Amendment No. 28.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: On new Clause 28, my Lords?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on new Clause 24, as in Amendment No. 28, if the House will bear with me.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether by any chance we are at cross-purposes. Amendment No. 28 is one to which I spoke with Amendment No. 4. The amendment to new Clause 24 is in Amendment No. 29. The noble Lord is addressing himself to the amendment we debated earlier? I see that he is.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is only a short point but I think an important one which relates to subsection (2)(a) of the new clause which your Lordships may think, and the Minister may consider on reflection, is surely far too restrictive.
Suppose a data user holds data about a data subject which have been supplied to him by a third party which the data subject contends are inaccurate or misleading. Clearly the data user cannot be expected to sit in judgment over the dispute in order to determine which of them is right. He has no incentive in a normal case; and, indeed, would not have the necessary powers to do this. However, a court is in a different position. If there is a genuinedispute about the accuracy of the information, a court of law is surely the only place where it can be conclusively resolved.
The proposed subsection (2) (a), by saying that,
"no order shall be made under subsection (1) … if the requirements mentioned in Section 22 (1A) above have been complied with"
would prevent any court from even having jurisdiction, as I understand it, to do this. The result would be that a data subject could never have incorrect or misleading data about himself put right, even if he can prove affirmatively that they are wrong. All that he can ever achieve is the addition of an indication that he disputes the accuracy of the data. It is therefore this limiting power on the court in subsection (2)(a) to which I ask the Minister to give his consideration. I hope he may be able to do it now; but, if not, at a later stage on Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was hoping that someone else might express a few lengthy views on the subject. It is rare that I ask others to consider. I am advised to re-advert to material which I thought I had already used. If the noble Lord finds it wanting in any respect I shall happily come back at a later stage, as he suggests.
I now recall that I have material on this. The noble Lord suggested that while the amendment goes a long way towards protecting the rights of the data subject, it does not go far enough in one respect. He argued that, while the insertion of the appropriate markers should guarantee the data user against a claim for compensation under Clause 22, there is no reason why those markers should also protect him from an order under Clause 24 if the data can be shown to be inaccurate. In other words, the data subject should have a right to have data corrected under Clause 24, irrespective of any markers.
While I can see the attraction of the argument, which I hope was the argument that the noble Lord was advancing, we must not lose sight of the twin aims of these clauses, which are to protect the data subject while at the same time allowing the minimum interference to the operations of users who have taken all reasonable precautions in relation to received data.

103
I suspect that if we are to accept the grounds put forward we might find this balance being upset. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider the points that have been raised to see whether there is any way in which they might be accommodated. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not promise to have resolved all the issues before the Bill leaves this House.
How I wish I could have put my hands on that information 30 seconds earlier!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have called Amendment No. 29. Is anyone wishing to propose it?
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 29:
At end of subsection (1), insert—
("and may further order the data user to communicate the court's findings, in such manner as the court may approve, to persons to whom he had previously disclosed, or who had previously obtained access to, the inaccurate data or such an expression of opinion based on them.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we seemed to be trifling for a moment with disorder, but I think we are gradually getting back to anchorage. Amendment No. 29 proposes an addition to subsection (1) of new Clause 24 relating to rectification and erasure, Your Lordships will see that,
"if a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data held by a data user … are inaccurate … the court may order the rectification"
and so on.
This amendment proposes that the court may make a further order to the data user requiring him,
"to communicate the court's findings, in such manner as the court may approve, to persons to whom he had previously disclosed, or who had previously obtained access to, the inaccurate data or such an expression of opinion based on them."
The difficulty is this. By the time the court has ordered rectification or erasure, the data user may have communicated the incorrect matter to other people. It seems to us that the court should at least have power to order him to tell those people he has misinformed that what he had previously told them was wrong. It may not be wholly satisfactory merely to lock the stable door, but in won cases at least he who has suffered may know where the horse has bolted and be able to retrieve it. This is a modest amendment that we propose to strengthen the value of rectification and erasure. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, building on the powers of the courts under our new Clause 24, the noble and learned Lord seeks to extend those powers in a significant new direction. In the new clause now accepted by your Lordships, the courts have the power to order the correction or erasure of inaccurate data. It is now proposed that, as well as ordering correction or erasure, they should also be able to order the user concerned to inform all persons to whom he has disclosed the inaccurate data that they are inaccurate. By virtue of our amendment to Clause 10, which keeps the registrar's power consistent with those of the court here, the registrar too would be able to serve on users an enforcement notice having the same effect.
I am sure we all see clearly the intent behind the
104
amendment. I do not take issue with it in principle. Indeed, I sympathise with it. The noble and learned Lord is on the side of the data subject. I am a data subject, as is everyone else in the House. If a data user has been spreading false information about someone, no matter how unwittingly, it is desirable that when he discovers that the information is false he should get in touch with the people he has misinformed and put them right. Where the data user supplies this information as a service to others I suppose that the credibility and therefore the viability of that service may to some extent depend on his doing so and one may reasonably hope that he will. But the amendment extends to all data users everywhere and always. Much as I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord's wish to defend the interests and indeed the reputations of data subjects, I find the consequences that would flow from it dauntingly large.
In effect, what it means is that, since nobody can be certain that all his data are accurate, everybody must assume that some of his data maybe inaccurate. If it is going to be inaccurate, he must further assume that he may be ordered by the courts to put right everybody whom he wrongly informed about the data subject should the data subject go to law. Regrettably, that means that every single disclosure will have to be logged by every user and the log kept for at least as long as he keeps the data on his tapes. Otherwise he might find himself subject to a court order with which he was incapable of complying. This would be an insurance policy but a remarkably expensive one. The cost to a large user recording each disclosure and retaining that record for as long as, and possibly longer than, the data are held would be immense in administrative and technical terms.
Admirable as the amendment may appear at first sight, and warmly as I regard its intentions. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have stated, it is not one that I can recommend to your Lordships. For every single data user it would generate a volume of logging and record keeping that would be enormous against the possibility, however unlikely, that the court would require corrections. I hope that corrections will take place but I do no think that we can afford to bring them about in this way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as we are at Report stage, would he say what the Government propose to do about this?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I am tempted to a flippant reply, but the answer is that I think we intend to leave the Bill as it is because it is the best that we can do.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I venture to think that the noble Lord has exaggerated the difficulties which exist here. I think that it is reasonable to assume— perhaps as a lawyer I have more confidence than the layman—that courts will behave reasonably in the use of these powers. What is given here is a power—it is not an absolute duty—that the court may in a given case require this to be done: namely, this is such an outrageous case with such serious consequences, that the court thinks it is proper in this case to order the data user to correct the errors for which he has been responsible. That is not an excessive power to put in the hands of the court.

105
If it would help to achieve acceptance of this amendment to insert the words, "when the court thinks it proper or reasonable so to do"—though that is slightly insulting to a court, I should have thought—but if that point of punctilio is required in the drafting, perhaps if the noble Lord would be content with that, I should be content to leave his acceptance of the amendment on that basis. But I feel that he having admitted that there is a mischief here, that ought to be dealt with in the provisions of the Bill—and it is common ground that there is such a potential mischief—perhaps pending some view from another quarter that that is a better way to deal with the matter. If the noble Lord the Minister is content with that proposal of mine, I shall wait to hear what he has to say before I leave the matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the question of whether the noble and learned Lord wants to dispose of the matter now is going to rest very largely with him. I cannot encourage him to expect a beneficial result from patience. Obviously I am prepared to look at anything that he puts forward, but my immediate advice is that there will be nothing that I shall be able to say as a result of so doing. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord wishes to try the issue now, he should do so. I am not in favour of deferring matters to Third Reading, but if he wishes me so to do I am prepared merely to say that we will look at it; but I have no reason to suppose that I shall be able to do anything other than say, no.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall not push the matter at this point, but if the noble Lord will look at it, as he has undertaken, I accept that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Crime, taxation and immigration]:
9.22 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("or")
line 25, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 31 as well as Amendment No. 30. There are certain occasions when a Minister can rise to his feet to move an amendment almost wholly confident that noble Lords opposite will welcome the amendment. I think that this is one such occasion. Amendment No. 30, along with No. 31, which goes with it, removes "the control of immigration" from the list of purposes in Clause 28(1) for which data may be held and so qualify for exemption from those particular provisions of the Bill to which Clause 28 applies. I ought perhaps to mention that in the Bill as printed the line numbering has gone astray. Line 25, to which the first amendment relates, is in fact that containing paragraph (b), and not paragraph (c), as would appear to be the case by looking at the printed numbering.
The effect of the amendments, therefore, is that data held for the control of immigration will be in a position no different from that of all other "ordinary"
106
data. If they are also held for one of the purposes that remain in Clause 28(1)—the prevention of crime, for example—they may of course benefit from that exemption, but, if not, they will be subject to the full rigours of the Bill, in the same way as, say, data held for the purposes of personnel management.
It is tempting to say nothing more, and to stop there and sit down. But I believe that I should say more to explain the reasons why the Government have accepted that the immigration exemption should be removed from the Bill. First, I want to emphasise one thing. From the outset the exemption has been enveloped in a fog of misunderstanding, unfounded accusation and unnecessary fears. For instance, it was not racially discriminatory. It applied equally to all people, irrespective of racial origin, where the granting of subject access, for example, would have prejudiced immigration control. Nor was it at odds with the Council of Europe Convention. That allows exemptions where necessary in the interests of protecting the rights and freedoms of others. And we believe that all persons settled in this country have a right to expect immigration control to be exercised and to be effective.
But what we could not ignore were the fears that have been engendered by the perception that now exist about the exemption, however misplaced they may be. However unnecessary those fears might be, they were genuine and were strongly felt, particularly among members of the ethnic communities. We were advised from a number of quarters—not all of whom necessarily objected to the exemption on its merits—that it was important to allay those fears before they spilled over into the field of race relations. It was for this reason above all else that, as I promised in the course of our Committee stage debate, we reviewed the importance of the exemption for immigration control.
During the course of both this Bill and its predecessor I have made clear more than once that the amount of data that would actually have benefited from the exemption was very small. The bulk of data would not have been affected at all, since there would have been no prejudice to the control of immigration from exposing the data to the full provisions of the Bill. At the other end of the spectrum, certain immigration data are held for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and can, where necessary, seek exemption on that basis. Only in the middle is there a small category for which we originally sought some special protection. But we have concluded that the benefits of that protection are outweighed by the suspicions that might be aroused about our information-handling practices for immigration control if we allowed the accusations to grow up—however unfounded—that we were intent on casting a cloak of secrecy across all personal data used in the immigration context.
So, my Lords, we have concluded that the exemption should be removed from the Bill. On occasions, subject access may now have to be given to those who seek it in order to avoid controls. But such people will be few in number and access to their data will be of limited assistance in achieving their objectives. Also, all disclosures of data, unless of

107
course made for crime prevention purposes, will have to be registered in advance. But, again,we never envisaged resorting to that exemption frequently for immigration purposes, since all the principal, regular transfers of information would be previously registered regardless of the existence of the immigration exemption, and there will be no need for any changes in procedures there. In sum, therefore, the importance of avoiding both prejudice to race relations and fears of secret information-handling procedures persuaded us that the exemption should go. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while we, on this side of the House, both on my right and behind me, naturally rejoice in the belated decision of the Government to remove what has been a blot on the Bill all the way through, we regret the lack of awareness and the element once again of insensitivity — —
Lord Denham: That is a little ungracious.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not being ungracious. I am replying to a speech that has used phrases like "fogs of misunderstanding" apparently being deliberately, or perhaps not quite deliberately, created. If the Chief Whip wishes to intervene, he can get on his feet. It is because of this attitude, which has surprisingly come from the Minister, who has been very helpful throughout the Bill, that I feel entitled to respond in the way that I have done. It is a pity that he thought it right to deal with it in the way that he did.
At any rate, however, let us look to the future rather than to the past and accept the withdrawal of this provision from the Bill. It worked in this way. Who were the people likely to be most affected by the special provision relating to the control of immigration? They were the immigrants themselves, the ethnic minority. They were the potential source of any problems or any unfairness that might have arisen if this provision had remained in the Bill. There was no mystery about the fact that they should have felt endangered and exposed. However, I go along with the Chief Whip so far as to say that I am very willing, at this point, to welcome the decision of the Government.
During discussion, I remember suggesting that we were running our heads against a brick wall and that the noble Lord the Minister was apparently carrying round his own brick wall for the purpose. Well, the wall of Jericho has tumbled. We are glad of it. We welcome the belated decision of the Government. I am happy to leave the matter on that note, and no other.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Minister's concession on this clause. I should not have felt it necessary to say more had it not been for the provocative tone of the Minister in moving this pair of amendments. The Minister has really invited us to say something about the manner in which the debate was conducted by, the phraseology that he used, and particularly the term "fog of misunderstanding", which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has already quoted. I do not know whether the Minister was intending that the epithet should be
108
applied to the manner in which discussion has been carried on in your Lordships' House. If so, it was very unfair. No suggestions have been made in this House which have been refuted by the Minister: and in particular, if I may say so, what he has said about the Council of Europe Convention and the meaning of Article 9 has never been satisfactorily answered.
We tried to suggest—and I shall not rehearse all the arguments again but I shall just mention the point very briefly—that the reference in that article to the rights and freedoms of others was meant to be a reference to individual rights and freedoms as, for example, in the European Convention on Human Rights. It was not a reference to collective rights such as the Minister tried to imply when he talked about the infringement of the rights and freedoms of others that was likely to result from the presence in this country of one illegal entrant who would be undetected as a result of deleting the immigration control from Clause 28.
So we still think that the convention would be shown to have been breached if the Minister had left the Bill unchanged and we think it was very wise for him to do so from that point of view. We still think also that, as originally couched, the Bill would have been racially prejudiced indirectly, in the sense that the people who would be liable to be caught under Clause 28 would have been predominantly black. No one can doubt, for example, if we look at Clause 28(2) where we see the exemption from non-disclosure provisions, that the transfer of information from other computer systems to those under the control of the Home Office immigration system, would have primarily concerned black people and that when they trawled hospitals, health authorities, local authorities, and so on, to find data in relation to people suspected of having flouted the immigration system or having been concerned in some way with violations of immigration control, the individuals whose data would have been transferred would have been predominantly black.
That was a legitimate reason for the fears that the ethnic minorities felt about the way in which the provisions would have been carried out. From that point of view the Minister has been very sensible to withdraw the provision. We were not talking about a small category for which special protection was needed, when we consider that 300,000 names are already included on the Harmondsworth computer. Therefore, we have achieved on this side a small victory, one which will be enormously welcomed by the ethnic minorities throughout this country. The Minister could have avoided the type of anxieties of which he has spoken if he had listened to us a little earlier on and had not insisted on taking these proposals to the very brink, as he did.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here earlier to hear the Minister and therefore I will not delay the House very long. I shall merely say that there is always joy in Heaven for a sinner that repenteth.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that was a welcome observation from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, which has given me more comfort than anything else that I have heard in the debate. I came to this House four times on the last piece of legislation and three times on this one,

109
on, in my view, the perfectly valid precept that the legislation we had in hand as it was drafted was not racist but was effective. If there was a misunderstanding—and I am convinced that there was—I failed to dispel it. The fault was mine. I do not accuse noble Lords opposite of obfuscating or being in any way contrary. I merely say that I remain convinced that we were within the Council of Europe definitions and that we were within strict fairness between the different races in this country, all of whom may cultivate aliases for suspect reasons, all of whom may run illicit immigration rackets, and so on.
I was anxious to tell your Lordships that in spite of all this, and in spite of the fact that we feel that this is a piece of legislation that would assist in running this country, we believed that the demands of good race relations were more important. I felt that that was something as regards which I would have the
110
sympathy of noble Lords opposite, and that merely rehearsing the reasons why I had been reluctant to agree with them would not Lords opposite, and that merely rehearsing the reasons why I had been reluctant to agree with them would not have precipitated the type of response that we had. I know that in their heart of hearts they are glad that we did this. I would merely say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that I do not represent the walls of Jericho; I represent a door which, if sufficiently heavily and frequently knocked on, sometimes opens to answer to reason. I am glad that your Lordships accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I was not questioning the personal uprightness of the noble Lord, and I am content to leave the matter on the oratorical Mosaic note struck by my noble friend Lord Pitt from the Back- Benches.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 21, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C) below,")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a very important amendment and it is unfortunate that we come to it at such a late stage in our deliberations. It relates to Clause 28(2) of the Bill, which has evoked almost as much controversy as Clause 28(1). Indeed, in a submission to the Home Office, the Lindop Committee called it a "palpable fraud on the public", which is pretty strong language. Its effect is that the data protection register, so far from encouraging public confidence in computerised information systems, will, we fear, in fact, diminish it, since the very disclosures which the public most fear—thatis to say, disclosures of personal information to agencies inherently hostile to the data subject—can lawfully take place without the public being warned prospectively by an entry in the register that they can take place or any retrospective public accountability after they have taken place.
It has been the argument of the Home Office that the public will know about these things because they will have read Section 28(2) of the Data Protection Act, but we do not find that a satisfactory position and in our view the subsection would disfigure the statute book. Few would know it was there. If they did know, they would have no confidence in the register and they would never know the extent of the secret data traffic about what might be highly sensitive and confidential information.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave an example of why, in the Government's view, Clause 28(2) was needed. He suggested as an example that the police might need to know whether a person—John Smith—had been at his workplace at a particular time on a particular day in order to eliminate him from their inquiries into a serious crime which had been committed at that time. Attendance records for the workplace are held on computer. Unless the employer had anticipated the contingency or had filled in his application form for entry on the register, it would be a criminal offence for him to tell the police whether, according to his record, John Smith is shown as having clocked in before and not clocked out until after the relevant time on that day.
That, of course, was persuasive as an example of one state of affairs. Clearly, the employer must be able to give that information even if he has said nothing about such disclosures on the register. But the point of our amendment is that, in the circumstances of that hypothetical case, the information was not communicated in confidence in the first place, and disclosing it to the police will therefore not involve any breach of an obligation of confidentiality which the employer owes to John Smith.
The matter is very different in the field with which we are concerned in this amendment—namely, confidential information—and especially (and this is the matter which has given rise to most concern) for health records. It is a fundamental rule of all health care that confidential information obtained by health professionals will not be used for any purpose other than the continuing care of the patient or client
112
concerned, save in quite exceptional cases such as the prevention or detection of serious crime if that cannot be done without such disclosure. The scope of those exceptions will always be known in advance. Health authorities and health professionals already have policies about such disclosures and will continue to have them after the Bill has been enacted.
Accordingly, what this amendment seeks to achieve is to except confidential information from the general exemption which is now found in Clause 28(2). Its effect would be that the disclosure of confidential personal data to law enforcement agencies would have to be prospectively notified on the register so that the public would know in advance in what circumstances such disclosures would be made. The wording included in the amendment defining confidential information is taken from the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the form in which it was last before Parliament.
I should like to add that the amendment has the support of all the health professions—doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, health visitors, psychologists—the professions supplementary to medicine, social workers, et cetera, represented on the inter-professional working group chaired by Sir Douglas Black, which has been convened on the initiative of the DHSS in order to establish common policies among all health professions about this. I received from him yesterday a letter recalling that he had written to me previously about this matter, and stating that if the amendments which I now move were passed they would meet his group's concern, and that they therefore fully support them. That is support indeed from a highly responsible and, your Lordships may think, reliable source and we feel it is right to set those fears aside. I therefore beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the amendments before the House bring together two strands of our previous deliberations on Clause 28(2)—that is, restricting the application of the exemptions, and requiring certain disclosures to be notified to the registrar. As the noble and learned Lord explained, Clause 28(2) exempts personal data from the non-disclosure provisions in any case where the data are disclosed for one of the Clause 28(1) purposes—that is the prevention or detection of crime; the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or the assessment or collection of any tax or duty—where the application of the non-disclosure provisions would prejudice any of those matters. It no longer exempts them where they would prejudice the control of immigration.
Broadly speaking, Clause 28(2) disapplies the new prohibitions on disclosure created by the Bill in specified circumstances, allowing a user to disclose personal data to the police and revenue authorities, even though they are not registered as recipients of his data, without committing a criminal offence under Clause 5 or contravening the data protection principles. Clause 28(2) has been the subject of much misunderstanding, if I may say so without annoying your Lordships. But I would hope that, with the help of the noble Lords who have shown such an interest in this clause, most of the misconceptions have now been laid to rest. At the risk of repeating myself too often, let me emphasise yet again that the clause contains no

113
new powers to require the disclosure of information; it does not in any way release a holder of personal data from any legal or other obligation of confidence; and it does not attempt to deceive a person consulting the register of data users established under the Bill, because the legislation itself makes clear that there are certain exceptions to the rules governing registration and that the register is not therefore absolutely comprehensive.
Thus we are left with the real difference of view between the Government and the noble Lords opposite on Clause 28(2). The Government believe that in certain circumstances it is essential to disapply the new prohibitions on disclosure in the Bill—thus doing nothing more than retaining the status quo—in order to ensure that the important work of the police and other law enforcement bodies is not prejudiced. The noble Lords opposite apparently take the view that it is not necessary to make special provision, because police and revenue work must take second place to confidentiality. The amendments to Clause 28 would introduce three new subsections. The first, subsection (2A), would provide that the exemptions from the non-disclosure provisions in Clause 28(2) will not apply to certain "confidential" categories of data. This would mean that in the case of such data no disclosures could be made for crime prevention or crime detection purposes in any circumstances unless the police were first registered as recipients. If a user held information of value to the police in a particular investigation but had not registered them as recipients of the data, he would be unable to disclose the data. And this would be the case irrespective of the seriousness of the incident being investigated, the clear public interest in disclosure, the urgency of the matter or the willingness of the data user to co-operate. That is something new in the law. It is a brand new statutory gag on willing key witnesses ready to help the police to protect society from the criminal.
The definition of the confidential categories of data has I think been drawn from Clause 10 of last Session's Police and Criminal Evidence Bill; and like so many grafts from one piece of legislation to another, the graft does not take very well. I appreciate that the noble Lords were trying to be helpful by limiting the application of Clause 28(2) rather than deleting it as they had proposed before; but the category of "confidential" data is really very wide. Thus for example it would include all personal data held by the Government because it is covered by the Official Secrets Act.
The amendment ignores the fact that although there may be restrictions on the disclosure of particular information in certain circumstances, disclosures may he allowed to the police in other cases. This is the case I think with the doctor's obligation of confidence. The profession recognises that it may be overridden in very exceptional cases where the public interest in for example solving a serious crime requires. Yet under the amendment no allowance is made for that. Disclosures would not be permitted even in those special circumstances where it is acknowledged that the normal restrictions should be overridden. The brand new legislative gag would be applied willy nilly. Given these considerations I cannot think it right to deprive the police and the communities which they protect of
114
the benefits of Clause 28(2) in relation to the wide category of information set out in the amendments.
That was enough to quench my enthusiasm for the amendments, but there was more to come. The second effect of the amendments would be to require, under new subsections (2B) and (2C), that all disclosures of "confidential" data for Clause 28(1) purposes must be notified to the registrar even though all such disclosures will have to be registered. This notion of notification is very different from the one previously proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury, Lord Wigoder and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, which would be related to unregistered disclosures. Subsections (2B) and (2C) would imposean additional requirement to notify certain disclosures to the registrar, even though the disclosures were registered. I really do not see the need for singling out disclosures for these purposes in this way. Perhaps the least attractive aspect of these new subsections is the fact that they are limited to disclosures for the Clause 28(1) purposes. The imposition of particular disincentives to disclosure simply because they were for such laudable purposes as the prevention of crime can scarcely be an approach which would be welcomed in this House or elsewhere in the country.
Finally, the proposed amendment to Clause 34 would require the registrar to publish these notifications—though not in a way, I would suggest, that will he particularly helpful or informative. Indeed there would be a constant danger that without a great deal of explanation and commentary, his publication of them could arouse more fears and misunderstandings than it allayed, by giving a misleading view of what had been going on quite out of context.
On the question of the medical professions, both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and their respective Secretaries of State are anxious to allay fears which we do not think are well founded that the Bill might alter the position concerning the role of doctors and other health professionals in determining the use of medical records.
I want to emphasise that it is not the wish of the Government to use this Bill to the detriment of the professionals in that respect. Our wish is to maintain the present position whereby the professionals, when asked by the police for information, continue as at present to be free to respond as they think fit and with all due regard to the ethical constraints upon him.
We are a law-making Chamber. We make laws in order to protect our fellow citizens from crime and to see that they are not swindled out of the proper financial support of corporate and private taxpayers. We make the laws. These amendments will make it a great deal harder for the agencies who enforce them to do their job. In the process innocent victims will go needlessly unavenged and society at large will be less effectively protected. I know that is not what noble Lords opposite want to bring about. They have an innocent and honourable purpose; but I regret to say that that would be the consequence if they were to pursue it further down this road and I must ask your Lordships to resist it.
9.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that the Minister or his advisers have been carried away somewhat in the strength of his reaction to what is essentially a very moderate series of amendments. It would have been possible to have started from a much more radical viewpoint. I will not conceal from your Lordshipsthat I feel that the power of data processing applied to police activities and applied to Revenue activities, unless it is checked, can lead to as grave an injustice, and sometimes a graver injustice, than that which it seeks to remedy. It is not so much the reporting of criminal offences as the ability of instant access to computers for non-criminal activities to be used—particularly against young people. Anybody who has teenage children, or perhaps children slightly older, will know from them how often young people, and particularly young blacks, are stopped by the police and an instant interrogation is made of the police computer as to whether anything is known about them. That is bad enough, but we know that the very fact of their being stopped is itself being recorded in the police computer, and they have a record thereafter.
This amendment does not say anything like that. This amendment does not seek, as some of us might wish to seek, to restrict further the exemptions. It does not seek even to stop communications of data from other sources. It certainly has no effect on the ability of the police computers themselves to collect and transmit information within and between police forces. What it says (and this is why I describe it as moderate) is that when information has been acquired for some other purpose—the purpose of a trade or profession, as my noble and learned friend has said—and only when that information has been acquired under conditions of explicit or implied confidentiality, then the fact it has been transferred should be notified to the data subject. One cannot be milder than that in protecting data subjects. One could go a great deal further. I suggest to the Government that they are grossly over-reacting to something which is not just an innocent, honourable purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, but is the minimum requirement for the protection of individual liberties.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must express a small doubt about this. I have been concerned in my professional career with problems in Northern Ireland and police and terrorists. There is not the slightest doubt that the difficulty of getting information which leads to an arrest involves all sorts of rather disagreeable methods from which we, the citizens, benefit. Occasionally these methods are exposed and the police get into trouble. I am unhappy about any amendment which is going to make the position of the police in getting information about serious crime more difficult than it now is. It seems to me that this amendment does that, and I therefore express a doubt at this moment. I could be convinced otherwise, but I express a doubt.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe there may be quite a lot of misunderstanding about this amendment. Let me make it perfectly clear that noble Lords on the Benches which I have the privilege to
116
occupy—and I am sure that this applies to the Liberal Benches and the SDP Benches, especially when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, expresses a doubt—want to assist the police and all authorities who are in charge of law and order within the limits that have to be set in order to safeguard the professions and the ordinary citizens.
We always have problems of this kind. There have been problems of this kind, if I may say so—and I hope I am not taking the matter out of context—in the recent Waldorf case. Many of us are extremely worried, wanting to assist the police in all the dangerous work they do but nevertheless feeling that we have to have some limitations if the liberty of the subject is to be properly guaranteed as well as having the other guarantee that we want, which is not to shackle the hands and limbs of the police who do such a dangerous job so often in difficult circumstances. That is the dilemma.
It may very well be that this particular amendment holds the kernel of a profound truth. For the very first time, in this Bill we are saying what people can do who have confidential information about citizens in this country and we have had debates on confidentiality, privacy and so on arising out of the Younger Committee and other committees. The doctors are worried. There is no point in the Minister pushing that to one side with very gracious and carefully chosen language. The doctors are worried, and they are worried about a patient who goes along to them and tells them something about an illness. You can go along to a solicitor because that is covered by privilege, and you can disclose to him that you sustained a certain injury in a certain way, and nothing in the world can make the solicitor divulge that information—but when we get to the doctor and he is told something by a patient and that goes on to some computer somewhere, perhaps because of a social services inquiry which has nothing to do with the commission of a crime, suddenly the doctor is called upon to disclose this information because it is said to him: "You are entitled to do so under this Bill".
These are the considerations that worried my noble and learned friend and they worried the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, if I may say so. They leave us in some doubt as to whether this situation is properly covered. If this amendment does not commend itself to the Government, I hope at least that the noble Lord the Minister may be able to say—and this may possibly stop our having to express a very definite view, though that decision is happily not in my hands—that he recognises that there is, as was explained by my noble and learned friend, such a body of opinion here, among doctors especially, that causes everyone anxiety. I hope he will say that it causes him anxiety and that the views expressed today and the views of the doctors also will be taken properly into account so that something may be done in order to reach this proper frontier which is so difficult—I refer to the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the doctor-patient relationship on one side and the needs of law and order on the other.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it seems to me that the advent of computers is forcing us to consider a subject which has been dealt with in an entirely ad hoc way in

117
the past. What the noble Lord the Minister's speech may be summed up as presenting to the House is the proposition that although information has been held in confidence by many and varied organisations in the past, those persons or bodies responsible for the data have always felt themselves at liberty to divulge the information to the police where very serious questions of public policy are concerned. All we are saying on this side of the House is that if it is the intention of those organisations to continue behaving in this way they must bring some order into the process by announcing at the very beginning when they register under Clause 4 that they intend to give the information in this manner to the police and in what circumstances they would do so.
If it is to be serious crimes, what kind of serious crimes are we talking about? Are we talking, as in the case of the Inland Revenue, about murder, treason and arson in Her Majesty's dockyards, which are the only circumstances in which Inspectors of Taxes and others in the Inland Revenue will disclose information to the police, as was mentioned on a previous occasion? The Inland Revenue have a clearly defined policy, which is there for everybody to know and discover, and that is something which they feel is absolutely necessary so that taxpayers who give information freely to inspectors will feel an absolute confidence that the information which they voluntarily disclose about themselves to these officers will not be used for any other purpose.
All we are saying is that people who give confidential information to doctors—which was the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—to health service professionals or indeed to any other holder of personal information, such as a local authority, should be entitled to know in what circumstances they would give that information to the police, or indeed if they intend to do so as a matter of principle, anyway. They should be entitled to know that that data user is required from the outset to state formally that it is his policy, in certain limited circumstances, to breach the obligation of confidentiality which he would otherwise have to the people whose data he uses or holds.
Secondly, he has to address himself on this point to the circumstances in which that disclosure would be made. In other words, he has to formalise the process which the noble Lord the Minister has described as going on throughout the whole country when data users holding confidential information are approached by the law enforcement agencies now. This is already happening. They know what their rules are, so they would have no difficulty in putting them down on paper when they come to register. But I accept that perhaps the formulation in the amendment is not as precise or limited as we could have hoped.
I fully understand the doubts which my noble friend Lord Donaldson has expressed on it. Nevertheless, I feel that before the Bill leaves your Lordships—obviously, it cannot be done this evening and perhaps we could do it on Third Reading—we should attempt in some way to define limits on Clause 28(2) that will give confidence to members of the public who are divulging this personal information to all kinds of agencies that it will not be wilfully and freely disclosed to limited enforcement agencies on
118
trivial grounds. That is what members of the public have a fear of; that it is not questions of murder, treason or terrorism which would invoke the disclosure provisions of Clause 28(2), but comparatively minor offences, such as theft or driving without a licence.
They fear that on these grounds many professionals may feel themselves under some pressure from the police, who will point to Clause 28(2) and say, "There you are. Parliament has decreed that you are relieved of the obligation of confidentiality which all other data users have towards the holders of personal data, and therefore you are empowered—we will not say 'obliged'—by Parliament to give us that information". So they would feel compelled by some moral pressure to release information to the law enforcement agencies, and even if they did not do so on a wide scale nevertheless the fear would always be there among members of the public.
So it is a matter of confidence. The noble Lord has already given us a substantial amount because he said that the confidence of ethnic minorities would be undermined in relation to the immigration control provisions in Clause 28. I would respectfully urge him to give equally careful consideration to this very much wider aspect of Clause 28.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have only one shot in my locker. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene it would perhaps be better if he did so now.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Most certainly, my Lords. The ambit of this amendment is limited. What it seeks to achieve is to except confidential information from the general exemption which Clause I gives about the right of access provisions in regard to personal data in the fields that are indicated. Its effect would be that the disclosure of confidential personal data to law enforcement agencies would have to be notified prospectively on the register so that the public would know in advance in what circumstances those disclosures would be made. The anxiety which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned is that the public would not know that and would fear that this right to disclose even matters they give in the most confidential circumstances may yet, in circumstances remote from the commission of serious crime, be communicated to the authorities without their knowledge and without their being informed.
The fact that this matter has raised concern to the extent I have indicated in the most responsible branches of the medical profession shows that we are up against a very serious problem. I say that with great respect to the Minister whose integrity and wish to help I have never challenged in the course of our long debates. If I said something earlier which, according to the Chief Whip, may have questioned that approach to him I certainly did not intend to communicate it. But this is a matter of great concern to the public. I said earlier that even stronger words than I have used were used by the members of the Lindop Committee, which called what is proposed a palpable fraud on the public, in that something was going on which they would not know about and which they would be unaware of, and that all this protection of the privacy of the subject was a gigantic bluff. These are the fears which have been created and which now exist.

119
The doubts which exist are there and the fears exist that if nothing is done to repair the uncertainty, if these powers remain unchallenged as they stand, the public will suffer. Public anxiety would increase about the way the criminal system was being administered. Any lack of confidence in the set-up would be damaging to the enforcement of the law. It may well be that better words can be devised to protect the exploitation of what is proposed by the criminal. I do not myself at the moment see it, but if anything of that kind is brought forward it can be done. However, I should have thought that in the circumstances with which we are faced in the Bill as it now stands it is proper that the House should have an opportunity to express a view as to whether the seriousness of the risks involved and whether the fears of the medical profession are such —
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understood that the noble and learned Lord was inviting me to respond. I hope I have not misled him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I paused at this point merely to emphasise the fact that this is not a perverse view of those with no sense of public responsibility. On the contrary, we feel this very deeply. We feel it is our duty to the public, as Members of the House, to see that the matter is put in a way which will not endanger or worry them unduly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we share a common purpose and a common duty to the public good, and I am very grateful for the courteous and friendly way in which the noble and learned Lord concluded the argument on his side of the House. With the leave of the House, I should like to take up a number of the points which have been made, and I think it proper that I should do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, quite rightly, that we are engaged in drawing parameters within which and up to the borders of which it is proper for the police to operate in order to protect us.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out that we are now seeking to legislate on areas of conduct which hitherto have not come before Parliament for legislation. That makes me reflect that when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that somebody one day will go to a professional and say, "Will you make this disclosure? You are entitled to under this law", he could well say that at present that same person is entitled to do so under common law and also indeed is entitled not to do so under the common law. Nobody is proposing by legislation to say that under certain circumstances under this Bill people shall be required to reveal things to the police. When the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others used the phrase, "This Bill empowers people to give information to the police", I have to repeat that it does no such thing. What it may do is refrain from preventing people from giving to the police information that they are able to give at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has argued that the areas of information concerned are small, but I suspect that they are really quite large; it is a wide definition, and some of the information could be of critical value to police involved in solving crimes of the sort which
120
almost daily, regrettably, reach the tabloid papers. I do not believe that it is right to circumscribe access to information which may result in avenging the innocent or, more important, protecting the innocent from injury and possibly death. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, therefore uttered a wise word of caution.
Nor can I accept that the Lindop Committee's description of a palpable fraud on the public is really applicable to the clause as it now stands, because there is no question of introducing a new power of revelation; it is an old power which people are free to exercise or to refrain from exercising exactly as they now are under the same pressures from professional convention, or from the oaths they take as students or on entering the professions. I do not think it is reasonable to extend it to anything uttered in specific or assumed confidence to somebody in the pursuit of their profession. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, can think of illustrations where he has said things to me and I have said things to him under professional implied and indeed explicit confidence. If that was to be material evidence in discovering why my body was found floating face down in the Thames tomorrow morning, my goodness, I hope he would give that evidence to the police. Under this Bill he would not be free to do so out of mere self-interest as well as public interest. I do ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we have canvassed the ground very thoroughly. I do not pretend that this is an open and shut issue, but I think the issue has been indicated sufficiently for the House to be able to take a view. Therefore, I move the amendment.
10. 11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 43.

DIVISION NO 3

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Crathome, L.

Avon, E.

Croft, L.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Digby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Drumalbyn. L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Coleraine, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glanusk, L.

121

Glenarthur, L.

Mottistone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portland, D.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaizey, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 not moved.]
10.20 p.m.
Clause 31 [Payrolls and accounts]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 22, line 41, leave from ("or) to second ("or") in line 2 on page 23 and insert ("paying remuneration or pensions in respect of service in any employment or office or of calculating amounts payable by way of such remuneration or pensions;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the definition in Clause 31(1)(a) is adequate to cover all types of data properly used for what we would broadly describe as payroll purposes. As noble Lords will recall, Clause 31 exempts data held for payroll and accounting purposes from the provisions of the Bill and in our anxiety to ensure that the definitions of such data are not so wide as to allow data held for other purposes to benefit from the exemption it appears that we may inadvertently have drawn the definition of payroll data a little too narrowly.
As the Bill is cast it appears that data, such as addresses or bank account numbers, which are necessary for actually paying rather than for calculating wages, and so on, may not be included in the definition of data held for payroll purposes. Clearly such data are payroll data in the sense in which we all understand that term and this amendment is therefore designed to ensure that they are covered by the exemption in Clause 31, provided of course that all the other requirements of that clause are also met. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton moved amendment No. 39:
[Printed earlier: Col. 23.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Domestic or other limited purposes]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 23, line 35, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)")
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
("(3A) It shall be a condition of the exemption of any data under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above that the data are not used for any purpose other than that for which they are held and of the exemption of any data under either paragraph of' that subsection that the data are not disclosed except as permitted by subsection (3B) below.
122
(3B) Data to which subsection (3A) above applies may be disclosed—

(a) if the data subject (or a person acting on his behalf) has requested or consented to the disclosure of the data either generally or in the circumstances in which the disclosure in question is made; or

(b) in any case in which disclosure would be permitted by any other provision of this Part of this Act if subsection (3A) above were included among the non-disclosure provisions.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, Clause 32(2) exempts from the provisions of Part II of the Bill and Clauses 21 to 24 personal data held by an unincorporated members club and certain data held only for mailing purposes. Noble Lords will also recall that during Committee stage the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, moved an amendment designed to make it a condition of the exemptions under Clause 32(2) that the data are not disclosed. I said in reply that I thought that the need to obtain the subject's consent to holding the data provided an adequate safeguard and that to prohibit all disclosures might go so far as to deter users from claiming the exemption at all. Nevertheless, I undertook to have another look at the issue raised by the noble Lord, who kindly agreed to withdraw the amendment at that stage.
The amendments before the House today represent the fruit of the Government's re-examination of the issues. We have concluded that there is a case for limiting disclosures of data covered by the exemptions, but, as noble Lords will see, we have felt it necessary to provide for certain exceptions where disclosure is permitted.These permitted disclosures arc the same as those in Clause 31(4) and (5), which deal with the disclosure of payroll and accounting data exempt under Clause 31. Therefore, amended, the clause will provide that it is a condition of the exemption of any data under Clause 32(2) that the data are not disclosed, except as permitted in the new subsection (3B). This allows the data to be disclosed, first, if the subject, or someone acting on his behalf, has, in general terms, requested or consented to the disclosure of the data; and, secondly, in any case in which the disclosure would he permitted by one of the exemptions from the non-disclosure provisions, such as that in Clause 33(4), which permits disclosures which are required by law. That is entirely consistent with Clause 31.
I ought also to mention that the amendments will make it a condition of the exemption of data held for mailing purposes under Clause 32 (2) that the data are not used for any other purpose. This is necessary because of the distinction between holding and using, as explained by my noble friend Lord Elton in relation to an earlier Government amendment, No. 3. In conclusion, I would hope that these amendments will meet the concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the gracious way in which she referred to my contribution to the debate on the amendment in Committee. I am equally grateful for the consideration which has been given to the principles that we then tried to advance, and personally I feel that these amendments cover the points that were then made. I repeat my gratitude.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 42:
[Printed earlier: Col. 23.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [General duties of Registrar]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
[Printed earlier: Col. 25.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move, and I thank your Lordships for bringing us to a happy conclusion this evening.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lloyds Bowmaker Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.