HL Deb 06 June 1988 vol 497 cc1106-66

2.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 58: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

(''Personal data

. Schedule (Personal Data) below (which contains provisions about personal data, including collection, storage and disclosure) shall have effect.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 86. We start this afternoon's business with a series of amendments about the register which has to be compiled for the purpose of the community charge. There are a series of amendments, in particular in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and others. It will be difficult for me to avoid speaking to some extent on those issues when I move this amendment and speak to my own second amendment, Amendment No. 86. However, I am concerned in these amendments with one very particular issue, and with one safeguard which exists for the public and for the protection of the security of information about individuals as a result of the Data Protection Act 1984.

Members of the Committee who took part with me in the debates on the Data Protection Act 1984 will know that we thought at the time that there were very severe limitations to the scope of the Bill, in particular its inability to deal with records not held in computer form in that it completely excludes handwritten records. Nevertheless, it forms a protection. The data protection registrar himself has written a note on the data protection implications of the community charge for local authorities in England and Wales. That is no doubt in the hands of the Minister.

If the current Bill were to accord with the provisions of the Data Protection Act, we ought to gain some greater protection for individuals. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to acknowledge that this Bill ought to be read together with the Data Protection Act.

The issues with which we have to be concerned in this series of amendments are, first, that an individual's consent should be required—as it is in the Data Protection Act—before information is transferred from one set of records to another. In this case we are talking about information being transferred from any other source to the community charge registrar. Secondly—this is a point made in the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the personal information collected by the registrar should be kept to the minimum necessary. I cannot imagine that this is a matter with which the Government will not agree in principle. We may be dealing here with matters of wording.

The third point is on wording; but it may be extremely important wording. We want to be clear in our minds about the use of the word "tax". The word is not in the Bill but it has been used on a number of occasions, notably by noble Lords who wish to restrict our view of the competence of this Chamber to deal with the matter. Those who have felt this way have used the word "tax". If that word were to be generally accepted, it might form an undesirable and unnecessary restriction on the application of the Data Protection Act to this Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree that individuals should not be denied some of their rights under the Data Protection Act by the community charge being defined as a tax.

The fourth issue, which is also dealt with in amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is the question of cross checking with the community charge register. Indeed, I also have an amendment in my name on that point which no doubt will be debated with the others.

A fifth matter is the use of the register for commercial purposes. I must confess that when we were debating the Scottish Bill last year this was an issue which passed over my head. I understood that it might be possible for local authorities to be authorised to make the community charge register available for commercial purposes. I could never have believed in my wildest nightmares that it would be required that they should do so. There are amendments down on this matter too.

Penultimately—here the Scottish experience will be of great interest to us—we wish to know whether there will be some kind of unique code for individuals which will enable them to be identified across a number of registers, which may indeed prove to be necessary. But if that occurred, it would carry with it significant data protection implications.

Finally, the concern is the extent to which the collection and administration of the community charge are exempt from the safeguards under the Data Protection Act. The new schedule which we have put down to follow Schedule 2 sets out, no doubt in a naive and simplified way—and I should be happy to accept criticisms of the wording—what should be the principles on which data protection for those who find their names on the community charge register should be involved.

I apologise for taking more time than I should have wished to on what is rather a simple amendment, but it embraces within it a very large number of issues which deserve the most careful attention of the Committee. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to approach these amendments in an adversarial way and that the Minister will find it possible to make significant concessions which will reassure those who are genuinely, and in my view justifiably, concerned about the civil liberties aspects of this legislation. I beg to move.

3 p.m.

Lord Meston

I wish to support the intentions underlying Amendments Nos. 58 and 86, which I understand we are principally discussing at present. I do so conscious of the fact that they overlap my Amendments Nos. 62 and 64, which are to follow. Indeed, I wish to echo the concern expressed by the noble Lord which underlies all these amendments. I am encouraged, having read the debates in another place, that the indications are that the Government take seriously the questions concerned with the protection of privacy and basic civil liberties raised in this part of the Bill. I hope that they will now feel able to indicate how they intend to deal with these matters, particularly now that they have the experience of the Scottish Act and implementing that Act behind them.

I suggest that there are two basic reasons for us to support Amendments Nos. 58 and 86. First there is a practical argument. If the Government wish to maintain public confidence in this new system of comprehensive taxation they must take care with the manner in which the community charge is to be introduced and the manner in which it is to be enforced. The second reason is perhaps more important. As I have already indicated, the administrative aspects of the Bill have profound consequences for civil liberties. Without such amendments as are now proposed, there will be a serious gap in the Bill.

Clause 6 and Schedule 2 set out the various powers and duties of the registration officer but make no attempt to define how those duties should be carried out or to limit the exercise of those powers. I suggest that it will not be enough for us to be told that this is merely framework legislation and that guidelines will be in the regulations, especially when we see that the regulation-making powers are so discretionary. The basic proposition to be stated in the Bill should be that the information to be obtained and retained should be the absolute minimum necessary for the efficient administration of this charge. I would have hoped that with the Scottish experience behind them the Government would now know what they intend to prescribe and what they intend to proscribe in their regulations. Indeed, if they know what is to be in the regulations, it would be much better for that information to be on the face of the Bill.

I touch briefly on one specific matter which is covered in Amendment No. 86; that is the proposed prohibition of reference by the registration officer to social work records. That, I would suggest, is an especially important area because one knows from experience of how social workers have to operate that even the names and addresses of those with whom they come into contact can be sensitive information. The effectiveness of social work depends on confidentiality. They protect vulnerable members of society, and it is right therefore that we should try to protect the social workers.

Baroness Faithfull

May I take up a point that the noble Lord has just made? As a social worker I know that the members of the British Association of Social Workers working in local authorities are seriously concerned that they may be compelled to jeopardise the ethical principle that they are required to uphold, namely that information clearly entrusted for one purpose should not be used for another without sanction. I believe that the social workers consider that when obtaining information and in order for information to be given, the data must be processed fairly and lawfully.

As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, social workers working in local authorities have access to a great deal of information of a very sensitive nature. Their relationship with their clients could be seriously jeopardised unless this was safeguarded.

The Earl of Caithness

The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are concerned with the implications for civil liberties and the data protection of the community charge registration process, as are the amendments to be moved by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Bonham-Carter. As with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there is no doubt that my arguments will span over those amendments as well. That is inevitable, but it is the agreed grouping. I assure the Committee that the Government take these concerns very seriously. It is evidence of this concern that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has met the Data Protection Registrar and has agreed to co-operate with him in drawing up a data protection code of practice for local authorities' community charges registration officers. Nevertheless, the amendments in this group are not acceptable to the Government.

This is not, as I have indicated, because of any lack of concern on the part of the Government about civil liberties and data protection. It is simply because we believe the amendments in the names of both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to be either misconceived or otiose, as I hope to demonstrate to the Committee.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seek to insert into the Bill a new schedule which would achieve two things. It would require registration officers to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act and it would prohibit them from using certain categories of information. There are a number of reasons why the amendments are unacceptable. First, it is entirely otiose to require registration officers to act in accordance with the Data Protection Act or to obtain and process information fairly and lawfully. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in particular on that important point.

Registration officers will be bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act in exactly the same way as are all other data users. They will be required to comply with the provisions and principles of that Act, including the requirement that data should be fairly obtained and processed. There is, therefore, simply no need to duplicate in this Bill provisions which already have the force of law under the Data Protection Act. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that we should not be in the business of reproducing in new pieces of legislation provisions which already have the force of law.

The second reason why the amendments are unnecessary is that paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 empowers the Secretary of State to place certain categories of information off limits, as it were, to registration officers. We have made it clear that this power will be used to prevent registration officers having access to police records and sensitive social services records. Moreover, the Bill does not in any case allow registration officers to have access to health authority records or any other national sources of data.

I have, however, listened very closely to what both noble Lords have said today. I am sure that the points will be reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when he comes to move his amendments, should he do so. I must say that the arguments deployed have undoubted merit and I should like to respond positively to them. I am therefore able to say that the Government are prepared to extend the categories of information to which registration officers will be denied access. I can confirm that we shall use the power in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to provide that registration officers shall not have access to the employment records held by their own or other local authorities. We believe that that will settle some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lords.

I believe that there is a balance to be drawn. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for us to place any further sources of information off-limits to registration officers. It would simply be unreasonable to do so because it would have the effect of severely hampering registration officers in carrying out their functions. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that one would not wish to do that. I know that there is concern about the issue of civil liberties. Indeed, that was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, earlier. However, I should like to remind Members that the only information which registration officers will require will be the names and addresses of adults resident in their area. Thus it is right that they should have no power to require a supply of sensitive or personal data, and nor will they.

It will not have escaped the attention of Members of the Committee that any system of local income tax, to which I believe both the major opposition parties subscribe to some extent, would involve the supply of information about everybody's income. This would involve a far greater infringement of privacy than anything which the community charge will entail.

In conclusion, I should like to repeat that we have taken enormous care to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. We have made it clear that certain sensitive information will be placed off-limits to registration officers. As Members now know, I have given a new commitment that employment records will be added to the list of information sources to which registration officers will be denied access. Moreover, as I have explained, a code of practice will be drawn up in consultation with the data protection registrar.

For those reasons, and in the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendments should not be accepted.

3.15 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I heard one or two phrases from the noble Earl which led me to think that he would make significant concessions on this matter. When it comes down to it, however, we have as little as I could have conceived. The noble Earl quite rightly says that the registrar is bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Therefore paragraph 1 of my proposed new schedule, which provides that the data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully, is not necessary. I accept that and I am grateful for it. I also accept that it would be desirable not to repeat it in legislation.

However, that is only a preamble to the meat of the new schedule. In making what appear to be concessions, the noble Earl has gone a short distance along the way to understanding or, rather, towards recognising the significance, importance and validity of the points that are being made.

In particular, he does not appear to recognise the validity of the point which was urged on him by his noble friend Lady Faithfull. In Amendment No. 86 we talk about a whole series of records which we believe that the community charge registrar should not be able to refer to. The first is police or criminal records, which are normally maintained confidentially. The thought of police or criminal records being accessible to a community charge registrar, and in a register in which some items not only can be made available but must be made available in public, appears to us to be unacceptable.

As regards medical records, the noble Earl referred to health data being excluded. Perhaps the point is covered, but medical records are held by other than health authorities and we should need greater assurances on that point before accepting that the issue was adequately covered. I have already referred to social work records, which are matters of the utmost confidentiality. They affect some families in the worst conditions, both physically and psychologically, in our community. For example, they deal with families in which members are in conflict with each other. It would be extremely undesirable for social work records to be used by the community registrar with the possibility that information might get out and damage the power and ability of social workers to do the best possible job for those families. We should find quite unacceptable the possibility that social work records could be made available for such purposes.

Turning to education records, perhaps many Members of the Committee do not have social work records and I hope that very few have police and criminal records. However, nearly all have education records of some kind. Do we want education records, which were devised for a totally different purpose, to be made available to the community charge registrar? Surely not. That cannot have been intended or recognised as being a necessary result of the community charge legislation. The idea that such records should be included, or potentially included, in information available to the community charge registrar is quite unacceptable.

The noble Earl appeared to make some concession about employment records. However, if I heard him correctly, he referred to employment records held by the local authority concerned or by other local authorities. That is by no means all the employment records that may be held. Employment records are held by many other employers and by the Department of Employment and its agencies. Unless the noble Earl is to tell us that those records also shall not be used by the data protection registrar I am afraid that the concession goes a very short way towards meeting the justifiable concern which has been expressed.

Our new schedule refers also to records of individuals under the age of 18. We have tabled later amendments for consideration by the Committee which will stop the community charge registrar from anticipating the fact that someone will become 18, and therefore vulnerable to the community charge, and so obtaining information in advance. Again, that is a matter which is particularly sensitive when we are dealing with people who have not attained the age of majority.

Finally—and I am only dealing with one part of the schedule but it is the most important part—there is information relating to housing benefit or housing allocation which is of a sensitive personal nature. Any Members of the Committee who have taken part in local government or in the local government housing service will know that many of the records which have to be kept for the purposes of the housing service are extremely sensitive and personal and it would be most undesirable if the community charge registrar could request or hold information of that kind or demand it from the local authority.

I am bound to say that the Minister's friendly tone in replying to this amendment, or to some aspects of it, is not acceptable. Unless he can go a good deal further—and I am glad to give him the opportunity to do so—we cannot be satisfied with his response.

The Earl of Caithness

When I drafted what I planned to say to the noble Lord, I looked at the word "misconceived". I believe that I was right to use that word because I honestly believe that some of what we have heard from the noble Lord confirms my belief that he has a misconceived opinion of our proposals in the Bill.

Perhaps I may deal with what information will be available. Police information will not be available. Medical records will not be available. Sensitive data in social services records will not be available, and rightly so. As regards education records, the information available will be solely to the extent of names, addresses and possibly ages of people where appropriate. Employment records will not be available. Records of under 18 year-olds generally will not be available. Again, housing benefit records will be available but only to the limited extent of names and addresses. I believe that covers many of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I believe it fully meets the concerns of my noble friend Lady Faithfull on the sensitive records of social workers.

If the registration officer is to carry out his task as we would all require him to do, then surely it would be wrong to deny him access only to names and addresses. We all agree in this Committee that, for example, sensitive information of social workers or education directors should not be available. I believe it is on that basis that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had a misconception of what we were after and I hope I have met his point.

Lord Jay

Perhaps the Minister can clarify one point. As I understand it, he has offered two concessions: first, that a code of practice should be established at a later date; and secondly, that certain information relating to employment shall be, as he called it, "off limits" for the purposes of the register. As this is a crucial matter of civil liberties, can the Minister tell us whether these changes will be included as amendments in the Bill or whether Parliament is simply asked to take it on trust that by some administrative method the Government will carry out those changes at some future date? Is it not desirable that they should be clearly embodied in the Bill?

The Earl of Caithness

The noble Lord, Lord Jay, has raised an important point and it is one on which I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I differ. We believe it is right that these matters can and should be dealt with by regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. I believe that was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.

Lord Meston

Before the noble Earl sits down, is he saying that the Government's view is that there is some information held by social workers which is sensitive and therefore should be protected and that there is some other category of information held by social workers which is to be regarded as not of a sensitive nature and should therefore not be protected?

The Earl of Caithness

I believe that the noble Lord is almost right. The names and addresses might well be relevant to the registration officer. However, he is not concerned about why they are there.

Lord Peston

The Minister referred en passant to income tax, albeit local income tax. Can he tell us whether the registrar will have greater access to data of this kind than the Inland Revenue currently has?

The Earl of Caithness

I believe it would be very difficult for the registrar to have greater access than the Inland Revenue.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Perhaps I can clarify one point with my noble friend. He referred twice to a code of practice. I understand this to be a code of practice as to what information should and should not be available. What kind of legal status will that code have?

The Earl of Caithness

My understanding is that it would have legal status under the Bill because that is what sets it up.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

If my noble friend will forgive me, it has status under the Bill but what kind of legal status? It is a serious question.

The Earl of Caithness

Indeed, it is a serious question. It jogs my memory and I believe that my noble friend and I have trod this course before with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps I may inform my noble friend as soon as possible.

Lord Mishcon

Is that really good enough, however politely uttered? If this amendment is to be dealt with seriously and on the basis, as the noble Lord has just indicated, that we know that what the Minister has said will have the force of law even though it be not written into the Bill, it is essential for the Committee to know whether a code of practice is merely persuasive or mandatory otherwise it may be unconsciously misled by the noble Earl. Is it not a fact that a code of practice is only persuasive whereas a regulation is mandatory? Is the noble Earl prepared to say that what can or cannot be seen by the registrar will form the basis of a regulation, or is he merely telling the Committee that there will be a document which can be acted upon at the will of the parties concerned because it will be purely guidance?

The Earl of Caithness

I hope that I can clarify that point for the Committee and may I say how nice it is to be debating again with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Those items which we consider to be off limits will be under regulations; that is, under paragraph 6(1)(d) of Schedule 2. The guidance will be as a result of the discussions that my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government is having with the data protection registrar. The important point which I believe satisfies the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the point about which we have been talking throughout our discussions is that that which is off limits will be under regulations in the Bill.

Lord Jay

The Minister has not told us about the code of practice and how it is to acquire legal force. Is it to acquire legal force and if so, how, if it is not to be embodied in the Bill?

The Earl of Caithness

I thought I had clarified that point just now with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The guidance to which I referred, following discussions between my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the data protection registrar, will not have the same legal effect as the off-limits items set by regulations under the Bill.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

Can the noble Earl tell the Committee when the codes of practice, the regulations and all these other matters will be placed before Parliament? The register has to be compiled by 1st December next year. Local authorities have to put all such measures into operation and they are left with very little time to do so if all the procedures we have been talking about for the past 10 minutes are not in their hands by the end of next year.

The Earl of Caithness

I hope I can meet the concern of the noble Baroness and slightly pre-empt what I shall say later. Work is well advanced on many of the regulations because discussions with the local authority associations and the Data Protection Registrar are being conducted, but until they are complete the regulations cannot be laid. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wanted to take into account what was said here today.

Baroness Faithfull

May I seek further clarification from my noble friend in regard to social workers? He generously said that there was certain information of a sensitive nature in the social service departments of local authorities which would be safeguarded. However, did I understand him to say that names and addresses would be required? That presents difficulties. Social workers deal with homeless families. They deal with women who have left their families for one reason or another or left their husbands because of cruelty and neglect.

I imagine that these people, who move about a great deal, are of great interest to the registration officer. At the same time, however, in divulging merely a name and address the implication is that such information is of a serious and sensitive nature. Can my noble friend clarify the position?

The Earl of Caithness

I take the point made by my noble friend. There are two aspects. There is that of the homeless people, which we discussed two weeks ago and which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and I said we would consider. As regards a wife perhaps moving out of her sole or main residence without notifying the registration officer, that is an offence under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, one is bound to do that. It is right that the social services should be required to provide that information, but nothing more sensitive.

Indeed, I could go further for my noble friend. I find it difficult to see why in such a case, that could be attributable to the social services officer in charge of a case and connect the fact that the registration officer happened to have the name and address of that person.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

What the noble Earl said is somewhat worrying to me. We had a debate about battered wives. I thought they had protection under the Bill. Where they are put into hostels I understood that such information could not be divulged to anybody who requested it. In other words, the husband cannot look at the register and find the address.

If, as often happens, a woman leaves council property which is under joint tenancy, thereby relinquishing the abode, and the matrimonial discord is settled, she will be deemed to have given up the tenancy, having moved away. That is what the noble Earl appears to have indicated. The woman would have put herself in a very serious position.

The Earl of Caithness

The noble Baroness raises an important point. It is not only battered wives but various other groups that can apply to have their names deleted from the register. What I have said does not impinge on that position in any way. I can assure the noble Baroness of that.

Lord Auckland

In the main I am in complete agreement with my noble friend the Minister in his patient response to the many questions put to him. However, I am slightly concerned about the records held by health authorities, which are large organisations. I should like to put two questions to my noble friend. First, from what level of seniority within the local health authority will such information be divulged? Secondly, there are a number of illnesses and conditions which are of a confidential nature. Will that aspect be taken into account?

The Earl of Caithness

As regards my noble friend's second point, of course medical records, regardless of the illness, will be sensitive information and cannot be disclosed to the registration officer. As regards the first point, I take note of what my noble friend said, but we will be issuing guidance on precisely that aspect.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I have listened with great care to the patient and courteous responses made by the Minister to cross-questioning from all parts of the Committee. I listened with great care because I wanted to believe that his answers would be good enough. However, there are two basic matters which leave me profoundly dissatisfied.

The first is the status of the safeguards which the Minister proposes. My noble friend Lord Jay asked whether they would be in regulations or on the face of the Bill. The answer he received was that they would be in regulations. My noble friend Lord Mishcon and others asked about the status of codes of practice, but the legal position of these is still not entirely satisfactory or clear. There is no provision for enforcement. I suggest, not being a lawyer, that it would be unsatisfactory for provisions for the enforcement of codes of practice to be made by regulation rather than by statute. If we are to have a code of practice which is not in the Bill—and that may well be the right thing to do—there must be a back-up other than ministerial say-so; otherwise one has legislation coming in in effect at third hand down the administrative ladder rather than being made by Parliament. Therefore, that matter has not been satisfactorily resolved.

The second question which was not adequately answered by the Minister relates to the type of information which would be available to the community charge registrar from all these sources. He said that names and addresses would be disclosed, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out, in certain cases it is the names and addresses which are themselves sensitive. A woman could be traced by reference to the community charge register by a vindictive husband or by someone else who wished to cause harm.

There was considerable debate in Scotland concering dates of birth. A few moments ago we were assured by the Minister that no records would be kept of those under the age of 18. That is all very well, but in order to establish whether a person is eligible for the register many community charge registrars—probably all of them—will look for information on date of birth, because that is a qualifying factor.

When dates of birth are included on the register, whether or not ultimately they are made public in a commercial form is neither here nor there. However, the dates of birth of elderly people living on their own is a sensitive matter. In many cases it leaves them with the fear— whether justified or not, and I suggest that in many cases it is justified—that the fact that the information is available and that they are living alone makes them more vulnerable to attack. I wish that it were not the case, but I think it may well be so.

I did not weary the Committee by going through the many sensible protection provisions included in the proposed new schedule to which I was speaking: for example, keeping information up to date and not keeping it any longer than necessary; ensuring that it is adequate and not excessive; ensuring that it can be destroyed if it proves to be wrong; and seeing that there is a remedy against damage or distress as a result of a breach of any of these provisions. I could have taken a great deal longer in setting out to the Committee what is already available in the text of my amendments. However, the response of the Minister has not been adequate to any of the major points that have been raised. Under those circumstances it is right that I should seek the opinion of the Committee.

3.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided; Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 125.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Jeger, B.
Amherst, E. Kennet, L.
Ardwick, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Attlee, E. Kinloss, Ly.
Aylestone, L. Leatherland, L.
Banks, L. Listowel, E.
Blackstone, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,
Blease, L. Lytton, E.
Blyth, L. McCarthy, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. McNair, L.
Caradon, L. Mais, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Manchester, D.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Mayhew, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Meston, L.
David, B. Mishcon, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Monson, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Mulley, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Nicol, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Northfield, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Oram, L.
Falkland, V. Peston, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Fitt, L.
Fletcher, L. Raglan, L.
Flowers, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Foot, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Gallacher, L. Rochester, L.
Galpern, L. Ross of Newport, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Russell, E.
Sainsbury, L.
Gregson, L. Seear, B.
Grimond, L. Seebohm, L.
Hayter, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Hereford, Bp. Serota, B.
Hooson, L. Shannon, E.
Jay, L. Shepherd, L.
Soper, L. Thurlow, L.
Southwark, Bp. Tordoff, L.
Stallard, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Stedman, B. Underhill, L.
Stewart of Fulham, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Strabolgi, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Taylor of Mansfield, L. Worcester, Bp.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Hood, V.
Allerton, L. Hooper, B.
Alport, L. Hunter of Newington, L.
Ampthill, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Arran, E. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Auckland, L. Killearn, L.
Balfour, E. Kimball, L.
Barber, L. Kinnaird, L.
Bauer, L. Layton, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Long, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Lovat, L.
Beloff, L. McFadzean, L.
Belstead, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Blatch, B. Macleod of Borve, B.
Borthwick, L. Malmesbury, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Manton, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Margadale, L.
Brightman, L. Marley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Merrivale, L.
Caithness, E. Milverton, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Munster, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carnarvon, E. Nelson, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Norfolk, D.
Cathcart, E. Norrie, L.
Colnbrook, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Cottesloe, L. Orkney, E.
Cox, B. Orr-Ewing, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Oxfuird, V.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Pender, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Denning, L.
Derwent, L. Porritt, L.
Dormer, L. Portland, D.
Dudley, B. Pym, L.
Dundee, E. Rankeillour, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Reigate, L.
Ellenborough, L. Renton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Rugby, L.
Erroll of Hale, L. St. Davids, V.
Ferrers, E. Saltoun of Abernbethy, Ly.
Fisher, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Foley, L. Sandford, L.
Fortescue, E. Sempill, Ly.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Sharples, B.
Gibson-Watt, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Glenarthur, L. Somers, L.
Goold, L. Strathcarron, L.
Grantchester, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal L.
Gray of Contin, L.
Greenhill of Harrow, L. Strathspey, L.
Gridley, L. Terrington, L.
Grimthorpe, L. Teviot, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Thorneycroft, L.
Halsbury, E. Torphichen, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L. Trafford, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Tranmire, L.
Hemphill, L. Trumpington, B.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Henley, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Hesketh, L. Wise, L.
Hives, L. Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.49 p.m.

Clause 6 [Community charges register]:

[Amendment No. 59 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 60: Page 5, line 3, after ("maintain") insert ("and keep up to date").

The noble Lord said: The amendment makes the point that the community charge registrar should not only maintain his register but keep it up-to-date. That was one of the many points made in my proposed new schedule which we have just been debating. I venture to move the amendment now because it seems so self-evidently justifiable that I very much hope the Minister will feel it necessary and desirable to agree to it.

If a register is to be maintained surely it will not be of any use to anyone let alone for community charge purposes, unless it is kept up-to-date. This has implications not only for the efficiency of the community charge registration process but also for the register's validity in respect of the other purposes for which it is intended. It also has civil liberties' implications as regards the difficulties which would arise from an out-of-date register which would be no longer in force. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that for the purposes of registration it is necessary that the register should be kept up to date. I am asking him to say that that is what a good registrar should do and also that there should be a requirement to do so on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I cannot see the necessity for this amendment. If the duty is first to set up and then to maintain a register, surely that carries an obligation to keep it up to date? The noble Lord's amendment is a double statement and is quite unnecessary.

Lord Morton of Shuna

Is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in the Scottish Act, where the obligation as regards keeping up to date is put on the poll tax payer, who may have liability to pay two taxes unless he remembers to inform the registrar?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I do not have the Scottish Act with me but I am prepared to discuss the matter simply on the merits—if the noble Lord does not regard it as offensive—as they apply to the English Bill. I ask how one can possibly maintain a register if one does not keep it up to date.

Lord Morton of Shuna

That may well be so for England but an undertaking was given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that the Scottish legislation would be kept in line with that for England. If the obligation is to be put on the registrar and not on the payer of this tax I trust that the change will take place for the Scots as well. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has omitted the Welsh. Are they not to be included in this provision?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

With respect, this is not a question of the Scottish provision. It is simply a question of the English language. If the registrar is to maintain a register, he will not be maintaining it if he does not keep it up to date. That is my submission to the Committee.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

In moving the amendment the noble Lord rather gave that answer himself. He asked a question in the form of an amendment and then said pretty much what my noble friend said—that you would expect this to happen. Are these not unnecessary words? What does "up to date" mean? Up to what date? When does it start and when does it finish? Does not the amendment insert uncertainty? This is not an amendment to be proceeded with.

Lord Somers

I do not often dare to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but surely to maintain a list means, strictly speaking, to keep it as it is and not to make various alterations that may be necessary?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, it depends on what one is talking about. If one is talking about a register, one is not maintaining it if one allows it to become out of date.

The Earl of Caithness

I thought that this would lead to such an argument, and indeed I come down firmly on the side of the clear and concise argument of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The Government's clear legal advice is that it would be tautological to accept Amendment No. 60 moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We believe that it is inherent in the concept of maintaining the register that it will be kept up to date.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

We have had not perhaps a semantic argument but an argument about definition of terms. I shall certainly not pursue the matter in conflict with the Minister's legal advisers but it seems to me that public administration provides far too many examples of things which are maintained but are not kept up to date. For example, our road surfaces could be criticised in that way. There is a budget for maintenance but it does not stop the roads having potholes.

The issue here is important and is not entirely satisfactorily dealt with in the Minister's reply. It still seems to be that it is desirable from the Secretary of State's point of view and from the community charge registrar's point of view that the register should be kept up to date as well as being maintained, because I do not think that those words mean entirely the same thing. However, it seems that there would be some virtue in ensuring that a certain person is responsible for keeping it up to date rather than, as in the Scottish Act, it being the responsibility of the individual community charge payer.

I am afraid that this is the type of difficulty that the Government have created for themselves by demanding that there should be a register which is capable of being altered from day to day as the obligation to pay the community charge alters from day to day. It is a much more vulnerable instrument for abuse, mistakes and administrative chaos than the rating register, which is a register of properties. The Government have got themselves into this difficulty in regard to the detail with which the register has to be considered and which must be provided for by legislation. However, it is not an appropriate matter on which to divide the Committee. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4 p.m.

Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 60A: Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and with subsection 8 (A) below,").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60A I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 65. Amendment No. 65 makes the important provision that: A registration officer shall seek only such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions". That general proposition is intended to complement and supplement whatever other safeguards there are, or ought to be in the Bill or in the underlying regulations, however they turn out to be.

I venture to suggest that the amendment is perhaps all the more important now in the light of the Committee's recent decision to reject the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendments provide, especially Amendment No. 65, what I suggest is a long stop in the absence of any more specific guidelines in the Bill. It says to the registration officer that his powers are limited to the gathering of such information as is reasonably required, and no more than that.

I am most encouraged by the fact that on Report in another place the Government indicated that they would consider an amendment to this effect. Therefore I now hope that they will accept the amendment, or something similar to it. As I suggested earlier, without the amendment there is a considerable gap in the Bill because there is no clear limit which indicates what the registration officers can do, and there is also no limitation on overzealous registrars or registration officers adopting perhaps some of the less attractive techniques of the private detective. Therefore, with that in mind, I beg to move.

Lord Monson

The word "reasonable" is admittedly somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, most reasonable people are broadly in agreement about what consitutes reasonableness and would surely consider it wholly reasonable that the registration officer's powers should be modestly circumscribed by this important safeguard. For that reason I gladly support the amendment and hope that Members of the Committee will feel the same way.

Lord Morton of Shuna

I too support the amendment and take the opportunity to raise another question regarding the Scottish demand, which last year's Bill insisted upon as regards date of birth. If the Minister remembers, as I am sure his colleague does, my noble friends Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael, and myself fought very hard about the iniquity of insisting upon a person's date of birth being recorded on the register. I wonder why it is necessary to have Alistair MacDonald's date of birth in Scotland but, on the other hand, not apparently ncecessary to have the date of birth of John Smith in England. Why is it that the one is not to be confused, whereas the other might be? I hope that Minister will answer my question.

The Earl of Caithness

Amendments Nos. 60A and 65 would require the registration officer to seek only such information as he may reasonably require in connection with his functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, just reminded the Committee, a similar amendment was tabled on Report in another place. On that occasion my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said that he understood the motivation for the amendment and undertook to consider whether the Bill should be amended to incorporate the concept that registration officers may seek only such information as they reasonably require. I can inform the Committee that the Government's intention is precisely that registration officers should be subject at all times to the duty to act reasonably. As a result, we have obtained advice on the point and have received confirmation that the powers will, because of the Wednesbury principle, already be read in that way. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary because they will be duty bound to act reasonably.

In response to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I shall have much to say about the differences between England and Scotland at a later stage. I hope, therefore, that he will be pent up and ready to argue those matters at that time. Nevertheless, I should like to say to him at this stage that of course there will be some differences in detail between the English Bill and the Scottish Act. That is absolutely in accord with the principle that there is a different legal system in Scotland than in England. I am sure the noble Lord would not want it otherwise. However, on the point he raised with regard to dates of birth, this was imposed because the Scottish local authorities requested it and as a result of their request were subsequently given the provision.

Lord Morton of Shuna

Would it were that Scottish local authorities received everything that they asked for! Nevertheless, they somehow seem not to receive the money they need. However, that is perhaps a different point. Surely the Government have a duty occasionally to consider the rights of the citizen as an individual, their personal rights. It may be most convenient for the Inland Revenue, for a local authority or any government body to know something about someone. However, if a lady of 85 years of age wishes to hide the fact that she is 85 and not 90 or 80, and also that she lives alone, and therefore does not want that fact to be on a public register, is it not sensible for the Government to take account of such a situation where a person can be properly identified?

I turn now from the Scottish situation to the other one. I found the reference to the Wednesbury principles quite astonishing. The Wednesbury principles apply only to administrative action. If the statute lays down a rule, the Wednesbury principles only apply, as judicial review only applies, to whether that duty in the statute is being reasonably carried out. We are talking about the statute at this stage. If the statute lays down the rules, then the principles as to whether they are being reasonably applied by the local authority will operate. The statute leaves the whole matter vague and open, as does the Bill. There is nothing for the court to deal with. Therefore, with the greatest respect, it does not seem that the response given on the issue of judicial review is really an answer.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Just for the record, I think that when the noble Lord recollects the debate we had about the inclusion of age in the register, he will realise that we had an important discussion about that aspect. The Government were asked to include age in order to make it easier to tell one John Smith from another in the same household. We were told that often one has the grandfather, the grandson and the son—I am getting my generations confused—in the same household. However, what I mean is that there are sometimes three John Smiths in the one household and therefore the provision would help identify which was which. Nevertheless we received an assurance—I think the noble Lord has forgotten this—that the age would not be on the published register; that would be the part that was not published. That was why the provision was agreed to. It is a most important point.

If Scottish local authorities require the provision and the English ones do not, then I suppose the difference is not enormously significant. Nonetheless, I am surprised that if it is a useful tool in one place, it is not so useful in another; and if it is a dispensable tool in one place, it is not dispensable in another. This is not a major issue because the information is private. The forms presently being circulated in Scotland, which are being filled in by responsible people in each house, include age. When it is explained to people that it is merely a matter of identification, I have found that they do not mind. In my view it is not the major issue it may seem to be.

The Earl of Caithness

My noble friend is right and I am most grateful to her for what she has said. Indeed this is a point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned when he wound up on the first amendment. He confused the two points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. They confused what is available on the register with what is on an extract of the register. The content of the register will be slightly more detailed but will only be available to the person named because of the Data Protection Act. In other words, a person can only see the extract which relates to himself; he will not be able to look at other matters because they will not be public. The extract of the register which contains the names and addresses will be public, as indeed the rating valuation list is at present. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, there are cases where those who wish to be exempted—for example, battered wives do not want their husbands to know, or for other reasons—can be exempt.

Lord Morton of Shuna

Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to point out to him that the responsible person has to ask everyone in the house their date of birth. Therefore, if one can imagine various relationships in a house that can sometimes lead to a difficult situation.

Lord Meston

I am most grateful for the support I have received for this modest amendment, especially for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He indicated—as indeed I think a lawyer would—that reasonable people can differ reasonably as to what is reasonable. Nevertheless, that is not a reason for not including the words in the Bill. Frankly I am most concerned that the Government feel, because their advice is to the effect that this is governed by the Wednesbury principles, that it is possible to leave these words out of the Bill. If the point is covered by the common law, surely there is nothing for the Government to be afraid of in having on the face of the Bill a clear statement that the registration officer should only seek such information as he may reasonably require.

I understand that the Government have taken advice on the matter, as the noble Earl indicated. I too wish to consider the position in law, in particular the potential operation of the Wednesbury principles and whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, they are limited in their relation to administrative law so as not to be the safeguard that I would wish to see in the Bill. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve my position at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 60B: Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and shall not obtain any information for this purpose from any electoral register.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 60B, I wish to speak to the connected amendments, Nos. 63 and 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

Amendments Nos. 63 and 67 are intended to prevent cross reference by the registration officer to the electoral register. On the face of it, that may appear to be a surprising proposition, but it is widely perceived and predicted that if such cross reference is allowed, and understood to be allowed, there will be a considerable disincentive to those people entitled to register to vote, especially those entitled to register for the first time.

It is widely feared that if that happens it will cause a substantial disservice to the democratic process. It has been widely reported that there is already a considerable lack of interest among younger people in the political and parliamentary processes of this country. That is all very salutary for the politicians but for society as a whole it is essentially unhealthy. It is especially unhealthy if people who are entitled to vote do not register because they will now have a further excuse not to do so.

I am conscious of the fact that in proposing the amendment I am leaving myself open to the suggestion that I condone the evasion of the charge; but the fact is—it is a fact—that those who think that they can evade or avoid the charge by not registering to vote are shortsighted because of course registration for the charge can be secured by other means. People will think that they can avoid the charge by not registering for electoral purposes. That is too high a price for our democratic process.

There is another practical consideration for not allowing cross reference in that way; that is, it will make life considerably more difficult for electoral registration officers. The electoral register, which is already not an altogether reliable document, will tend to become yet more inaccurate. The Government argued in another place that the two registers are separate and should be kept separate. If that is so, I propose the amendments with the intention that the registers should be seen to be kept separate.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

The noble Lord's amendment is understandable because he rightly, like most Members of the Committee, does not wish to discourage people entitled to go on the electoral register from going on it. As many Members of the Committee with experience of local and parliamentary government know, the electoral register is not always as complete as one would wish and as it should be in a democracy. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord fully appreciates the imputation he is making against the moral standards of some of our fellow countrymen. He suggests that there are people—he referred specifically to young people—who wish to go on the electoral register so as to be able to vote and determine the policy of their local authority but who at the same time wish to evade making the financial contribution which the decisions of that local authority may impose.

I suggest that it is not a creditable posture for any citizen—if there be any citizen so disposed—to say, "Yes, I want to be able to vote. I want to be able to make my policy views known, but I want to avoid the financial consequences by evading my duty to go on this other register for the community charge". That is not a reflection that many of us would wish to make upon the moral standards of our fellow countrymen. I do not believe there are many—there may be a few—who would act in that deplorable way.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Somers

Is the noble Lord implying that he is convinced that there is no one in our democracy who goes in for tax evasion? I do not think that that is a realistic attitude.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I did not say that there was no one. I said that it was a grave reflection on a large number of people to suggest that there were substantial numbers of people who would have the curious mental attitude that they wish to be able to determine the policies of the local authority by going on the register but wish at the same time to evade their financial responsibilities. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that is the point, rather than the more general question of tax evasion or tax avoidance, which is a complex subject relating mainly not to this topic but to income tax, which I shall be happy to debate with him on some occasion when it is perhaps relevant.

I believe that the proposal is a tiresome reflection. I see no reason why on occasion the information which the registration officer requires should not be obtained from the electoral register. It is a possible source of information. I know the views of Members opposite about the community charge. They are of course against it. However, if we are to have it—the decision of this place the other day confirming that of another place makes it clear that we will have it—surely one wants to have it in the fairest way possible; and the fairest way possible is that the maximum number of those liable to pay it should be on the register and should have to pay it.

If there is substantial evasion, it merely means that other people have to pay more. It therefore seems a pity that we should take any step, for the rather flimsy reasons that the noble Lord put forward, which could have the effect of diminishing the number of people on whom the community charge is properly levied in accordance with the decisions of Parliament.

Earl Russell

The noble Lord has made an extremely interesting speech, with perhaps rather more far-reaching implications than he is aware. This is the first time in this place that I have heard set out the case for moral qualifications for citizenship. I find it curious. We live in a country which for good or ill has universal suffrage for young and old, rich and poor and good and evil, saving only condemned criminals, lunatics and Peers of the Realm.

Hitherto, Parliament has severely set its face against any exceptions to that principle. I have listened to the noble Lord on many occasions. I never thought to hear him setting forth the case for the rule of the saints. I am somewhat taken aback.

Many of us arc well aware that the electoral register is an imperfect document. Many of us who have tried to make it less imperfect are aware that the feeling one encounters when trying to persuade people to register is not usually a specific desire to evade the specific purpose, with which I have no sympathy and with which I said on Second Reading that I have no sympathy. It is a simple, generalised fear that the information may be used against one. If one wishes people to fill in their names for the electoral register one must be able to assure them categorically that that is not the case.

Unless the amendment is carried, I cannot see how that requirement can be satisfied. If the requirement is not satisfied, our claims to live in a democracy are, however mindlessly, called into question.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

As one would expect of him, the noble Earl put his case much more plausibly than did his noble friend who moved the amendment. However, it was plausible rather than convincing. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, made the point that if it were known that the electoral register could be used to construct the register, quite a number of people who would otherwise go on the electoral register would not put their name forward. That was his clear statement. It was to that clear statement and the reflection that it conveyed on a number of our fellow citizens that I took, and take, exception.

The noble Earl is much more vague about it. He says that there might be some strange idea, however unfounded, that if one is on the electoral register one will be caught for the community charge. However, he put that point with a certain statesman-like lack of precision to which we are accustomed from those Benches.

Your Lordships must decide whether the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is right; whether there will be deliberate abstention from going on the electoral register because the individual concerned fears being caught for the community charge, or whether there might be some vague apprehension without any particular intention to evade tax which, as I understand it, is the view of the noble Earl. I think that both of those views are wrong but it would be interesting to know which of them is the view of the Alliance.

Lord Jay

The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seems to be arguing that we should have no anti-tax evasion provisions at all because such provisions would have an implied grave reflection on the moral conduct of our fellow citizens. I hardly think that he wishes to push matters as far as that. His main argument seems to rest on a mistaken view of what has been argued from other parts of the Committee. He says that it is very wrong and deplorable that someone should say that he wishes to exercise his vote and thereby reflect the policy of local authorities, and at the same time not contribute to their expense.

However, that is not the suggestion at all. The suggestion is that some people, unhappily, might say that having to pay the community charge is such a hardship that they would rather sacrifice as an exchange their ability to vote. It may be deplorable that that should be so, but that is the suggestion. Most of us, at any rate in a common-sense mood, would agree that that might happen on a not negligible scale. That is even more undesirable than the movers of the amendment suggested. The number of people exercising their democratic right to vote would be diminished. In addition, the number would diminish in a biased fashion because most of those who gave way to the wish not to exercise their vote would be people whose incomes were very low and who found the community charge a very serious burden.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Is the noble Lord, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, suggesting that tax evasion is simply the prerogative of the poor?

Lord Jay

I think that if the noble Lord thinks that, he did not really listen to what I was saying. I said that it was not a moral reflection on large numbers of our fellow citizens to say that we should make our tax system proof against evasion. I should have thought that most of us would agree with that. However, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has answered the point that some people might be driven by this provision to relinquish their right to vote. That would be a highly undesirable development.

Lord Underhill

As most noble Lords will know, I have spent a great part of my life trying to get electoral registers up to date. Therefore, I am the last person who would wish to diminish in any way the importance of the electoral register. However, we are dealing with two registers. The Bill makes it perfectly clear. It appears that the same officer might be the registration officer and the electoral registration officer, but we are dealing with two separate operations. The intention is that there should be a separate canvass for the community charge register. In addition, we have been pressing for a proper canvass for the electoral register. This is not carried out in all areas.

One must not ignore what my noble friend has said. During the Second Reading debate, regrettable though it may be, a number of noble Lords stressed that the community charge could lead to a break-up of families, particularly poorer families, where young men move away from home. I always give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his excellent debating arguments, but the other points which have been raised must be taken into account.

I should like to draw attention to Amendment No. 67 in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. He does not just refer to the question of information not being obtained from any electoral register. Incidentally, my interpretation of any electoral register includes an absent voters' register which contains essential information which it may be desirable should go to the community charge registration officer. My noble friend's amendment says that the registration officer's duty to compile and maintain a register does not include the power to cross reference. I think that that is a rather important point. The electoral register only contains names and addresses and the date at which a person is due to become 18 before the expiry of the register. There is no other information at all on the electoral register. The absent voters' electoral register may contain other information.

It could be that the cross-referencing by the electoral registration officer or his staff with the community charge register could provide information which people may not wish to divulge. The important point raised in the Bill is whether a man and a woman are living together as man and wife. That information is not contained in the electoral register. Mr. Jones is Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith is Mrs. Smith. No other information is given at all except their address. The community charge register will indicate whether Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith are living together as man and wife, because they will be charged accordingly. The noble Earl seems mystified but I gather that people who are living together in this category who are believed to be man and wife can be charged with the community charge; and one may be responsible for the other if one does not pay. That is the importance of the cross-referencing to which I am referring.

There can also be the possibility of tracing. I agree that it is desirable that people should obey a law. However, I can readily understand the position of a poor family where two lads decide to come down to London, but they are still on the register in Glasgow until the end of the qualifying register. The qualifying date each year is the set date of 10th October. I gather that the community charge register will be added to regularly.

There is more in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston and my noble friend's Amendment No. 67 than some noble Lords have given credit for. I support not only the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but in particular the amendment of my noble friend which refers to this important question of cross-reference.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

The opening of Clause 6 reads: The registration officer for a charging authority shall compile, and then maintain, a community charges register for the authority in accordance with this Part". When the Bill becomes an Act, it will insist that whoever is the registration officer shall carry out this task. His job is to obtain—he must do it, that is what the Bill is all about—a full and complete register in order to meet the problem which has given rise to this Bill. In doing that, he is particularly helping the other people who appear on the register. The more people who are on it, the more the load is shared. That means that the problem which has brought the whole Bill about will be that much lighter for everybody concerned.

How can we write into this Bill the very clear words that "the registration officer shall compile"—there is nothing about "may"—this register? It gives him the duty to see that it is as full as it can be. He should not then be denied access, in order to carry out his task, to something which he knows exists. He knows that there is an electoral register. We know that people refer to it for all sorts of purposes. I do not think that we can agree to the first paragraph of Clause 1 and then deny to the man who must carry out the task which we have given to him the facilities for doing it fully and sensibly.

For those reasons, I believe on this amendment that if one is against the Bill then nothing ought to be done. We might say, as both noble Lords have said, that we agree with obeying the law and agree as a Parliament that this Bill is necessary. But if we put this clause in which says that the registration officer must compile the register and then say that he shall not have access to much of the evidence to make it the sort of register we want it to be, I believe that would be rather silly and we ought not to pursue it.

The Earl of Onslow

Can my noble friend answer a question? I am asking it solely as a matter of interest and curiosity. If there is to be a new register for the poll tax, will the registrar be able to check it against the electoral register? Or is the electoral register going to be secret? If the registrar checks it against the electoral register, it will have the same effect since it will be the same register. Perhaps my noble friend could answer that question.

Lord Underhill

I should like to intervene and say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. A Bill may place responsibility upon an officer to do a certain thing. Surely that does not mean that he can act in a way which we might consider to be wrong socially and wrong from the standpoint of responsibility. Therefore there must be some qualifications laid down. The duty of an electoral registration officer is to compile the electoral register. But there are certain practices which he should not carry out. There are other practices which I should like to see him carry out. He does not carry out the door-to-door canvassing which I would like to see for the electoral register. Therefore we may lay down what an officer's responsibility is, but it must be constrained within what is regarded as responsible, decent and socially desirable practice.

The Earl of Caithness

I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in support of these amendments, but I have to say that I find them (as did my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter) unconvincing. I do so for two compelling reasons. The first is that in the Government's view there is nothing objectionable in allowing community charges registration officers to have access to electoral registers. The second is that these amendments would in practice achieve absolutely nothing and would be quite unenforceable.

The electoral register is a legitimate source of information which is already in the public domain. There will of course be no question of community charges registration officers basing their registers on the electoral register. The two registers will not have the same coverage and they will be compiled and maintained separately. There will be people who appear on the electoral register but not the community charges register, and vice versa. There will be no question therefore of appearance on the electoral register being evidence that a person's name should also appear on the community charges register. Nor will the fact that a person's name does not appear on the electoral register mean that person will be able to avoid registration for the community charge.

The truth of the matter is that community charges registration officers will compile their registers by means of canvasses of households in their areas and by cross-checking, in the interests of accuracy, against the many sources of local data at their disposal. The electoral register will be just one such data source among many, and I can see nothing objectionable in that.

Let me turn then to what I think is the clinching argument against these amendments—the fact that they would achieve nothing and would be quite unenforceable in practice. This is a point which has not yet been covered, although I have to say that my noble friend Lord Onslow came closest to it. The electoral register is, as I have said, a public document which is open for inspection by anyone who wishes to see it. This means that even if we were to introduce a provision banning community charges registration officers from inspecting the electoral register, that provision could not possibly achieve anything. Surely, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would agree that it is a nonsense to say, on the one hand, that as a member of the public the community charges registration officer may inspect the electoral register, but on the other, in his official capacity as registration officer, he may not. I hope that the noble Lord will find that a convincing argument because he as a lawyer will see the difficulty of enforcing it.

Perhaps I may turn to two points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The community charges registration officer in England and Wales cannot he the electoral registration officer. Of course, the noble Lord is right. He was casting his mind back to Scotland where it can and indeed will be the same person. In England and Wales it cannot be the same person.

Lord Underhill

Would the noble Earl give way? I am glad he has made that correction for me, but it makes our case even more important. They are two separate officers.

The Earl of Caithness

Indeed, but as I have said, the electoral role is already in the public domain and can be inspected by the community charges registration officer as a private citizen, should he so wish.

The second point is in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who rightly said that I was looking somewhat quizzical at one stage when he referred to couples. I fear that the noble Lord was under a slight misapprehension about the couples. We can deal with them in more detail when we come to Clause 16 later on. A this stage I shall just say that joint and several liability will not appear on the register, so the fact that a John Smith and a Jill Smith are married will not be apparent from the community charges register, nor known to the registration officer. The joint and several liability point which comes in is only when they separate and one person does not pay the community charge. However, that is an argument for Clause 16, not for this stage.

Lord Meston

The simple fact is that the availability of the electoral register to the registration officer for the purposes of the community charge will be a deterrent to electoral registration. I suggest that that is not a flimsy supposition, it is a fact. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that in many ways the idea that people will not register to vote, because they will be tempted in that way to try to avoid the charge, is not a particularly attractive or credible proposition. I emphasise the phrase "try to avoid the charge" because of course the charge may be enforced against them in other ways. But the fact is—and it is a cynical fact—that we must consider people as they will behave and as they are likely to behave, not as they ought to behave.

Perhaps I should have mentioned this point in my opening remarks. The indications are that what I suggest will happen is already happening. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities carried out a survey. One northern metropolitan district found that a man had deleted his wife and daughter, both eligible to pay tax in their own right.

Baroness Seear

He deleted their names.

Lord Meston

I am reminded by my noble friend that he deleted their names, not the people. They were both eligible to pay tax in their own right for the first time. A council in the north-west cited examples of 18 year-olds and rising 18 year-olds being deliberately left off by parents who fear that they will have to pay the poll tax for them. If it is the fact that parents will be tempted to leave the names of their teenage children off the form, that will not be good for democracy nor for the work of the electoral registration process. Of course the noble Earl is right when he says that the electoral register is a public document. It is meant to be a fairly comprehensive public document containing the names of almost all adults in the country. I suggest that without this amendment it is hard to believe that the registration officer, for the purposes of the community charge, wilÌ not be tempted to rely on it as a primary source of information.

Of course it will not be the only source of information, and because it is not the only source of information I would suggest that my amendment does not greatly weaken the powers given by this Bill to the registration officer for the purposes of the community charge. But if the electoral register is to become more unreliable by virtue of the fact that people will be tempted not to put their names on it, the purpose of my amendment would be undermined. I accept that. However, in view of the strength of feeling on this side I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee.

The Earl of Caithness

Before the noble Lord decides finally what to do with his amendment, may I make two points? He cited a case in the North of a parent who had not put down the names of his child or wife or declared their income because of fear of the community charge. That goes to show what misconceptions there still are about the community charge and about parents being responsible for their 18 year-old children and above. When people realise that parents will not be responsible and that the child or indeed the grandparent living in the house will be assessed separately on their own income, I believe that that, and the many, misapprehensions that there still are sadly, will disappear.

I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that if he was the electoral officer and I was the community charge officer and I asked to inspect his roll, the noble Lord would doubtless turn to me and say, "No. You are the community charge registration officer. You cannot inspect my roll." But I would then say, "But I am now looking in my capacity as a private citizen." So the noble Lord would then show me the roll. That is not workable in practice.

Lord Sefton of Garston

All that does is to prove how unworkable the Bill is. I have been trying to find out where the inquiry form is which I hope has been circulated to Scotland. I have not found one available in the House. I should have thought that we would have needed to know what that inquiry form that the registration officer sends out contains. I do not think it is right that when I go to the Printed Paper Office I am not able to obtain it. All I can obtain is a booklet entitled You and the Community Charge. That concerns the charge as it affects the people of Scotland.

There is no doubt that there will be a connection between the electoral register and the community charges register. The Minister emphasises the fact that even if a law were passed prohibiting the community charge officer from inspecting the electoral register, he could get round that by asking to inspect it as a private citizen. He could use that means of checking the register.

That merely proves that the connection is there. Why are we playing about with words? But, worse still, why do the Government not tell the people of Scotland that? I am assuming that the same principles apply to Scotland. If they do not I understand that at some stage in the future the Government will make them apply equally to Scotland as to England and Wales.

What does the booklet say? If the English language means anything, it states in the booklet: Will it affect my right to vote? That question is supposed to be one that a Scottish person would ask. That is a plain, simple enough question. The answer from the Government is: No. The community charge and its register have nothing to do with your right to vote". Is that really what the Minister thinks personally—that it has nothing to do with peoples' right to vote? People are compelled to put on the electoral register the address of a person who is entitled to vote. Then the Minister tells us that the community charge officer can go and check up on the register and, I assume, subject that person to a fine or a penalty. To suggest that that has nothing to do with one's right to vote is sheer fraud, and it is being visited upon the Scottish people at the moment.

The Earl of Caithness

I must contradict the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. There is no evidence to substantiate his case at all. According to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and indeed the Home Office, there has been no significant effect from the community charge in Scotland or elsewhere in reducing the accuracy of the electoral register.

To the small extent that there has been evidence of any reduction in some authorities in the numbers on the electoral register, that is equally explicable by many other factors such as it being the year after a general election.

Lord Sefton of Garston

The Minister must agree that that is playing with words again. The principle that I have been underlining is that the Government are wrong to say that there is no connection. There is a connection and the Minister has indicated to the community charge officer how, even if he were refused access to the electoral register, he can get round it. That will not pull the wool over anyone's eyes. This is a poll tax and nothing else.

The Earl of Onslow

I rise to support, rather oddly, my noble friend on the Front Bench. He knows perfectly well that I think this is a pretty bad tax. But, having said that, we have now agreed that we are going to have this wretched tax. To put an amendment in the Bill which states that one public servant may not read another public document strikes me as being even sillier than the tax itself. Therefore I support my noble friend.

Lord Meston

The fact is that the Minister said that the example that I cited only went to show what misconceptions there still were about the workings of this Bill and how it will work. If there are misconceptions, I am bound to comment that it must be the fault of the Government. But in the real world parents will feel liable to pay for their children who are coming up to the age of 18. In practice, in the real world, they will all be paying out of the same family budget.

If a registration officer feels tempted to sneak a look at the electoral register, there is nothing one can do in practice to prevent him. But if he does do so he had better do so in his own time. We certainly should not approve of the practice on the face of the Bill. Therefore I am unpersuaded; I wish to press the amendment to a Division.

4.48 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided; Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 144.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Ardwick, L. McNair, L.
Attlee, E. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Aylestone, L. Mayhew, L.
Banks, L. Meston, L.
Blackstone, B. Molloy, L.
Blease, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Mulley, L.
Bruce of Donington. L. Nicol, B.
Caradon, L. Northfield, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Oram, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Peston, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffc, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
David, B. Rathcreedan, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Rochester, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Ross of Newport, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Russell, E.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Sainsbury, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Seear, B. [Teller.]
Ezra, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Falkland, V. Serota, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Shepherd, L.
Flowers, L. Stallard, L.
Foot, L. Stedman, B.
Gallacher, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Galpern, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hayter, L. Thurlow, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Tordoff, L.
Jay, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Jeger, B. Underhill, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
John-Mackie, L. Wigoder, L.
Listowel, E. Williams of Elvel, L.
McCarthy, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Auckland, L.
Allerton, L. Balfour, E.
Arran, E. Barber, L.
Bauer, L. Lauderdale, E.
Beaverbrook, L. Layton, L.
Beloff, L. Long, V.
Belstead, L. Lyell, L.
Bessborough, E. McAlpine of Moffat, L.
Blatch, B. McFadzean, L.
Blyth, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Borthwick, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Malmesbury, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Manchester, D.
Brain, L. Manton, L.
Broadbridge, L. Marley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Merrivale, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Milverton, L.
Butterworth, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Caithness, E. Mottistone, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Munster, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carnarvon, E. Nelson, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Norfolk, D.
Carnock, L. Norrie, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cathcart, E. Onslow, E.
Chelwood, L. Orkney, E.
Coleraine, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Colnbrook, L. Oxfuird, V.
Conslantine of Stanmore, L. Pender, L.
Cottesloe, L. Penrhyn, L.
Cox, B. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Porritt, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Portland, D.
Denning, L. Pym, L.
Derwent, L. Radnor, E.
Dundee, E. Rankeillour, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Reay, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Reigate, L.
Erroll of Hale, L. Renton, L.
Faithfull, B. Renwick, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Rippon of Hexham, L.
Ferrers, E. Romney, E.
Foley, L. Rugby, L.
Fortescue, E. St. Davids, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Gainford, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Sandford, L.
Gibson-Watt, L. Seebohm, L.
Glenarthur, L. Sempill, Ly.
Goold, L. Sharples, B.
Grantchester, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Strathcarron, L.
Greenway, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Gridley, L.
Grimthorpe, L. Strathspey, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Swansea, L.
Swinton, E.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L. Terrington, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Teviot, L.
Hemphill, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Henley, L. Todd, L.
Hereford, Bp. Torphichen, L.
Hesketh, L. Trafford, L.
Hives, L. Tranmire, L.
Hooper, B. Trefgarne, L.
Hunter of Newington, L. Trumpington, B.
Hylton-Foster, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Wise, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Worcester, Bp.
Kimball, L. Wynford, L.
Kinnaird, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.56 p.m.

Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 60C: Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and shall be responsible for ensuring that the register remains the property of the charging authority in accordance with subsection 8(A) below.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60C, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 66. This takes us to a separate area of concern, but a very important one.

The Earl of Caithness

Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 85 are now grouped separately.

Lord Meston

I may say that I am not consciously speaking to those amendments. The amendments to which I am speaking are concerned purely and simply with the question of whether or not the register can be copied or sold and used by commercial organisations. I am not sure that the matter is covered by Amendment No. 61E, but, if so I wish to cover the same ground.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

May I try to help the Committee? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the amendments are related and refer to the uses to which the register can be put for commercial purposes or otherwise. I certainly intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 85, which I find on the same line.

Lord Meston

So be it. The amendments standing in my name are particularly concerned to prevent the sale or other commercial use of the register. There is a very genuine worry that under the Bill a power may be given to the registration officer to sell the register to outside organisations quite unconnected with the collection of the community charge.

As I understand the position, at Committee stage in another place the Government indicated that they were considering the competing interests concerned in this area. To that extent, if the Government have retained an open mind I shall be glad to hear that that is still the position. If the Government have reached a decision I should also be glad to hear what it is.

My proposal is that the register should be used only for the statutory purposes of the registrar, to assist him in carrying out his statutory duties. It should not be used to enable local authorities to profit from the personal information provided by people for the specific statutory purpose of registration for the community charge. The register should not be used to provide commercial organisations with new and better material which they can use for their own business purposes. One thinks particularly of estate agents, debt collectors and the catalogue companies who can use information in this way, aided by the large computerised data banks which exist to assist them and them alone.

The great majority of people already disapprove of the way in which the electoral register is used, and there are opinion polls to support what I have just said. The register to be produced under the Bill would be more valuable to such commercial organisations because it is what is called a rolling register; it is more up to date. It will probably provide more valuable information indicating the relationship of all the people in the household, their status under the Bill, whether they are students, suffer from a handicap or the like. It will indicate ethnic origins, and as has already been touched upon earlier in the debate, it will also indicate clearly to the person reading the register whether an individual within a household is a single person living alone.

So one is not just concerned -although one is concerned——with the irritation to ordinary members of the public caused by junk mail. Most, if not all of us, are strong enough to throw that into the waste paper basket. There is a positive danger to the vulnerable, particularly from the aggressive, the intrusive, the unscrupulous or the criminal.

One only has to think of the way in which published registers are already used. I think particularly of the rent register which is used by property companies which write to small landlords asking to buy up their properties. Having pursuaded them to sell, the property companies then persuade the tenants to leave. It is all very undesirable.

Unsolicited junk mail can be not just a nuisance; it can be a positive menace. In one particular example which occurred within my own professional practice a couple sold their house. The purchaser put in tenants who were less honest than they ought to be. Some advertising material arrived addressed to the couple who had already sold their property. The new, unscrupulous tenants, using the names of the already departed couple, bought goods on hire purchase in the names of the previous owners of the property, forging signatures. The people who had sold the property only found out that their names had been used in that way when they themselves wanted to enter into a perfectly legitimate credit transaction and found that they had a very bad credit rating which they had not earned, but which had been brought about by the tenants in their former property having misused their names. They were lucky not to find themselves embarrassed by the police making inquiries into what had happened.

My basic proposition, therefore, is that it is not only unnecessary but undesirable for local authorities to be enabled to sell the register. There is no public interest in allowing local authorities to sell the register and there is certainly no interest from the individual's point of view in allowing the register to be used in that way. I would suggest that the public are entitled to be reassured that the register will not be used for those ulterior purposes. I beg to move.

Lord Bruce of Donington

In speaking to Amendment No. 60C, I should like also to speak in support of Amendments Nos. 61E, 61F and 85. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raises the very serious point—which I know the Minister will have taken on board—of the possible abuse of the register by organisations which themselves are of the highest repute. I do not think that any aspersion is being cast upon either the business integrity or the bona fides of the people who would use the information. However, we are not talking in terms of commercial organisations, we are talking in terms of the nexus of the individual who is subject to the law and the law will indicate what he has to go through, whether he likes it or not. The registration officers will do their job. Then we are faced with the problem of making sure that the good faith shown by the citizen—to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, alluded earlier, quite fairly—does not result in intrusion into his privacy for some business or commercial purpose. I think that we all understand that such information can be valuable.

The noble Lord will be well aware of much of the background to the matter. For instance, in 1986, the BBC conducted an opinion poll which indicated that 79 per cent. of the public disapproved or strongly disapproved of the sale of such information without their permission. That is the purpose of the amendments to which I am speaking. We are not arguing that the registers ought not to be accessible to a range of people, which is the burden of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are arguing that we should make sure that if information which is of commercial value is to be made available it should be with the permission of the people who arc affected. That is why we move our first two amendments Clause 6 states that the details contained in the register shall contain a number of items. We want to add an additional item which states: Whether or not the person has indicated his consent for the copying or supply of information recorded under this section for any purpose unconnected with the collection of the charge". If the Minister can tell us that there is a means of ensuring that the information supplied will be used solely and exclusively for the purposes for which it has been collected, that would go a very long way towards persuading my noble friend and me not to press the matters in this instance.

I am sure that the Minister understands that there are many people who will be loath to feel that their personal details will be released. Previous amendments have gone over the ground and we are not in the business of simply repeating points for the sake of taking up time. I am certain that the Minister will have taken the point that we wish to make.

Amendment No. 85—and I think that it is as well that we go straight to the face of the Bill—relates to the provision that: The regulations may include provision that the registration officer shall (on request) supply a copy of the extract and list to any person". It adds the words: The extract and list shall not be copied and supplied to any person for any purposes other than for the purpose of administering the collection of the community charge and related purposes specified in the Act". The Minister will recall that I showed an interest in this matter at a previous stage in the debates. I can understand that he has to make a fine balance of judgment between the privacy of the individual and the business needs of the community. We are not arguing that the issue is black and white. What we are arguing here is that the interests of the individual, who is entitled to privacy, must be considered. He is entitled at least to be advised. He is not entitled to opt out of having his name on the register but he is entitled to be certain that the information will not be available for commercial purposes. The Minister knows that two kinds of register will be compiled.

The Minister can be helpful to our case. It is very strongly supported by the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has quite fairly written to a great many people about the matter. I have copies of that correspondence and also of speeches that were made by the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard, who is sympathetic to the points that have been raised. However, they were not resolved in another place. I should be grateful if the Minister could help us on this matter before we decide how to proceed.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

Instinctively I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments. When a job needs to be carried out, I am reluctant completely to close the door on every point come what may. The arguments that have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lord who has just spoken carry considerable weight. I hope that my noble friend will be in a position to assure the Committee either that the risks outlined do not exist or that he intends to do something which will eradicate any risks which he may have to admit exist at the moment.

Lord Monson

The merits of this group of amendments are obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just indicated. There is not much that one can usefully add. We must all agree that it is quite improper for extracts from the registers to be sold to organisations that peddle time-sharing or commodity schemes or the rather more straightforward and respectable unit trusts, life assurance business or mail order catalogues and the like. I added my name to the second amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but I shall be quite happy to support Labour's grouping of amendments if that were to be preferred by the Committee.

The Earl of Caithness

I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward during the debate on this group of amendments. Before responding in detail it may help if I set the scene by explaining the Government's proposals so far as the inspection and sale of the register is concerned.

Under paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 every individual will have the right to inspect the whole of his own register entry and to take a copy of the entry on payment of a reasonable charge. The public will have no general right to inspect the register other than the right to inspect their own entries. Under paragraph 16, however, the registration officer will maintain an extract of prescribed information taken from the full register and a list of dwellings designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. The extract and list, but not the full register, will be available for public inspection. The extract will consist only of a list of addresses and names—the addresses of all properties in respect of which a community charge is currently payable and the names of the persons subject to a charge in respect of those addresses. I should also add that anyone living under threat of violence will be able to apply to have his or her name and address omitted from the extract.

The Government see nothing objectionable in making the extract and list available for public inspection. The public, after all, have a legitimate interest in the accuracy of the community charge register. It is just as important that the extract and list should be available as it is for the electoral register or the rating list to be open to the public.

The question of the sale of the extract and list is a slightly different matter. Paragraph 16(3) of Schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State a power to authorise the sale of the extract and list. We have, however, received a number of representations about the use of this power. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged that there is concern about this issue. He has therefore undertaken to consider all representations very carefully before deciding whether and how to exercise his power. One option would be not to use the power at all, thus preventing the extract and list being sold. Another would be to allow people to have their names removed from the extract before it is sold. Yet another option would be simply to allow the extract to be sold. There are arguments on both sides and, as I have indicated, my right honourable friend's mind is not finally made up on this matter.

Having stated the Government's position in general terms, I shall now turn to each of the amendments before us. Amendments Nos. 60C and 66 would provide that no part of the register should be supplied to anyone, other than for the purpose of administering the community charge. Amendment No. 85 would have a similar effect: it would prevent the extract and list being copied and supplied for non-community charge purposes. In other words, all three of these amendments are concerned with the sale of the public extract from the register. As I have indicated, my right honourable friend has said that he will consider all representations carefully before deciding whether and on what terms the extract should be sold. I am sure that the representations made in the course of this debate will bear particular weight with him.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Perhaps the Minister will allow me to ask whether it is his intention or that of his right honourable friend to indicate their views while the Bill is still being considered by this Chamber or whether we shall hear them when the Bill has passed from this House.

The Earl of Caithness

I am coming to that point and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with it at the end of my comments on this group of amendments. I should like now to turn to Amendments Nos. 61E and 61F. They are slightly different from the subject that we have been discussing although they are related to it. They would require the registration officer to note beside each entry on the register whether or not the person concerned has consented to the supply of his details for non-community charge purposes. We believe that this is an inappropriate proposal for two reasons. First, the register will contain only the information that is necessary to determine a person's community charge liability. Whether or not a person has consented to the sale of his name and address has nothing to do with his liability. Secondly, it would be very odd indeed, not to say wasteful, to require the register to contain this information if the Secretary of State were to decide that in the light of the representations received the extract should not after all be sold at all.

To sum up, I ask the Committee to accept the Government's proposals concerning the sale of the extract and list as sensible and reasonable. Our mind remains open on this issue and I shall want to consider carefully all the arguments that have been put forward this afternoon, in another place and through other representations before deciding whether, and if so, how, the register extract should be made available for sale.

The very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is also something that I should like to consider. I think it is right that the Committee should know before the Bill leaves this Chamber; but perhaps I may be allowed to discuss that matter also with my right honourable friend between now and another stage, whereupon I shall give him a definitive answer.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will return to this point. In the light of the Minister's considerations, he may come back and say that the list shall not be sold, and in effect that will remove our concern in one fell swoop. However, if he returns to say that the list and extract shall be sold in accordance with the powers in the schedule but that there are certain caveats, we shall need to look at those conditions while we have the opportunity to do so at Report stage or Third Reading.

I believe that the Minister should take into consideration the extent to which the current electoral registers are available and used. It is quite frightening. The two largest debt recording agencies have on their registers details of 43 million people in this country. It is quite clear that there is an enormous need, demand or requirement by commerce to have access to the personal details of many individuals. We are concerned that provision should be made to cover an individual who does not wish to make such information available.

Another point that I should like the Minister to hear in mind when he considers the sale of such information is that we ought not to provide local authorities that may not wish to sell the registers with such an opportunity to receive income. Pressure is put upon local authorities to economise or to make money in one way or another and we believe it sad that expense can be saved, money made or commerce served by way of selling personal details. They are quite brief but can be significant and used by various organisations.

I give due credit to commerce and industry, which are in the business of maximising their markets, but so far as we are concerned in relation to the amendments that we have tabled we are certainly prepared to wait at least until the next stage of the Bill to hear what the Minister has to say.

The Earl of Onslow

I believe I heard the Minister say that there may be a case for leaving in the Bill the power to sell, but not to use it. I sincerely hope that should it be decided that it is not right to sell the list, the power will be taken out of the Bill. To enact a power specifically with the promise not to use it seems to me to be a mistake.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

While the Minister is considering that contribution perhaps I may invite him to reconsider the words that he spoke a few moments ago. He said that he would talk to his right honourable friend and that he planned to come back to this Chamber before a further stage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Graham with his usual generosity assumed that the Minister meant the next stage. Can he make it clear that he means Report stage and not Third Reading?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I support the very reasonable point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Having spoken to his right honourable friend, if it is agreed that no sale will be allowed, that ends the matter. However, if he returns with what he considers to be a reasonable answer which does not completely close the door but leaves it marginally open I think that this Committee ought to have a chance to debate that proposal before we accept it. If it were not satisfactory he may not have my vote—and that is important!

Lord Dean of Beswick

Is it not a fact that these registers are being compiled for one single purpose only: for the collection and payment of poll tax? The Minister has gone part of the way by agreeing to consider the matter to see whether he can come forward with a suggestion. Does the Minister understand that some of us feel even at the final stages that he ought to go further and make it an offence for the register to be made available for any other purpose, in order to give people adequate protection rather than the half-way measure that is proposed at present?

The Earl of Caithness

I understand the concerns that have been raised in the last few minutes and I shall need to consider them with my right honourable friend.

The next stage is Report stage; but if I have so convinced the Opposition that they feel they can do without Report stage I am happy to talk to my noble friend the Chief Whip on that matter.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Before the noble Lord, Lord Meston, replies, I believe that he said that one of his anxieties was that the ethnic origin of the community charge payers would be on the register. Can my noble friend tell me whether that is correct?

The Earl of Caithness

I am sorry. I missed my noble friend's question.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I understood the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to say that one of his major concerns was that the ethnic origin of community charge payers would be revealed on the register. Is that correct?

The Earl of Caithness

My understanding at the moment is that that is not correct. What is required on the register is the name and address of the person, the liability of the person to pay, and the date at which that person should pay.

Lord Meston

Dealing with the last point first, it will not be expressly stated on the register but the ethnic origins of any household may well be apparent simply by looking at the name. It is not my foremost argument, I hasten to say.

I am grateful for the support that I have had in moving this amendment and in the debate on the connected amendments. It shows that this is not an area of the Bill which has any party political connotations. The Government have been good enough to indicate that they are considering the matter. I join noble Lords in urging the Government to hurry up.

Reading the debates in another place the indication was that the consideration process was already in train and that the Government had an open mind. I join Members of the Committee in saying that the Government should speed up matters so that we know the position when the Government have come down on one side or the other.

I agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. If the Government's decision is to disapprove of sale of the register then the power to sell the register should come out of the Bill. To do otherwise would be bad legislation.

Without having considered the matter in great depth, I prefer the blanket prohibition of the amendments in my name rather than a system which leaves it to the individual to have a right to ask the registration officer not to use his name for a particular purpose. We debated earlier whether the use of the electoral register would discourage registration for the purposes of the community charge. One matter is quite clear in the context of these amendments. People will be encouraged to register for the purposes of the community charge, and the registration officer's task will be much easier if people are quite sure that the registration for the purposes of the community charge will not be used, and will not be potentially misused, by people who have no concern whatever with the process of the community charge. One must not underestimate the sophisticated use of the most rudimentary information that can be made by the computerised databanks, and those who work them. Names and addresses can be used for commercial purposes and for assessment of the people who will be vulnerable to a particular commercial approach.

I wish to consider the matter further and in particular the form of any amendment to bring forward at a later stage if unfortunately the Government either do not come down one way or the other by Report stage, or indicate that their view is to allow the sale of the register. For that reason, and that reason alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 61 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61A: Page 5, line 6, at end insert ("and any regulations made in relation to registration shall first be made and come into force before 1st January 1989").

The noble Lord said: The provisions of Clause 6(2) are a classic example of Whitehall seeking to restrict the actions and demand deadlines from other people without doing the same for itself. The Bill provides that the charging authorities shall prepare their register by 1st December 1989. It provides for a very large number of cases where the Secretary of State has to lay down regulations which are essential for the charging authority to know in order to compile its register. But it does not provide any deadline for the Secretary of State to make those regulations. It therefore sets an indeterminate time—which we suggest should be a mere 11 months which is not over generous—for charging authorities to act on these regulations.

I am not sure that I can give a comprehensive list of the regulations concerned but I can certainly point out some of them. Under Clause 10(5) there will be regulations about the interpretation of formulae in respect of contributions. Under Clause 12(6) there will be regulations about the personal community charge. Under Clause 14(7) there will be regulations about the standard community charge. Under Clause 28(9) there will be regulations about rules for ascertaining what is to be treated as the greater or greatest part of various types of premises.

However, Schedule 2 paragraph 1 gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to make regulations about the collection of amounts of community charge, the collection of contributions to the collective charge, and many other matters. There are about 54 areas in Schedule 2 in which provision can be made by legislation. Clearly it is possible to make progress towards the compilation of a register without having all these regulations fully in force. However, I suggest to the Committee that it is totally unreasonable not to put some time constraint on the Secretary of State and ensure that he gives the charging authorities a reasonable time to comply with the provisions of the Bill.

If we are to stick by the date of 1st December 1989 for the compilation of the register—I see that that is necessary if the register is to come into force by 1990, and I am not contesting that—then Whitehall and Marsham Street must play their part as well and the Government must see to it that the regulations are made available to the charging authorities in good time for them to act on them and in good time for them to do an efficient job of compiling the register.

I do not think that this is in any way a wrecking or an antagonistic amendment. It is proper for Parliament to require that the administration of central government should be subject to the same kinds of constraints and disciplines as we are requiring of local authorities. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

The noble Lord was quite right when he said that it was important that the major regulations should be made in good time so that the local authorities have time to set up the quite complicated administrative machine which will be needed by the date laid down in the Bill. That is plain, but it seems to me that this a very inflexible provision in that, as I read it, it will inhibit, after 1st January and during the 11 months leading up to the preparation and finalising of the register, even the most minor amendment which experience has suggested might be made.

Any of us who has had experience in Whitehall or in other governmental activities knows well that when one is making a major change such as is involved in the provisions of the Bill, with the best will in the world one sometimes comes across quite minor and often quite significant unforeseen difficulties which require amendment of the regulations. A blanket prohibition for 11 months from 1st January next on any amendment, however small, in the provisions in respect of registration seems to me to be a recipe for inefficiency and for leaving the Government helpless while certain things go wrong.

There is a further point. As I read the amendment it would prevent any further regulations in respect of registration for ever after 1st January—let us assume that the scheme is in force or has been in operation for years. It is obvious in everybody's experience with schemes of this kind, or even in schemes much less complex than this, that as time goes on one needs to adjust the machinery to deal with unforeseen difficulties that may have arisen and one would need to do so in such a case by regulation. But apparently to make 1st January 1989 the end of everthing, finalised, regulations frozen indefinitely, seems to me to be an extraordinarily unhelpful contribution to our discussion.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

It might be helpful if I were to respond to that before the Minister replies. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has vastly more experience of legislation than I have and he must know perfectly well that one puts down an amendment in this form and at this stage of the consideration of a Bill to find out from the Government what their plans are about the making of regulations.

It would have been possible to say in an amendment or in a series of amendments that regulations, for example, under Clause 10(6) shall be made by 1st January and that regulations under Clause 12(6) shall be made by 15th January and so on. We could have gone into a great deal of detail and we could have provided a much more flexible instrument for the Government to work to. We could have made provisions for further amendments to regulations or for new regulations to be made after the community charge had come into force. There would be no difficulty in tabling amendments of that kind, but in my short experience what one does at Committee stage is to put down amendments in the hope that government will recognise the force of the point behind the amendment, which is raised in a simplified way in the hope that concessions and indications of timetable will be given which will enable us to withdraw the amendment in good conscience.

I still hope that that will be possible and that the Minister will be able to give the assurances which local authorities require if they are to undertake the task of compiling the community charge register with proper effectiveness.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I am obliged to the noble Lord for that commentary. But it amounts to the fact that he is perfectly legitimately seeking the intentions of the Government on timing but is proposing an amendment which he does not want to put into the Bill.

The Earl of Caithness

As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, this amendment would require regulations in relation to registration to be made and to have come into effect by 1st January 1989. The Committee will be aware that there is no provision in the Bill for regulations concerning the register itself, but clearly some of the regulation-making powers have a bearing on the registration, for example those of the information gathering powers of the registration officers in Schedule 2.

Of course we accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is important that charging authorities should know as early as possible the regulatory framework within which they will have to work. It is for that reason that we have for some time now been in close touch with the local authorities on this issue. We have had regular meetings with them at which matters of policy and practice have been discussed and clarified. I believe that these arrangements have been useful and I hope that the local authority associations will acknowledge that also.

I can update the Committee by advising it that work on drafting the regulations has been progressing. We hope to be consulting the associations on the first drafts very shortly. We shall continue to involve the local authority associations at all stages as the drafting continues.

Given what I have said, it must be right to ask whether the amendment helps. It does not because it is unclear and it does not define what regulations are meant. It leaves unresolved the question raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter of what will happen if by any chance the regulations are not in place by the specified date. Most of all, in the light of the arrangements that I have outlined and the close consultation and work that is being carried out between my department and the local authorities, the amendment is not necessary.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am duty bound to press the Minister a little further than that, particularly in relation to Schedule 2 where the whole process of the compilation of the register is very much affected by a wide range of regulation-making powers which is given to the Secretary of State by these provisions. I agree that on many other matters the making of regulations is probably marginal to the compilation of the register and it is possible that the compilation of the register could proceed effectively without the regulations being completed.

Can the Minister tell us that the draft regulations under Schedule 2 will be made available to the local authority associations, if not by the time we reach Schedule 2 in Committee stage, at any rate by the time we reach Schedule 2 at Report stage? This is important not only from the point of view of the efficient compilation of the register but because Schedule 2 has such a vast amount of delegated legislation contained in it. It gives so many powers to the Secretary of State that it surely is desirable and necessary for Parliament to understand what the Secretary of State has in mind before we come to consider whether to give Schedule 2 a reading as part of the Bill in the Chamber. I hope the Minister will be able to go a little further with regard to the regulations under Schedule 2.

The Earl of Caithness

I do not think that I can go so far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like. However, I repeat that meetings have already taken place between my department and local authorities on matters of policy and practice. At the moment we are trying to arrange two further meetings with representatives of the local authority associations and we hope to hold them before the end of next month. They will focus particularly on the draft community charge regulations. At the meetings we also hope to discuss many of the regulations that will be needed to implement this part of the Bill.

I am confident that many of the regulations will be laid well before the end of this year. However, I believe that it is right that we consult the local authority associations at the same time, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will applaud that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful for those comments and I must read most carefully what the Minister has said. However, because he has referred to a period well before the end of this year it must be said that he is moving as fast as he can, I am sure, in the direction of giving local authorities not only the right to consultation but to the efficient implementation of the register. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61B: Page 5, line 6, at end insert ("subject to the availability of adequate resources to the authority such that it incurs no net loss").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 61C. We turn to an extremely important aspect of the community charge. It is the question of the cost of collection. The financial memorandum to the Bill, which I recognise at once does not form part of the Bill, makes estimates of the cost to authorities of the community charge in a full year. It also estimates the costs in 1989–90 of the establishment of the register and the preparatioin of the new billing and collection system. Those costs are quoted as being between £160 million and £200 million in a full year for the administration of the community charge and between £70 million and £90 million in 1989–90 for the establishment of the register.

Those estimates were made last year when the Bill was first published. Subsequently the Bill underwent very detailed scrutiny in another place particularly in relation to this matter. In January of this year the Government recognised that there may not be sufficient evidence to support the statements in the financial memorandum and recognised that some external evidence would be desirable on the matter. They appointed Price Waterhouse to carry out a study of the estimates and to produce the best estimate that it could of the cost of collection of the poll tax. I do not know the exact brief that was given to them. The report from Price Waterhouse was due to be delivered to the Government on Friday, 6th May.

We have only secondhand evidence about what happened and about when, in what instalments and with what degree of finality the report was delivered to the Government. The only direct information that we have from the noble Earl is a reply to a Written Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Mulley. He said: We shall address what the costs are when we receive and have studied the Price Waterhouse report". That sentence could be read in two different ways. It could read, "when we (receive and) have studied the Price Waterhouse report". In other words, it could mean that the Minister is not admitting whether he has received the report; he is saying only that he has not received and studied it. Or it could read, "received, and studied".

That is rather like the London Transport regulations which state that it is an offence to travel on the Underground without a ticket and with intent to avid paying the fare. I have always assumed that the syntax of that sentence was deliberately ambiguous so that London Transport could interpret it in a severe way or avoid doing so, as it wished. I think that the situation is the same as regards the Price Waterhouse report.

Reports in Accountancy Age indicate that the first part of the report was delivered on Wednesday, 11th May and that the second instalment was delivered on 16th May. As a consultant, I can well understand that there could be rough edges on one or two sections of the report. However, the basic point is that the bulk of the material in the report commissioned by the Government has (unless the Minister chooses to deny it in very specific and unambiguous terms) already been received by the Government and they have had some time (the full extent of which I do not know) to consider the report.

This is not merely a matter of timetable and semantics. It is a very important matter because the indications that we have from the local authorities' study of the costs of implementing the community charge are that they will be much higher than was originally indicated. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils have carried out an inquiry of rating officers and have received replies from approximately half. They are the people on the ground who know about the costs of implementing local taxation. They say that instead of the set-up costs being between £70 million and £90 million, they will be £266 million over the 3-year period 1988–89 to 1990–91. They also say that the whole system will cost £494 million per annum to run; that is £280 million more than the rating system.

They are not small figures. They are not matters on which the Government can be allowed to delay their consideration of accountants' reports or on which they can be allowed to remain silent when independent reports from the local authority associations, which should know what they are doing, are in conflict with the Government's figures. The Government must defend their figures. They must show that they stand up to the scrutiny of Price Waterhouse. They must show that they are better than the figures produced by the local authority associations. If that is not the case we must come to the conclusion that the situation is very much different from that set out in the financial memorandum to the Bill.

The people of this country will want to know that legislation is being proposed to them on a basis which cannot be sustained when the evidence is examined. That is not good enough. The answers to the Price Waterhouse survey must be clearly exposed to the public. They must be published and they must be published in time for this Committee to consider them as it goes through the process of considering the Bill. We must be able to take account of the cost as an important and essential element of the justification for the community charge. It has been claimed throughout the Government's case for the community charge that the costs, although higher, are not extravagantly higher. The best indications that we have are that the costs are extravagantly higher. It is now the Government's responsibility to clear up the matter once and for all, and I invite the Minister to do so in his response to this amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

With permission, I should like to say a few words on the general subject of costs and then deal with the specific issues raised by the amendments.

I do not seek to disguise the fact that the community charge will cost more to run than the domestic rating system. However, as I have listened to the debates it has become obvious that domestic rates have few if any friends in the Committee. Certainly there is every reason to believe that the community charge will be cheaper to run than a local income tax especially combined with capital value rates, as we understand the Labour Party's informal policy to be.

There are two reasons why the community charge will be more expensive to administer than rates. The first is that many more people would pay it. We believe that the unit cost can be broadly the same as it is in respect of the rates. We accept the increase in overall costs that will result as being the necessary price to pay for ensuring that every adult receives a bill.

The second reason for additional cost to local authorities is the need to compile and maintain the community charges registers. Of course, this is an entirely new duty for them which will entail an offsetting saving of about £12 million a year in the Inland Revenue which will no longer be required to maintain domestic rating lists. It must also be borne in mind that if there were domestic rating revaluation, which would be inevitable if the rates were kept, that would also impose a cost.

The financial memorandum to the Bill sets out the Government's current estimate of the cost of running the new system and the cost of the necessary preparatory work. The cost of setting up and maintaining the register is included in these figures.

The immediate concern of local authorities is to have the resources to set up the new system. The Government have already given capital allocations amounting to £25 million for spending in 1988–89. Clearly the cost of the new system in both revenue and capital terms will also need to be taken into account in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and subsequent years. Because a number of different estimates have been made of capital and current expenditure implications, the Government have appointed a firm of management consultants to provide advice on their estimate of costs and to advise on best practice by means of which costs can be kept to a minimum. This was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but as he said he was working on second-hand information. I can update the Committee and inform it that the Government have not yet received a copy of the consultant's final report. It is true that some draft material has been produced but there is still a fair way to go before a final report is ready. When the final report is available the Government certainly intend to make the results available. We shall of course use the findings to help to decide the levels of capital and current expenditure in 1989–90 and subsequent years.

With those undertakings, perhaps I may turn to the amendments themselves. Amendment No. 61B refers to the availability of adequate resources to the authority but in fact the operation of the community charges register will be the responsibility of the community charges registration officer. Under 'Clause 23 the local authority is required to provide the community charges registration officer with: such staff, accommodation and other resources as are sufficient to allow his functions … to be exercised". I hope that what I have already said will satisfy the Committee that the Government intend to recognise the additional costs that will arise as a result of the new system. Equally, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that I cannot give an absolute commitment, such as this amendment envisages, that no authority will face any increase in costs. Quite apart from the difficulty of the computations necessary, Members of the Committee will recognise that the Government could not possibly be expected to underwrite the whole of every local authority's costs, however misconceived. That surely would be a recipe for profligacy.

Equally, I hope that the second amendment has served its purpose as a peg on which to hang this debate and that the undertakings I have given to publish the results of the consultant's report and to use these to help to determine capital and current expenditure levels will satisfy the Committee. The actual costs will also be returned in due course although I do not believe that a formalised procedure of reports to Parliament which the amendment proposes is necessary.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he said that this is an important subject and that we must have clear figures. If we had the report to hand now I am sure that I could give the Committee clear figures. However, we do not have the report to hand but Members of the Committee can be assured that when it is to hand figures will be available.

Baroness Seear

I should like to put it on the record that it seems to me to be quite extraordinary that these sums were not done before the Bill was presented to Parliament. To use plain English, the Government are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know at all what is to be the level of expenditure. When one is producing something of this kind surely one would expect it to be costed before the legislation comes before Parliament to be discussed.

The Earl of Caithness

I have to disagree with the noble Baroness. Of course we carried out our costs, estimates and figures. That is why there is a financial memorandum to the Bill. As matters proceed it is quite in order for the Government to employ consultants to firm up those figures. If the figures are different, which I do not know because I have not seen the report, then, as happens on numerous occasions, figures can be updated up or down.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

If one examines what the Minister has said, what appears to be a very conciliatory reply in fact contains no real concessions at all. The only new thing that the Minister has said is that the report from the consultants, when it is received, will be published. However, those who have acted, as I have on many occasions, as a consultant to government departments know perfectly well that the time between when the draft report is produced to the department for discussion and the time when a final report is produced, complete in every detail with every figure checked and every graph—probably in glorious technicolour—can be as long as the department wants it to be. One must suspect that, unless Price Waterhouse was lying when it said to the press that the first part was delivered to the department on 11th May and the second instalment on 16th May—and if that is not the case I should be grateful if the Minister would deny it—this Committee is being denied information which it should have in order to consider the whole issue of the compilation of the register.

I should be very interested to hear if the Minister would like to deny that useful figures or drafts of the two instalments of the report have been received in his department. I shall gladly give him time to receive further information on that point. I am also aware from a passage at arms that the Minister and I had earlier this year that there can be a slip between something being delivered to a department and it being seen by the Minister. That was the case when there was a quite unjustifiable period of time between a High Court judgment on the planning uses of County Hall being made public and being made available to the Minister so that he could answer a Question in this Chamber on the subject. I am prepared to give the Minister a reasonable opportunity to give the Committee as much help as he can.

The Earl of Caithness

I reiterate that some draft material has been received at the department. I believe that the noble Lord is being a little less than his normal generous self in his attitude towards this. We want the figures as badly as he does and are anxious to produce them because that is right and proper and that is what we shall do. The noble Lord is right: when we have the figures there will have to be a short period during which we must study them. However, I do not renege from the undertakings I gave him earlier.

Baroness Seear

Is the noble Earl saying that the information given to the press by Price Waterhouse is not true? Is that what the noble Earl is saying?

The Earl of Caithness

The noble Baroness obviously did not hear me correctly. I said that some draft material had been received.

Lord Jay

Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether Price Waterhouse is telling the truth in saying, as I understand it, that two draft reports were delivered to the department in May.

The Earl of Caithness

I have not denied the fact that draft material was received.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I hate to appear ungenerous to the Minister. I should hate him to feel that I was not taking his assurances seriously. I am sure that they are the best assurances he can give. However, I do not think that they are satisfactory for the purposes of the business of this Committee and the Committee's duty to consider the Bill and, in particular, the whole basis for and cost of collection, because if we do not do that we shall not be fulfilling our duty as part of Parliament.

It has been confirmed that material has been in the hands of the department for some time. The figures, which have been published, have not been denied. In any event, the department ought to have ensured that by the time this part of the Bill came to this Chamber for detailed consideration the proper figures were available. There should have been a response to the figures produced by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils. There has been no adequate response on that matter. The only assurance we have been given is of future publication, but we have not been assured that it will be in time for consideration in this Chamber at a later stage of the Bill. We cannot keep going backwards and forwards. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to ask the Committee to decide on this amendment.

6 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided; Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 144.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. McCarthy, L.
Attlee, E. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Aylestone, L. McNair, L.
Blackstone, B. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Blease, L. Meston, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Molloy, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Monson, L.
Caradon, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mulley, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Oram, L.
David, B. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Dean of Beswick, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Raglan, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Rathcreedan, L.
Ezra, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Rochester, L.
Flowers, L. Ross of Newport, L.
Foot, L. Seear, B.
Gallacher, L. [Teller.] Sefton of Garston, L.
Galpern, L. Stedman, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hughes, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jay, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Jeger, B. Thurlow, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Tordoff, L.
John-Mackie, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Kilbracken, L. Underhill, L.
Listowel, E. Whaddon, L.
Longford, E. Williams of Elvel, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abercorn, D. Craigmyle, L.
Allerton, L. Cross, V.
Arran, E. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Auckland, L. Davidson, V. [Teller.]
Balfour, E. Denham, L. [Teller.]
Bauer, L. Denning, L.
Beaverbrook, L. Dilhorne, V.
Beloff, L. Dormer, L.
Belstead, L. Dundee, E.
Biddulph, L. Eden of Winton, L.
Blatch, B. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Blyth, L. Faithfull, B.
Borthwick, L. Ferrers, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Fortescue, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Brain, L. Gainford, L.
Brightman, L. Gardner of Parkes, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Gibson-Watt, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Gisborough, L.
Butterworth, L. Glenarthur, L.
Caithness, E. Goold, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Gray of Contin, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Gridley, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carnock, L. Halsbury, E.
Carr of Hadley, L. Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Cathcart, E. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Coleraine, L. Hemphill, L.
Colnbrook, L. Henley, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hertford, M.
Colwyn, L. Hesketh, L.
Cottesloe, L. Hives, L.
Cox, B. Hooper, B.
Hunter of Newington, L. Radnor, E.
Hylton-Foster, B. Rankeillour, L.
Ingrow, L. Reay, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Reigate, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Renton, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Rippon of Hexham, L.
Kimball, L. Romney, E.
Layton, L. Rugby, L.
Long, V. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. St. Davids, V.
Lyell, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
McAlpine of Moffat, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
McFadzean, L. Sandford, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Sempill, Ly.
Macleod of Borve, B. Sharples, B.
Malmesbury, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Mancroft, L. Somers, L.
Manton, L. Southborough, L.
Margadale, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Marley, L. Strathcarron, L.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Merrivale, L.
Milverton, L. Swansea, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Swinton, E.
Mottistone, L. Terrington, L.
Munster, E. Teviot, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Nairne, Ly. Torphichen, L.
Nelson, E. Trafford, L.
Norfolk, D. Tranmire, L.
Norrie, L. Trefgarne, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L. Trumpington, B.
Orkney, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Oxfuird, V. Ward of Witley, V.
Pender, L. Weir, V.
Penrhyn, L. Windlesham, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. Wise, L.
Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Portland, D. Wynford, L.
Pym, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.9 p.m.

[Amendment No. 61C not moved.]

Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 61D: Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("except that a person falling within section 13(1) below who is not a United Kingdom national may elect to have his or her name and address omitted from the charging authority's register if the register is to be made public").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is specifically to allow overseas persons, especially students, to elect to have their names and addresses omitted from the published version of the charging authority's register. It is not an attempt to release them from the obligation to pay tax but merely to provide protection for persons who could be placed in personal danger by the publication of such details.

I shall not attempt to justify my stance by reference to the Data Protection Act, though I believe I could do so along the lines that other noble Lords have indicated with reference to other amendments debated this afternoon. Moreover, I am not clear that my concern is answered by the assurances already given by the Minister. Perhaps I may say briefly what it is that I am worried about. The fact is that we have in this country a number of overseas students of good standing who for political or religious reasons need and deserve our protection.

Lest any Member of the Committee considers that I am being merely fanciful, perhaps I may give one specific example which comes from a school of the University of London. A few years ago the national union of Iraqi students attempted to obtain the names and addresses of all Iraqi students in the United Kingdom in order to enforce their support for the policies of the Baghdad Government. As far as I know, all universities refused to divulge information to that union though some addresses were discovered and there is definite evidence of at least one student having been severely beaten up as a result.

There is evidence of a similar kind from other universities. Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that most of the students are from Middle Eastern countries undergoing revolutionary ferment. Some are from elsewhere such as Africa where from time to time there may be oppressive regimes in certain countries. Some of the students are seeking asylum status, some are merely frightened, while others fear not for themselves but for the safety of the families they have left behind. The universities have always done everything in their power to safeguard such students. Now it appears that those safeguards are endangered by this Bill.

There exist two reputable bodies, namely, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs and the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, which have very wide experience of these matters. I believe they would confirm what I have said. I hope that the Government will consult them. The amendment seems justified on humanitarian grounds. I beg to move.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

I believe that the undertaking given by my noble friend as regards a previous amendment covers this amendment. I believe that this is one of the aspects he had in mind when meeting the points on the previous amendment about whether information should be made public. If at the end of the day the position is that which some Members of the Committee prefer, that the information is not available at all for general distribution, then even with this amendment the name on the register would not apply. I believe the undertaking given by my noble friend covers this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord takes into account the point which he made before he moves against what was suggested in the previous amendment.

Lord Flowers

Before the Minister replies, I confirm that I heard him give an assurance. He mentioned the word "violence" and I accept that it would be covered. However, I mentioned other things where the person concerned may not be afeared for himself but for his family at home. It may not be a question of violence but of interferences of various and lesser kinds which are nonetheless quite obnoxious. I should like to hear from the Minister about the concerns I have expressed and not just about violence, which has been covered.

6.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

I have considerable sympathy with the principle of this amendment. However, I can assure the Committee that the Bill already confers upon the Secretary of State a power to meet the concern which this amendment represents, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has just pointed out.

I believe that the amendment goes too far in seeking to provide that all foreign students who have their main residence in this country, should be able to have their names removed from the public extract from the register. Perhaps I may take as an example a student from the United States of America or West Germany who is subject to the personal community charge. Such a student will of course pay only 20 per cent. of the charge, like all other full-time students. I can see no reason why such a student should not appear on the register extract in the same way as all other adults. However, I accept that some people will need special protection. By no means all of them will be students; for example, there will be women who have left the marital home and who are living in fear of violence from their husbands. Some will be foreign students, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has mentioned.

There can be no doubt that some students from certain countries are effectively political refugees and live in fear of being tracked down by governments. However, what distinguishes them from other adults for these purposes is not the fact that they are foreign students but that they live under the threat of violence or other assault. I can assure the Committee that the Government have not been slow to recognise the need for special treatment for people who live under these circumstances.

Last December we announced that anyone who demonstrated to the registration officer—that is the key that I am sure the noble Lord will understand has to be the criterion—that he or she was living under such a threat would be able to have his or her name, and where appropriate address, omitted from the public extract from the register. We intend to give effect to this clear and unequivocal commitment by use of the regulation-making power under Schedule 2, paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Bill. That paragraph empowers the Secretary of State to provide that registration officers should compile "an extract of prescribed information" taken from the register which will be available for public inspection. In using this power we shall prescribe that the extract must not include the name of any individual who demonstrates to the registration officer that he is living under threat of violence or other assault.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Before the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, responds to that, I must say that this is the most extraordinary example of the Government making a rod for their own back that I have ever heard. After all, this is the country in which a woman police constable was shot dead in St. James's Square; this is the country in which a Bulgarian exile was murdered with a poison-tipped umbrella; this is the country in which an Israeli ambassador was gravely injured; this is the country in which it is well known, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, that those who seek exile—this is the price we pay for being available for exiles, and all credit to us for it—are very often pursued by their governments. For example, it may be the government of Iraq, Iran, Libya or many others. Apparently what the Government are now saying is that a student in this position must demonstrate to the community charge registrar that his name should not be put upon the register.

The Home Office has enough trouble trying to deal with such questions in cases of genuine political asylum where people are under threat from their government. Such people now have difficulty enough in proving their situation. Are they now to have to demonstrate to another group of people that there is a real danger? Will there be a group of other people who have the responsibility of learning about the politics of Iraq, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and many other countries? I suggest to the Committee that such an arrangement is completely outside either the skills or the terms of reference of a community charge registrar. It is a severe imposition upon him to demand that he should be put into a position of adjudicating on the demonstration of a danger which would enable such a person to be taken off the register. If the amendment is defective in some drafting way, then let us hear about it. The answer given by the Minister is totally unsatisfactory.

The Earl of Caithness

I am surprised by the noble Lord. At one stage I thought that he preferred a different political system to what we have in this country according to some of the matters that he itemised. However, he then said that he was glad that we had our system in this country. There are some people, not only students, who live in fear and it is for that very reason that the Government have gone to the extent that they have in giving the commitment to protect those people.

Lord Flowers

The Minister has given a full assurance which I am inclined to accept. However, I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I very much hope that it does not come to pass that one has to be dead before one can plead that one's life is in danger. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a point. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Minister's intentions are as I would wish them to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 61E and 61F not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 61G: Page 5, line 35, leave out ("reasonable") and insert ("practicable and equitable").

The noble Lord said: This is genuinely a probing amendment. I realise that we have had, as we always do in Committee stage, a discussion of the meaning of the word "reasonable". Noble Lords on this side of the Committee have been arguing for the word "reasonable". They say that it is well accepted, that it makes sense in law and is well justifiable. However, I suggest that this is an occasion where we could with advantage not use the word "reasonable" but instead use the words "practicable and equitable". We are talking here about the steps to be taken to obtain information for the purpose of compiling and maintaining a register under the powers conferred on the registration officer.

Inevitably, conflicting duties are placed on the registration officer. On one hand, he is required by the Government, by the charging authority and by everybody who is interested in having as wide a spread of the burden of the community charge as possible, to have a complete register. That is the purpose of the word "equitable". On the other hand, he is charged by the Government, by the charging authority and by all of us who have to pay taxes and the community charge, with the duty of doing so at the lowest possible cost. This was underlined by the noble Earl in his response to an earlier amendment when he talked about reimbursing the charging authorities for reasonable costs and about the need not to have the charging authorities running away with the costs of collection. Under those circumstances, where there is a conflict of pressures on the registrar, the words "practicable and equitable" might be preferable to the word "reasonable", which is otherwise, I accept, a perfectly suitable way of constraining the duties and powers of the registration officer. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that to accept his amendments would be a backward step. They do not add in any way to the Bill. Let us try to define a practicable and equitable step. What is a practicable step? Is it merely a step that is capable of being taken? Presumably it is. Is it not rather absurd to include such a requirement in legislation? I am not quite sure what an "equitable step" is. I find that a difficult one to understand. Presumably it is supposed to mean a fair step as opposed to an unfair step. By contrast, the concept in the Bill of a reasonable step is infinitely clearer and more readily comprehensible. It is a step which is moderate, rational and not excessive in all the circumstances. That, I am sure the Committee will agree, is a much more sensible requirement than the one this amendment seeks to impose; and, after all, that is the common ground between both of us.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Minister has a case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 61H to 66 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 66A: Page 5, line 36, at end insert— ("(8A) A registration officer shall prepare, and submit to the authority, in respect of each financial year a report setting out—

  1. (a) the number of complaints received in relation to invasion of privacy in the area;
  2. (b) the categories of complaint received;
  3. (c) the number and type of complaints upheld and rejected respectively; and
  4. (d) any recommendations he may consider appropriate that protect the privacy of individuals in the area;
and the report shall be published by the authority in such manner as it considers appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 66B and 66C. In a sense this continues the discussion we have been having about privacy, but it raises a new point which deserves consideration.

We have discussed at some length the relevance of the community charge register procedures to the Data Protection Act, and the Committee has taken a view on that matter. It has been confirmed by the Minister that the whole process of the compilation of the register is subject to the Act, and that gives us some degree of consolation. However, one of the significant elements of the Data Protection Act is that there must be an annual report of the data protection registrar. A large part of the Data Protection Act is taken up by spelling out the remedies for those who feel that they have been aggrieved by breaches of the Act.

In these amendments we propose a more direct procedure for learning very quickly about complaints in respect of invasion of privacy. We ask that the community charge registrar should record the number of complaints received in relation to invasion of privacy, the categories of complaint received, the number and type of complaints upheld and rejected respectively, and make any recommendations he may consider appropriate that protect the privacy of individuals in the area. We are asking for the report to be published. In Amendment No. 66B we say that as a longstop, in case there were to be a dispute between individuals living in an area and the charging authority, this procedure should be subject to the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman. I recall with thanks that in considering the Local Government Bill earlier this year the Minister was able to extend the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman. That was a wise move. I suggest that this would be an appropriate extension of the powers and duties of the local authority ombudsman.

Finally, in Amendment No. 66C, we say that the charging authority should establish a complaints procedure in order to make it easier for people to make complaints (if they feel they have to do so) about invasion of privacy. It puts the responsibility on the charging authority; but the detailed guidelines for the exercise of that responsibility are to be issued by the Secretary of State.

I sense that it will generally be agreed that invasion of privacy is a matter of considerable concern. It is a problem which has been recognised by virtue of the concessions which the Government have made this afternoon. Nevertheless, I am not one of those who think that the concessions are satisfactory or extensive. However, the Government have recognised that the problems exist, even though they are not willing to go as far as we wish in dealing with them. I think that the amendments proposed are sensible extensions to the principle of the protection of privacy against invasion and that they provide reasonable and moderate procedures for dealing with such complaints. I hope therefore that they will commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Renton

I do not expect my noble friend to accept the amendment. I say that for various reasons, one of which is this. If it were added to the Bill it would perhaps become an invitation to many politically motivated people to make complaints on purpose, merely to try to throw discredit upon the scheme which many of us think is not only right, but necessary. Therefore, for that reason alone, I hope that my noble friend will advise the Committee not to accept it.

However, there are other reasons. We should not place unnecessary administrative burdens upon those who serve us in central or local government. So far as I know, the only equivalent that one could possibly find is under the police complaints procedure. However, that is a different situation from the present one and it should certainly not be regarded as a precedent. Further, if one looks at paragraph (d) of the amendment, it reads: any recommendations he may consider appropriate that protect the privacy of individuals in the area". It is not made clear whether they are to be his recommendations—which may well be what is intended—or whether there are to be any recommendations from any other source. I do not think we should spend too much time on the amendment.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

In addition to the specific point made by my noble friend, I must say that I hope the Committee will turn down the amendment on the general procedure aspect. When amendments of this type are moved it is always suggested that we should have an annual report from whoever must do it, as though the making of an annual report is merely a matter of writing a letter in two minutes and that is all there is to it. As my noble friend said, it puts an unnecessary and extra burden upon the officers who have to write such reports. Further, it may well be that in so doing one is taking time from other jobs which are more important and which ought to be concentrated upon. I do not like the procedure. I do not believe that an annual report—just for the sake of satisfying someone's doubts—on a matter which is not likely to happen, is a good way to prepare a statute. For that reason, apart from the detailed ones outlined by my noble friend, I trust that the Committee will not accept the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness

I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Harmar-Nicholls for taking on some of the arguments that I intended to raise when advising the Committee to resist the amendments. My noble friend Lord Renton was absolutely right to raise the point about the member of the public who would seek to use the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in a political sense, constantly to complain and thereby try to influence the role of the registration officer. Indeed, I had intended to make similar points if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had moved Amendment No. 61H. In that case the thrust of my argument would have been not about a member of the public, but about the whim of the local authority—and Members of the Committee need no reminding about what the whims of local authorities have shown in recent years.

The Government find the amendments unacceptable because they are designed to undermine the role of the community charges registration officer as an independent officer with specific statutory rights and duties placed upon him by Parliament. The registration officer's job is an important and demanding one. He will be responsible for compiling and maintaining a register of almost every adult in his area; of every second home; and he must also designate homes for the purposes of the collective community charge. Further, he must exercise those important responsibilities, at least initially, against a background of political controversy.

There can be no doubt that against such a background the registration officer needs to be given a measure of autonomy so that he may carry out his duties efficiently and effectively. For that reason the Bill provides that each charging authority must appoint a registration officer and confer certain duties and rights directly upon him. He will of course he a local authority employee and will owe the authority all the normal duties and obligations of employee to employer. However, it is important that he should have some degree of independence so that he may be one step removed from direct political influence and interference. We believe that the amendments proposed would destroy that important feature of the registration officer's role. They would restrict his day-to-day operations and his job could be made virtually impossible. He would find his every action open to the closest, most interfering form of political investigation, scrutiny and criticism.

I suggest to the Committee that the result of the amendments would be an administrative and indeed political nightmare for the registration officer. They would create an environment so oppressive that he would not be able to carry out his job properly. We believe that those are compelling reasons and, therefore, recommend to the Committee that the amendments should not be accepted.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The Government are overreacting somewhat wildly to this matter. No one likes complaints; civil servants do not like them; Members of Parliament do not like them and indeed those of us in this place who are still considered by some people to be Members of Parliament—or members of local authorities—do not like the complaints we receive from such people who still think that they are our constituents. It must be said that complaints take up time and are a nuisance. Some of them are unjustified; some of them are written in green ink and some of them are written in capitals with three underlinings. Okay—that is the price we have to pay; I do not consider it to be a high price.

Further, I certainly do not give any great weight to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on the matter. If it is established throughout our public administration, and throughout our political system, that people have a right to make complaints about those who seek to rule over them, we must pay the price—even if those complaints are in many cases unreasonable.

The point made by the Minister about the relationship with the local authority is of course a more weighty point and one which deserves greater consideration. I am fully aware that the Bill's intention is to set up the registrar as being in some sense independent of the charging authority and that to have a system of reporting in too great detail to the charging authority would undermine the independence of the registrar. Such a system would also undermine the whole structure which the Government have been forced to introduce to implement this indefensible tax. So be it. That is the position in which the Government have placed themselves. They must live with the contradictions of their attempts to implement the community charge. There is enough in what the Minister said about relationships with the charging authorities for me to think that it would be undesirable to press the amendment at this stage. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and, if necessary, I shall return to the subject at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 66B and 66C not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford)

I call Amendment No. 67.

Lord Dean of Beswick

In moving Amendment No. 67A, I suggest that we deal also with Amendment No. 67B. The two amendments introduce safeguards as to the inclusion in the register of persons not liable to the community charge. The first amendment provides that no person should be entered on the register before the beginning of the financial year before that in which they become liable. In practice, the most likely application of that provision would be to limit the registration of teenagers until the financial year in which they become 17. The purpose of the amendment is to illustrate both the principle and the practical considerations. The principle is that information should not be held about individuals where it is not strictly necessary for the administration of government.

While it may be for the administrative convenience of the registration officer to maintain a register of such children for some years before the date upon which they become liable—

The Earl of Caithness

I have been given a message. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I believe that he got up just a moment too soon and that he is talking to Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B, whereas the Deputy Chairman put Amendment No. 67. To get the record straight, perhaps we could deal with Amendment No. 67 and Clauses 6 and 7. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I believe that that is the right way to do things.

Lord Meston

The noble Earl is right. It was not made clear that Amendment No. 67 was not being moved, having already been spoken to.

[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Registers: miscellaneous]:

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 67A: Page 6, line 17, at end insert ("except that no entry shall intentionally be maintained or made in any subsequent financial year in respect of a person who has ceased to be subject to such a charge or who is deceased").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67B. It will be necessary for me to begin the exercise again. The amendments introduce safeguards as to the inclusion in the register of persons not liable to the community charge. The first amendment states that no person should be entered on the register before the beginning of the financial year before that in which they become liable. In practice, the most likely application of that provision would be to limit the registration of teenagers until the financial year in which they become 17. The purpose of the amendment is to illustrate both the principle and the practical considerations. The principle is that information should not be held about individuals where it is not strictly necessary for the administration of government.

While it may be for the administrative convenience of the registration officer to maintain a list of children for some years before the date on which they become liable, the recording of such information could lead to an undesirable intrusion into the privacy of those individuals, their families and parents. The sale of information about the size of families, for example, may lead to unsolicited approaches with goods appropriate to those with children. Equally, children might be subject to unsolicited approaches or even harassment from individuals or companies, subject to no legal constraint.

There is increasing concern, for example, at the incidence or racial attacks upon members of ethnic minorities. They often bear disproportionately upon children, who may be least able to bear the physical stress, or they may even form the physical target. The creation of a public record of an entire family, as opposed merely to the adults and older children recorded in the electoral register, could act as an incitement to certain individuals. For that reason, it is strongly suggested that in a way similar to the electoral register, names are recorded only of those who will become liable to the charge in the following year. A further practical reason for the amendment is merely that authorities may end up duplicating cases because young people are likely to move from one area to another and may maintain little connection with an area in which they were brought up. To avoid confusion and the maintenance of overlapping records, it would seem sensible to commence the recording of the young person's liability to pay at about the age of 17.

The second amendment bears heavily on what is proposed in the first amendment. I hope that the Minister will have regard to what I have said, because there could be gross intrusion into the privacy of families if the Bill goes through as it is. We know that the only reason for the Bill is the collection of the poll tax, or whatever it is to be called. Without safeguards—I am not talking about selling information—people may have ulterior motives for having the information. On that basis, it is necessary to give people, especially younger people, the ultimate protection of privacy. On the basis, I beg to move.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Renton

Although one appreciates the noble Lord's motive—which is obviously an innocent one—in moving the amendment I wonder whether he has thought through the consequences of what he proposes. He is getting at an entry which is intentionally maintained or made. That presupposes that there may be some unintentional entries made. If those unintentional entries are made, they will have to be corrected. A correction would amount to the making of an intentional entry. That may seem an absurd situation, but I believe that it is the one that would arise administratively. It would therefore surprise me if my noble friend found the amendment acceptable.

The Earl of Caithness

The amendments deal with two matters concerning community charge registration. Although I too sympathise with the principle behind what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, put forward, I agree with my noble friend that the amendments are unacceptable. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that his fears are unfounded.

Amendment No. 67A deals with someone who dies. We all agree that where that happens we want to avoid causing distress to the relatives and friends of the person who has died. I am confident that our proposals achieve that.

I must emphasise that the register we are discussing in these clauses is the full register that will be conclusive for the purposes of establishing liability. It is not the document that will be available for inspection by the general public. That document, which is dealt with in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, will contain merely the names and addresses of those currently liable for charges. So it will not contain details of those no longer liable, for whatever reason.

The main register will not be open to inspection by the general public. It is essential that it should be accurate. I am afraid that that is where the noble Lord's amendment would cause difficulties. It would require to be deleted the names of those who had died in a previous financial year. Imagine, for example, that a person died in late March. Their name would have to be removed from the register on 1st April. If, as is quite possible, an amount of community charge was due to the estate because payment had been made for the whole year, unless the calculation were completed by 31st March it would be impossible. Repayment would be impossible because the register is conclusive and all details of that person's liability would have to be expunged from the register.

To take another example, a person may die with a community charge appeal outstanding. That appeal may involve tricky issues such as ownership of a second home. It may be several months before the matter is resolved, or even longer if it is subsequently appealed to the High Court. Under the noble Lord's proposals all details would have disappeared from the register. If the appeal was successful, there would be no way of amending the register retrospectively so as to reimburse the community charge.

Clause 8 provides for a two-year rule—effectively a two-year statute of limitations. Subject to the point I have already made about the coverage of the published register extract, I believe that two years is the right period for everyone and that it would be undesirable and potentially counterproductive to have a special rule for people who died.

The second amendment, No. 67B, concerns people who become liable. Here I hope that I can clear away what I suspect may be a misunderstanding. The community charges register will be updated throughout the year. There will therefore be no need to include on the register those who are not expected to become liable for many months. Indeed, it might be a waste of time to do so. The person approaching their 18th birthday might still be at school when they become 18, in which case the date of becoming liable would be deferred; or they might have moved away from the area entirely.

We expect that local authorities will want to collect information about those approaching 18, just as electoral registration officers do. But they will not at that stage need to add those names to the register. They will do so only shortly before the person becomes liable. Just how shortly will depend on the precise way the individual registration officer chooses to run his register. However, it is unlikely to be more than a week or two. In that way the registration officer will minimise the number of cases where the person does not in fact become liable on the date shown. I hope that what I fear might have been a misunderstanding has been clarified.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am extremely grateful for the Minister's very detailed and in some respects helpful reply. However, I must latch on to the remark which he made about the individual registration officer. Are we to assume that there could be a different interpretation or different time factor depending upon the particular registration officer in a particular area?

The Earl of Caithness

Although we will set down the parameters within which the registration officer should work, it will be up to each individual registration officer to adopt a method that he thinks is suitable. Some registration officers might do it fortnightly, some monthly, some two-monthly. There has to be some flexibility.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but I do not understand some of the points with regard to a death. If the register is being kept up to date, would it be the responsibility of the relative to inform the registration officer of the death and then the dead person would be expunged from the register, or would the deceased person be kept on the register and sent a bill at the end of the year—or even refunded money that they should not have paid?

The Earl of Caithness

The noble Baroness highlights a point that needs a little clarification. If somebody dies, it will be either the executors or another member of the family who notifies the registration officer. The community charge will in all probability be charged in 10 instalments and therefore the executors will not want instalment reminders coming in unnecessarily. At that stage the name will be taken off the extract of the register which is open to the public but will be kept on the main register for the very reasons I described. Arrangements could have been made with the local authority for the community charge to be paid six-monthly in advance or a year in advance, and there might be some amount to be credited back to the estate of the deceased. If the name of the deceased was expunged from the main register, all the details would be expunged and therefore the reimbursement could not be made. It should quite rightly be taken off the extract which is open to public view and kept on the main register for the two-year limit.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am grateful to the Minister but I still have some reservations. I should have asked him whether the Bill as at present drafted would allow for retrospective claims in respect of death.

I am not legally qualified, but am I right in assuming that registration officers would be in a quasi-judicial position, having certain statutory functions that they would have to carry out? I have seen a variety of judgments from eminent judges when helping to guide juries, and there are a variety of sentences for similar offence. My view, which has just emerged on this amendment, was not something I had previously taken on board. The Goverment may think after having looked into the question of issuing guidelines to registration officers that they should stipulate in the Bill what they require. Otherwise different parts of the country will be dealt with on a different basis.

Although I am pleased with the general tenor of the Minister's reply to the two amendments, I feel bound to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I should like to come back at a later stage. Perhaps the Government will think about the question of introducing some uniformity into the statutory duties of registration officers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 67B not moved.]

Clause 8 agreed to.

Lord Hesketh

This may be a suitable moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.