Debates — Serious Crime Act 2007

Report stage in the Lords

30 Apr 200772 speechesView in Hansard ↗

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion…
Speaker
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)Labour
Quote
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. Clause 61 [Disclosure of information to prevent fraud]:
Time
15:18
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 94:
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 94:
Time
15:18
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has moved her amendment. She has clarified that, in part,…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has moved her amendment. She has clarified that, in part, the amendment is intended to make clear that the provision applies to any anti-fraud organisation which may be specified under Clause 61 and that there is a prospect that more than one organisation may be specified. I am happy to affirm her assertion in that regard. I am glad to be able to confirm that because it has always been the Government’s intention that no organisation should have a monopoly on being specified for the purposes of Clause 61. As the noble Baroness indicated, I have already mentioned that CIFAS, the UK’s fraud prevention service, is the type of organisation we have in mind. I can give the House reassurance, if reassurance is needed, that we would not intend that CIFAS, if it is specified, or any other one organisation should alone be able to benefit from the provisions of Clause 61. The Bill achieves that effect. Clause 61(1) refers to being, “a member of a specified anti-fraud organisation”. I can assure your Lordships that this wording ensures that the number of organisations that can be specified is not limited to one. It follows that the additional words which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seek to include in Clause 61(8) are unnecessary. I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness in that regard. Amendment No. 95 changes the definition of “specified anti-fraud organisation” in Clause 62 by adding “body corporate or not-for-profit organisation” to the list of those who might qualify as the “specified anti-fraud organisation”. My understanding is that the definition of “person” already accounts for bodies corporate by virtue of the definition of a person in the Interpretation Act 1978. As a result, the amendment would not add substantively to the definitions in the Bill. There is, of course, interest both within the House and outside about the process of designation of the specified anti-fraud organisation under Clause 61. I know that various bodies and agencies have raised that, as the noble Baroness has indicated they raised it with her. The Bill deliberately leaves the question open. Subsection (8) simply says that, “‘an anti-fraud organisation’ means any unincorporated association, body corporate or other person which enables or facilitates any sharing of information to prevent fraud or a particular kind of fraud or which has any of these functions as its purpose or one of its purposes”. That is, I suggest, a very straightforward and open requirement. “Specified” means specified by an order made by the Secretary of State under the negative resolution procedure under Clause 76(6). The detail of how the Government will consider which organisations to specify has still to be worked through. However, we envisage that the data-sharing by public authorities, which is enabled by Clause 61, will be made subject to some sort of code of practice—a matter to which I intend to refer when we discuss Amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98. The terms of that code would obviously need to be subject to prior consultation. An important test for any prospective specified anti-fraud organisation—or organisations; there could be a number—would be a willingness and ability to comply with the requirements of any code if public authorities were to disclose information to it for the purposes of preventing fraud. That could be a central test. However, we would not want to go so far as to suggest how any specified anti-fraud organisation should go about its business. We would see that as a matter for the organisation and would not wish to impose any pre-set mechanism. I hope that that brief explanation helps to give the House some idea of how the Government envisage anti-fraud organisations being specified. The noble Baroness asked about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report and the affirmative resolution procedure. She will know that the DPRRC said that the negative resolution procedure was an appropriate method of designating a body, and we accepted that assertion. The affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate for orders under Clause 62 but not under Clause 61. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that, and I am happy to have been able to put that explanation on the record for the purpose of clarity.
Time
15:18
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down and with the leave of the House, did I understand that the Government exp…
Speaker
Baroness Carnegy of LourConservative
Quote
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down and with the leave of the House, did I understand that the Government expect three or more anti-fraud organisations to be designated?
Time
15:18
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, we have not specified the number; we have simply said that there will be more than one. Potentially, a number…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, we have not specified the number; we have simply said that there will be more than one. Potentially, a number of organisations will put themselves forward for consideration. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it would not be right to have a monopoly of just one. Therefore, we will set a code or benchmark to govern the way in which these organisations operate, but it would be improper and wrong for me to suggest that there would be two, three or more. The most important thing is to make a judgment about which organisation or organisations may be fit for this purpose. However, as the noble Baroness has indicated and as others have also said, it is clear that it would be wrong to have only one, because that would create a monopoly and we do not think that that would be right.
Time
15:18
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Her elucidation has taken us further than we managed to get in Committee. In p…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Her elucidation has taken us further than we managed to get in Committee. In particular, she affirmed clearly that there would be more than one organisation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for trying to tease that out a little further. We shall have to come back to this matter when the negative instrument is put before the House, but it is important that there is not a monopoly. I am grateful to the Government for putting that clearly on the record. I understand that the Bill leaves the matter of the process open and I understand why the Minister argues that it should be left open, subject to the code of practice issues to which we will turn our debate shortly. Before Third Reading, I will go back to those who briefed noble Lords in order to check that no further clarification needs to be achieved. If further clarification is needed, it may well be better achieved outside the House and not at Third Reading, where our rules are much more tightly drawn concerning which amendments are allowed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 62 [Offence for certain further disclosures of information]: [Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Time
15:18
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 96:
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 96:
Time
15:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Earl of NortheskMy Lords, it may be convenient if I take this opportunity to make a few comments about my Amendment No. 97 in this grou…
Speaker
The Earl of NortheskConservative
Quote
My Lords, it may be convenient if I take this opportunity to make a few comments about my Amendment No. 97 in this group. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the meeting arranged so helpfully by Vernon Coaker, and referred to by my noble friend Lady Anelay. Manifestly it was an extremely useful and constructive occasion for all those in attendance, not least because, as my noble friend said, it has inspired the Government’s later amendments, which effectively make unnecessary the new clause proposed in my amendment. We shall come to those in due course. For the moment, and I hope as some measure of comfort to the Minister, I merely note that in these circumstances I see no need to pursue my amendment. Be that as it may, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to make just a few comments. I am both relieved and encouraged that in this instance the Government have recognised that the Data Protection Act does not necessarily offer adequate safeguards. It seems to me that across the piece, Ministers are too often tempted to suppose—perhaps somewhat glibly—that its mere existence is a panacea, and they therefore parrot the mantra that reliance on that Act provides sufficient comfort. However, as I sought to tease out in Committee, the technological landscape has changed dramatically since the legislation was enacted some 10 years or so ago and, in consequence, it is a moot point as to the extent to which it retains effectiveness and robustness. Quite apart from that, as the Minister freely acknowledged in Committee, the Bill limits its safeguards. She said that, “Clause 64 amends the Data Protection Act to allow for sensitive personal data to be processed for the purpose of the prevention and detection of fraud”.—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1512.] That point was confirmed at paragraph 1.39 of the report on the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Moreover, having revisited our debates on the DPA, it is my impression that its drafting was left deliberately “loose”—if I may put it that way—in a number of areas in order to satisfy the expedients of future-proofing. In other words, it was recognised that special and/or exceptional circumstances would require specific legislative provision over and above and beyond the text of the Act itself. Dare I say it: the data-matching and information-sharing provisions of this Bill seem to be just such an occasion. Regardless, it is much to the credit of both the Government and the noble Baroness that the amendments have been brought forward. Indeed, while I am not holding my breath, I can hope that her welcome enlightenment on this issue may spread to other departments. That said, there is a tangential issue about which I hope the Minister might be able to offer me some information, if not comfort. The volume and spread of the Information Commissioner’s responsibilities are extensive and growing. Consequentially, I am always slightly concerned as to whether his office is adequately funded and resourced. More specifically, having arrived at a set of circumstances where we are satisfied that appropriate checks and balances are pretty much in place, it would be regrettable if they could not be acted upon due to inadequate funding. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
Time
15:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister for arranging the meeting with the Information Commissioner. It was i…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister for arranging the meeting with the Information Commissioner. It was immensely helpful and clarified a lot of worries. However, it focuses me on my noble friend’s amendment. We need the Information Commissioner to be proactive in order that the provisions in the Data Protection Act have effect, to ensure that proper records will be kept and that what is going on is entirely proper. I echo the last point made by my noble friend Lord Northesk. At that meeting, I discovered that my appeal, in my private capacity to the Information Commissioner, is the record outstanding Freedom of Information Act appeal, which has been running for over two years and is still unresolved. Therefore, more resources for such things in the future would be very welcome.
Time
15:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I join with those who have thanked the Information Commissioner. We have found his advice very helpful and I…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I join with those who have thanked the Information Commissioner. We have found his advice very helpful and I am glad that noble Lords opposite have too. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that my honourable friend Vernon Coaker said that he would take the issue away and look at it. The noble Baroness knows, as do I, that all Ministers are bound by others’ decisions before making any final decision. I understand why the noble Baroness teased me by phrasing it in the way she did. However, for the record, this issue is being looked at. Whether it will be ready by the time the Bill leaves this House is another matter. I hope that I will be able to respond more fully to the noble Baroness’s concerns and those of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, who I thank for his helpful indication of how he intends to deal with his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment No. 96 inserts a new clause after Clause 63 which amends the Data Protection Act regarding the duties and powers of the Information Commissioner. It grants him the power, on his own initiative to assess any data processing conducted under Sections 61 to 65 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. I would like to start by explaining the similar power already provided to the Information Commissioner in the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner can require the data controller of a body or organisation, through an information notice, to produce information for the purposes of determining whether the data controller has complied, or is complying, with the data protection principles. Any body or organisation dealing with or processing personal information will be registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner. This includes all bodies using the powers under Clauses 61 to 65. It is not in their interests to refuse access if they wish to satisfy him that their activities comply with the Act. Failure to comply with an information notice is an offence under Section 47 of the Data Protection Act. In addition, the Information Commissioner has the power to issue enforcement notices to enable the commissioner to investigate and rectify instances of non-compliance with any of the data protection principles and any requirements of the relevant regulations. We believe that adequate powers are already provided to the Information Commissioner in this regard, without further provision. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, are willing to withdraw this amendment. I have already indicated how we are looking at this issue. Amendment No. 97 creates a provision for the Secretary of State to produce and disseminate guidance to all those using the data-sharing powers under Clause 61. It would require that the guidance be disseminated to all those involved in the data sharing, that it covers the type of sharing of information that can take place between and among themselves and the circumstances in which that sharing can take place. The amendment also provides that the guidance should be maintained under review and that the Information Commissioner should be consulted on its content. I see the noble Baroness’s hand in that, because it requires that the guidance should cover the procedure designed to ensure accuracy and security of information being shared under the powers, the procedures to ensure co-ordination, procedures to govern the circumstances in which information can be shared and so on. The final requirements of this section of the amendment cover the procedure guaranteeing the rights of the data subject and those governing the period of retention. Amendment No. 98 of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, adds to Amendment No. 97 with a further requirement on the Secretary of State regarding the destruction of data used in data processing. In Committee, I explained why I thought such a prescriptive and detailed requirement on the Secretary of State to provide information was unnecessary and unworkable. That is still the case. However, the Government understand what lies behind the amendment: providing some form of framework for the data sharing enabled by Clause 61. As the noble Baroness indicated, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Vernon Coaker, hosted an informative and productive meeting with the Information Commissioner on 18 April. I was not privileged to attend that meeting, although the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have indicated that they were. In the light of that discussion, we are now considering how best to provide a suitable framework. We are unlikely to come to the conclusion that such a prescriptive framework, as suggested by these amendments, would be appropriate. We are more likely to reach a view that these matters would be better addressed through a code of practice, which itself would contain the detail. We hope to return to the House with a more definite indication of our plans, if not their implementation, by Third Reading. In the circumstances, given the Government’s further consideration of these matters, which can be further pursued in another place if necessary, I hope their Lordships and the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw their amendments. I have found it helpful that we have been able to have these discussions and progress the matter in a collaborative way. We have done a great deal of work to obviate the need for more when the matter goes to the other place. We would have preferred to tie up all the loose ends, but I am not confident that we will be able to dot every “i” and cross every “t”. I suppose it will give the other place a little something to do.
Time
15:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, since it is our usual practice to find vast amounts to do when a Bill reaches this House from another place,…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, since it is our usual practice to find vast amounts to do when a Bill reaches this House from another place, it might be nice to leave them a little morsel when a Bill goes from here to there. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, and obviously to my noble friends Lord Northesk and Lord Lucas for their assistance, support and participation throughout. They are always proactive in looking at the detail of the application of data protection legislation. I make it a practice to go to them as my first port of call on any such matters coming before the House. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked me to give the noble Baroness his apologies. I am grateful that she addressed his amendment; he is unavoidably elsewhere at a memorial service which he cannot leave. He hopes to reach the House some time later to take part in today’s debates. The Minister referred to the code of practice, and the fact that the Government are now working through that. That is why she says she does not wish to go ahead with my noble friend’s Amendment No. 97 and the system there. She says that she hopes to be in a position to give a better indication of the process by which a code of practice might be achieved and operate by Third Reading. That would be most helpful, but she also refers to the core issue, the substance of my Amendment No. 96: the position of the Information Commissioner. We agree with him that he ought to have a proactive role. The Minister is cautious in the language she uses; she said that the matter is being “looked at”, but that whether it will be ready for Third Reading is another matter. I am sure she will not be surprised to hear me say that because I feel this is such a vital matter, if there is no puff of white smoke from the Government to indicate that an amendment will come from them, I may well table this amendment again to give the House an opportunity for further consideration of this matter. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 97 not moved.] [Amendment No. 98, as an amendment to Amendment No. 97, not moved.] Clause 65 [Data matching]:
Time
15:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 99:
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 99:
Time
15:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. These are, politically, very sensitive matters, a…
Speaker
Baroness Carnegy of LourConservative
Quote
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. These are, politically, very sensitive matters, and this is a very sensitive time politically in Wales because of the current elections. It is absolutely right for Westminster to legislate for Wales on these matters, but has the Welsh Assembly been consulted? If so, what is the Government’s response?
Time
15:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord HenleyMy Lords, this group of amendments seems relatively innocuous, but I have one or two questions. First, although I appre…
Speaker
Lord HenleyConservative
Quote
My Lords, this group of amendments seems relatively innocuous, but I have one or two questions. First, although I appreciate that the amendments do slightly more than just extend the scope of the orders to Wales and Northern Ireland, it seems rather unusual to add something as basic as this at this late stage. Why are these amendments being introduced now? Perhaps it is as a result of the consultation that my noble friend Lady Carnegy has been asking about. Secondly, Amendment No. 103 allows information to be passed on from the Audit Commission to the so-called local government auditor in Northern Ireland even though there is no provision for data sharing at local government level in England or Wales. I hope the Minister can explain the Government’s rationale for the extension of the sharing of matched data. Have the Government considered that widening the provision could endanger the security of such data? Not for one minute would I want to cast aspersions on local authority auditors; rather, I mean to note that the information systems to which they will have access for storing data may not be quite as secure as those at a higher level. Perhaps the noble Lord will give some thought to those points and explain the reason for these last-minute alterations to the Bill.
Time
15:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I shall be brief. I expected the Minister to comment on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.…
Speaker
Lord DholakiaLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I shall be brief. I expected the Minister to comment on the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Paragraph 1.37 of its 12th report refers to information sharing and expresses concern that, “the power of public authorities to share information with anti-fraud organisations is drafted in terms too general to satisfy the requirement in Article 8 ECHR that interferences with the right to respect for private life be sufficiently foreseeable”. The report continues: “In order to make the effect of the new power more foreseeable, and therefore more legally certain, and to make it less likely that the power to share information will be exercised disproportionately, we recommend that the Bill be amended”. It makes a number of suggestions, including, “to limit the width of the power, for example by specifying the kind of information which may be disclosed … to introduce additional safeguards on the face of the Bill”. Overall, the Joint Committee says, “In our view this amounts to an inappropriate delegation of discretion to anti-fraud organisations to decide to whom they will disclose sensitive personal data”. This matter was raised last week when the report was published. Has the Home Office made a response to the Joint Committee’s report?
Time
15:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, I expressed my views on data matching and data mining at Second Reading, and the points that I made were purs…
Speaker
Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I expressed my views on data matching and data mining at Second Reading, and the points that I made were pursued by my noble friends in Committee. I am distressed to see, and I hope that the people of Wales will note at this delicate time, that these provisions are being extended to Wales. Although the Government have significantly altered their stance on the scope of the orders, they nevertheless maintain their determination to cross-match people’s personal data from all sorts of areas in an attempt initially to detect crime and fraud, but with a power to extend the purposes for which the matching takes place to further areas. I appreciate that, possibly as a result of some of the comments that we have already made, those powers are to be limited by another amendment, to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in its place. Those provisions are already incorporated in the Welsh provisions. However, the power amounts to a typical and serious intervention in the private lives of the people of Wales.
Time
15:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their helpful interventions and thoughtful reflections at this sensitive tim…
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their helpful interventions and thoughtful reflections at this sensitive time. I can offer a measure of assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. We consulted on the Welsh and Northern Ireland amendments and full approval was given. I am sure that it was given after the views expressed were taken carefully into account. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked why we propose to amend the Bill now rather than perhaps adopt a different approach. There was consultation when approval for the provisions was sought. At that stage, it was understood that the Bill was intended to put the national fraud initiative on a statutory footing and include an order-making power for the Secretary of State to increase the jurisdictional extent of that initiative beyond England. Later instructions were prepared, in December, which changed the position so that the data-matching provisions should operate only in England. The change reflected recognition of the competence of devolved Administrations in public sector audit matters and data-matching exercises. Critically, however, it was also assumed that the devolved Administrations would consider the adoption of provisions equivalent to those being made for the Audit Commission to enable an extension of the data matching among bodies in their own jurisdictions. Given the importance of the issue, it was felt that there was a strong case for trying to resolve all these issues together and as soon as possible. The Welsh Assembly and the Auditor General for Wales have been consulted continuously on these suggested amendments since December. The Welsh Assembly Government decided in December that Welsh public bodies should in the first instance be subject to data-matching provisions for the Auditor General for Wales rather—
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that the Welsh Assembly has approved this? Or was it the Welsh Assembly L…
Speaker
Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that the Welsh Assembly has approved this? Or was it the Welsh Assembly Labour Administration, who I hope will disappear on Thursday?
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, the noble Lord is fully entitled to express his view on which way the electorate should vote later in the wee…
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
My Lords, the noble Lord is fully entitled to express his view on which way the electorate should vote later in the week, but it was the Welsh Assembly Government who decided in December that the Welsh public bodies should in the first instance be subject to data-matching provisions for the Auditor General for Wales rather than the Audit Commission so as to provide consistency with all other audit arrangements. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. His comments related only to data sharing. The amendments deal only with data matching. This matching will be covered by the safeguards that the JCHR deemed appropriate. We will look more closely at its concerns about data sharing. We therefore recognise the importance of the issue that the noble Lord raised. I think that I have responded to the points that were raised. I hope that noble Lords will now feel able to support the amendments. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 99A:
Speaker
Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
moved Amendment No. 99A:
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, the amendment sets up a barrier in the Bill between the national identity register, databases set up under th…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, the amendment sets up a barrier in the Bill between the national identity register, databases set up under the Children Act 2004 and data matching. It protects the NIR and children's databases from being mined for information. I was caught on the hop because I am so accustomed to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench having two speakers on every amendment, I was sitting and waiting for the second to rise to his feet. But here we are: I have got in first, at the noble Lord’s invitation, for which I am grateful. The objective of the amendment complements the concerns that we on these Benches hold about the Government's policy of using individuals’ personal details, which seem to be filling Whitehall databases daily. We raised the issue of mining the NIR for data and came extremely close to protecting the electoral register last year from infiltration within the NIR during proceedings on the Electoral Administration Bill. Indeed, Amendment No. 99A in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia, reminds me very much of the amendment that we brought forward in that Bill. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hanham and others will be delighted that her amendment has been adopted and reincarnated in another Bill. Imitation is the best form of flattery. At that stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, stated that no dialogue could occur between the NIR and the electoral register unless the affirmative regulation procedure had been followed under the Identity Cards Act 2006. I ask the Minister whether the same procedural safeguard will apply when it comes to authorising the Audit Commission to conduct data-matching exercises. When we debated my Amendment No. 116 in Committee, at col. 1579 on 27 March, I raised questions about the national identity register. As this is Report, I will not repeat all that. However, I asked the Minister to explain how the Bill would guarantee that the NIR could not be used for data-mining or data-matching purposes except in cases of serious crime. I reminded the Minister of our extensive debates on the Identity Cards Act and her assurances about using the NIR where serious crime was involved. She responded at col. 1583 and said that the assurances she gave during passage of the Identity Cards Act remained true. She went on to say that the intention would be to use the register only to identify crime where a specific provision was made in the law introducing it or where the Government had decided not to do so because its use would be voluntary. Does that remain the position today? If so, how, if at all, does it meet the objectives of Amendment No. 99A? The Minister went on to give her opinion that the Audit Commission would wish to use the register only for serious crime in any event. Have the Government discussed that with the Audit Commission, and what is the basis for her opinion? How can we be sure that that will be the outcome given the drafting of the Bill, which refers to “crime” rather than “serious crime” in Schedule 6? I hasten to add that when we debate the drafting of Schedule 6, I shall not press for a definition of “serious crime”, for reasons that I shall adduce later.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I rise to speak as I would not wish to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Will the Minister respond…
Speaker
Lord DholakiaLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I rise to speak as I would not wish to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Will the Minister respond now to my earlier argument on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report? Is this an appropriate moment to ask about data sharing and what the Home Office intends to say about the report? If it is not possible now, may we have a response before Third Reading, so that it can be dealt with then?
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, the national identity register is increasingly anxiety-making for many people. The noble Lord speaking from t…
Speaker
Baroness Carnegy of LourConservative
Quote
My Lords, the national identity register is increasingly anxiety-making for many people. The noble Lord speaking from the Liberal Front Bench suggested that the Government collect data for one purpose but use them for another. That seems very true in the case of data sharing. I hope the Minister will give a very detailed defence of the fact that these two registers may be used in the Bill.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I am very happy to provide clarification and to take up the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am very happy to provide clarification and to take up the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I hope I shall be able to do it as shortly as possible. I understand that an explanation would be helpful. The amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Thomas of Gresford, would prevent the sharing of data which are contained in the national identity register and ContactPoint—previously known by the working title of “information sharing index”—and the inclusion of those data in data-matching exercises. It would take it out in its entirety, which I do not believe is what the noble Baroness opposite would wish to do. Neither do I believe that, in truth, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would wish. ContactPoint will be a national online directory that will become operative in all 150 local authority areas by the end of 2008, consisting of basic demographic data pertaining to children and contact details of those providing specialist and targeted services to them. It is designed to facilitate a co-ordinated approach to providing care and services to children—something which, around the House, we have emphasised and underlined as necessary. Its purpose, as set out in Section 12 of the Children Act 2004, is expressly linked to the duties in the Act on local authorities and their partners to co-operate to improve the well-being of children and to safeguard and promote their welfare. Access will be restricted to those who need it in connection with their work, including, for example, those in education, health, social care and youth offending. That is something which we have sought on all Benches to secure. Section 12 of the Children Act 2004 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations governing the disclosure of data for the purposes of ContactPoint, in relation to both the bodies that must contribute data to this directory and the circumstances in which data from it can be disclosed. These regulations are due shortly to be laid before Parliament and are subject to affirmative resolution. That may satisfy the noble Baroness. Given the careful policy considerations that underlie the drafting of the Children Act, in particular Section 12, and the deliberate decision to vest in the Secretary of State the responsibility for making regulations governing the appropriate disclosure of information from this index, I am loath to pre-empt those decisions by making it impossible in this legislation for the Audit Commission or the specified anti-fraud organisation ever to have access to these data. For the present purposes, it is very difficult to see how the data contained in the ContactPoint would be relevant to the specific task of assisting in the prevention and detection of fraud. That is a criterion that has to be satisfied for data matching. We must remember what the Audit Commission will be able to do in obtaining data for data-matching purposes and that there are important limits on those powers. Even where the Audit Commission is able to require bodies to provide data on a mandatory basis under Section 32B, this must reasonably be for the purpose of conducting data-matching exercises that are designed to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud. So where data are provided on a voluntary basis, that must first be deemed appropriate for the purposes stated above, which will be a judgment that the Audit Commission as a public body will be required to make on reasonable grounds. I cannot see it but those would be the tests, and I think that how they would operate would be relatively safe and straightforward. On the basis of the regulatory framework already provided for in the Children Act and the limits on the Audit Commission’s powers to obtain information, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to make the further amendment that is sought.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Thomas of GresfordMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that tribute to my valour. I shall have to take it a step furthe…
Speaker
Lord Thomas of GresfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that tribute to my valour. I shall have to take it a step further, however, because I did not hear a single word from her which indicated a reason for rejecting the amendment. She said that she cannot imagine that the children’s database will ever be used for the detection of fraud but that it cannot be ruled out. She agrees that the identity card register, when it comes into being, is not to be used for data mining, but that it cannot be ruled out. I do not see that as a proper answer to the amendment and I feel it necessary, as a matter of principle, to seek the opinion of the House.
Time
16:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 101:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 101:
Time
16:36
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Dholakiahad given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, Amendment No. 101A:
Speaker
Lord DholakiaLiberal Democrat
Quote
had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, Amendment No. 101A:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, it is a little complicated when we have amendments tabled to the Minister’s main amendment. I do not want to…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, it is a little complicated when we have amendments tabled to the Minister’s main amendment. I do not want to confuse matters further but I should like to give an explanation about Amendment No. 100, to which the noble Baroness has referred. In advance of today, I gave notice to the Front Benches and to the Lord Speaker that I would not move Amendment No. 100. It was a procedural device to ensure that on Report the noble Baroness could open the debate on this group of amendments and have the opportunity to answer any questions. That did not mean that I had no faith in my amendment but I will immediately indicate that the objective achieved by the Government’s amendment fully meets my objections in Committee. As the Minister has remarked, the government amendment is broader than mine and is thereby even more welcome. I was trying to prevent a situation where individuals’ details could be data-matched or data-mined and used improperly in profiling individual characteristics. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling her amendments. The Minister referred to Amendment No.102. It picks up on a theme that I explored in Committee about the kind of patient data that will be data-matched or data-mined. In Committee, the Minister said: “Patients’ data are not disclosable beyond the National Health Service”.—[Official Report, 26/3/07; col. 1537.] I wondered how that was guaranteed in the Bill. Today, the Minister has given a helpful and full explanation of how information will be disclosable, not only in a voluntary, but also in an enforced statutory way, and will involve the National Health Service trusts. I have a further question on that. I have followed the Minister’s arguments today but it occurred to me during her explanation that National Health Service trusts do carry out work for the private sector. The private sector buys time in operating theatres and operations are carried out. There is a close liaison between the National Health Service trusts and the private sector whereby both clinical and demographic data might be built up as a result of that exchange. I wonder whether it is possible that information held in the private health sector may find its way through a gateway in the NHS trust into the demographic use of data matching and data mining in this Bill. That occurred to me only as the noble Baroness was speaking, so if she is able to respond today, that would be helpful. However, she may wish to write to me on that and we might be able to resolve that before Third Reading. I am trying not necessarily to prevent demographic profiling and use of information which may properly prevent or detect serious fraud but to ensure that there is none of the function creep to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly referred earlier, and that we do not allow the Bill to leave this place with an imperfect and incorrect understanding of what information might be properly matched and mined and which might not. We must ensure that the public have confidence in the process by which all this takes place. All of us will be aware of the daily scandals about patient data held on the NHS supercomputer. I was looking at the BBC website on Saturday and read that the Government had closed down the job application website for junior doctors amid fresh concerns of security lapses. This is an area in which we are talking about the National Health Trusts disclosing and using information. We need to be sure that it is secure and to know whether information held elsewhere may also find its way into that database.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says about the alignment between NHS and private data. I think that the answer…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says about the alignment between NHS and private data. I think that the answer will be that the NHS data will be dealt with. I shall come back to the noble Baroness, because she raises an interesting point which it would helpful to clarify. I certainly undertake to write to her between now and Third Reading. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 103 and 104:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 103 and 104:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 105:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 105:
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, I support the Government's amendments that have responded to a great degree to the debates we had on the amen…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, I support the Government's amendments that have responded to a great degree to the debates we had on the amendments that I moved in Committee, in particular, the debate on Amendment No. 114A, which can be found in Hansard for 26 March at cols. 142 to 146. I shall not abuse Report by repeating the arguments, particularly when the Minister has given a helpful explanation of the objectives of the government amendments and the route by which they have been tabled. I would be completely satisfied if the Government were to bring forward an amendment that gives the Information Commissioner the right to initiate assessments of his own volition. However, that has to wait until Third Reading but, I hope, no longer. Amendment No. 105 is most welcome. It allows the Audit Commission to publish reports on the data-matching exercises that it conducts. We think that is an essential part of public accountability and transparency. The Minister said that it is good practice put into statute. We think that the Government are right to add to the existing duty on the Audit Commission the duty to produce, have regard to and maintain, by way of updates, the code of data-matching practice. Amendment No. 108 requires the Audit Commission to consult the Information Commissioner before producing the code of practice and to do so when and if it amends it. That is particularly welcome and is a more proper way forward than the solution in my Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. Having had the opportunity to meet the Information Commissioner, I understand why he would say that the government amendment is appropriate whereas he might feel that my Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 would impose a duty upon him that would not fit with his independence of action. I accept that the Government's amendments are superior to mine. Amendment No. 109 is particularly welcome because it provides for parliamentary accountability—to a limited degree, it is true—by requiring the Secretary of State to lay the code before Parliament. The Audit Commission will have to publish the code from time to time, which is important because it means that this House and another place will have a continuing ability to exercise their scrutiny. Throughout our debates on the Bill, noble Lords have spoken about how information technology is developing. The Government often use that argument as a reason for wishing to have flexibility in legislation, but it is an argument for Parliament having continuing scrutiny of measures that may have to develop in different ways to meet new needs in future. We support the Government's amendments and will not be moving Amendments Nos. 106 and 107.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord CrickhowellMy Lords, I apologise for not being in the House when the noble Baroness spoke to the earlier amendments. I was attendi…
Speaker
Lord CrickhowellConservative
Quote
My Lords, I apologise for not being in the House when the noble Baroness spoke to the earlier amendments. I was attending a memorial service to a very remarkable South African at Southwark Cathedral. These amendments give me the opportunity to make a brief point that arose from the presentation on the Audit Commission's current fraud initiative. At present, information is brought to the commission on disks, which are carefully stored and then destroyed once the information has been used so that the record is gone. I asked why the commission used disks when we are dealing with electronic information. The reply was, “We find it easy at the moment but we might want to move on to different methods of providing information, using electronic techniques”. The risks would be different in such a situation. It is well known that, although you can remove information from computers, it is left on hard disks and there are ways of getting at it. It is important that the Information Commissioner in his exchanges with the Audit Commission ensures that, as new techniques are adopted, the commission takes the same care to destroy information and render it secure as it has done until now. We enter into a period of new vulnerability. My noble friend referred to recent incidents that showed the vulnerabilities of computer systems. I hope that the Information Commissioner will pay particular attention to that in his discussions with the Audit Commission and when the codes of practice are being drawn up.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's comments. He had the advantage of seeing how the Audit Commission man…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's comments. He had the advantage of seeing how the Audit Commission manages the current initiative. He is right that the commission is scrupulous in destroying disks. I am given to understand that it appreciates clearly the need to expunge data and that, if it changes its processes, it will ensure that data are similarly expunged. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the House also appreciate the close interaction with, and the respect given to, the Information Commissioner and his comments on data. There is no indication that that high regard will be diminished. Much confidence can be drawn from the sound and proper manner in which the Audit Commission carried out the current initiative; there is nothing to indicate that it will resile from its current position. I thank the noble Lord for highlighting the importance, which the commission itself has underlined, of expunging data when it is no longer needed. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 108 and 109:
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 108 and 109:
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 110:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 110:
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, I support the government amendments. I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 111, 113 and 114, to which the Minis…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, I support the government amendments. I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 111, 113 and 114, to which the Minister has already responded. The government amendments go a long way towards meeting the objections that I raised in Committee on 27 March at cols. 1578 to 1588 of the Official Report. They reflected our lengthy debate on the central group of issues in Part 3. I was concerned about the open-ended powers to be given to the Secretary of State in Schedule 6 to extend the purposes for which data matching may take place. He could have used delegated legislation to add any purposes to the list in new Section 32G. At present, as the Minister said, data matching is limited to the prevention and detection of fraud. Top of my wish list was a measure that would confine the purposes to those already in the Bill and a measure requiring further purposes to be added by primary legislation. My objections to the list of examples of purposes for future consideration set out in new Section 32G(2) were objections of principle and practice. I was unhappy that if we accepted a subsection that gave a list of particular examples, we could today be fettering the House when it came to decide in future on its view of delegated legislation brought forward by the Government to add purposes already mentioned in primary legislation. It could have looked as though we had already indicated that those purposes listed in new Section 32G were acceptable and we might therefore have been free only to express a view if the Government brought forward a statutory instrument that referred to new purposes not listed in new Section 32G. I was concerned also that the list refers to “crime” rather than to “serious crime”, which I would have much preferred. I shall return to that matter. The Minister has given some clear examples of where it would be dangerous to go down the line of referring just to serious crime. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell spoke strongly against the use of the term “in particular”. The Government's amendment makes it clear that the potential for expanding the list of purposes for which data matching may take place is now to be confined to those currently listed as examples, so the examples become a closed list. That is exactly what I would have hoped for; I welcome the amendment. The amendment gives the House the opportunity to decide now, while it is considering primary legislation, whether that list is appropriate. It prevents other matters being added by delegated legislation. The letter that noble Lords received from the Minister appeared to imply that the Government would not consider bringing forward by way of primary legislation any further purposes in the future. If that is the correct interpretation of her letter, it would be most welcome in the year or two for which Mr Brown takes over the helm. I would have preferred it if the new subsection had referred to “serious crime” rather than “crime”. I accept all the arguments against that which the noble Baroness has adduced today. In addition, the Minister and I had a meeting between Committee and Report where we discussed the matter. She put forward the argument that if one were to have a reference to serious crime, one would need a schedule to the Bill to list the involved. That is not beyond the wit of man and woman, because the Government have two schedules to the Bill, Schedules 1 and 3, where they have tried to list crimes to be taken into account. We now know that that is a defective list and that they are going to change it, so perhaps I was right all along. However, the solution that the Government have achieved is as good as is possible within the context of Part 3, so I shall not move my amendments and will support the Government.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord CrickhowellMy Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed by my noble friend to the Minister for producing some very helpful…
Speaker
Lord CrickhowellConservative
Quote
My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed by my noble friend to the Minister for producing some very helpful amendments and, in particular, for the way in which she has now limited new Section 32G(2). I cannot refrain from expressing a little pleasure that my damn-fool question—that is, the question posed by an ignorant layman to a House full of lawyers—has produced the amendment that I suggested. The words that I thought were unnecessary have been deemed to be unnecessary; indeed rather more than unnecessary, because they have the effect of suggesting that things could have been added which might have been unnecessary. All I want to do is to say “Thank you very much” to the noble Baroness.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his thanks. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his thanks. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 112:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 112:
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 115:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 115:
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 116:
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 116:
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 117:
Speaker
Viscount BridgemanConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 117:
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Harris of RichmondMy Lords, I supported the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in Committee, and we set out our reasons f…
Speaker
Baroness Harris of RichmondLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I supported the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in Committee, and we set out our reasons for so doing then. We need an absolute assurance that the merger of the Assets Recovery Agency and SOCA will not diminish the excellent work already done by the ARA, which was referred to in Committee. The noble Baroness gave us some reassurance but, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, we still have some concerns. Following the Committee stage, is the Minister able to give us any indication of the numbers transferring from the Assets Recovery Agency to SOCA? I refer her to Hansard for 27 March, when she said: “The agency will dedicate at least the same level of resource in Northern Ireland as the Assets Recovery Agency currently spends, and SOCA's presence in Northern Ireland will be at least as large as the current office of the Assets Recovery Agency”.—[Official Report, 27/3/07; col. 1592.] That predisposes me to think that, if only one officer is being used for asset recovery within the new set-up, SOCA will consume what was a much larger assets recovery unit. Would the Minister be good enough to comment on that?
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I say to the noble Viscount and to the noble Baroness that I hope I can reassure them that their fears of sig…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I say to the noble Viscount and to the noble Baroness that I hope I can reassure them that their fears of significant change to the detriment of Northern Ireland are simply unfounded. There is common ground between us on the merits of merging the key functions of the Assets Recovery Agency with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We are also at one on the excellent work that the Assets Recovery Agency has done in Northern Ireland, which is rightly held in very high esteem by both politicians and the general public. The Government’s clear aim is for that success and for the current level of asset recovery activity against criminals in Northern Ireland to continue after the merger. To ensure that our aim is realised and in recognition of the high profile, public confidence and notable success achieved by the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland in tackling organised crime through the recovery of assets, we have made specific provision in the Bill requiring the Serious Organised Crime Agency to appoint and designate one of its staff as a person with responsibility for the agency's assets recovery effort in Northern Ireland. We do not expect there to be significant cost relating to that merger. That is the same requirement that was imposed on the director of the Assets Recovery Agency in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The 2002 Act did not require the director of the Assets Recovery Agency to set up a separate unit in Northern Ireland. Equally, we do not believe it would be appropriate to make specific provision in this Bill for such a unit to be established by SOCA. However, I am able to give a specific assurance that SOCA will have an assets recovery unit in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future. I believe that such a commitment deals with the essence of this amendment. The aim of SOCA is to reduce crime and harm from those who would seek to commit such crime in Northern Ireland and to seize and to confiscate the assets so obtained. That exercise cannot happen without efforts in the Province itself. There will be no reduction in the attack on organised crime in Northern Ireland through the recovery of assets. We have given assurances that the resources currently made available to the Assets Recovery Agency will be retained in Northern Ireland for the purpose of proceeds-of-crime work. There will be no change in the drive to make criminals pay for their ill gotten gains. I want to make it absolutely clear that assets recovery work in Northern Ireland under SOCA will take account of local priorities. Assets recovery effort will continue to be aimed at local priority targets in the community who, if they were in England or Wales, might be of lesser interest to SOCA but are very important in a Northern Ireland context. The close working relationship that the Asset Recovery Agency has established with the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau is very valuable in the pursuit of criminal assets on both sides of the border and we are committed to continuing the close co-operation when ARA and SOCA are merged. What we want to avoid is imposing on SOCA and locking it into a rigid operating model for the future of asset recovery work in Northern Ireland. This amendment limits SOCA's ability to change its structures to ensure they are as effective and efficient as possible as regards the recovery of criminal proceeds and in the light of possible future developments. For these reasons we find the amendment unhelpful and would have to resist it.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount BridgemanMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for supporting the amendment. I am also grateful, as always…
Speaker
Viscount BridgemanConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for supporting the amendment. I am also grateful, as always, to the Minister for the very comprehensive explanations she has given us. I am reassured that there will be a continuing Northern Ireland dimension and particularly that there will be a Northern Ireland expertise still continuing in this asset recovery activity. I am also reassured once again of the co-operation there will be with the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic. We look forward from these Benches to seeing details of the action plan which we shall examine with critical attention. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Time
17:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Marlesfordmoved Amendment No. 119:
Speaker
Lord MarlesfordConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 119:
Time
17:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. He is right to bring this matt…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. He is right to bring this matter before the House again and I hope that it may be resolved in his favour tonight. Illegal use of guns on some of our streets brings injury to some and misery to many; it is the scourge of the generation, in some areas. The considerable merit of my noble friend’s amendment is the simplicity of the description of the powers that he seeks to confer on the police. I am aware, of course, that powers already exist that enable the police in certain circumstances to search people, but they are to be extracted from a myriad of legislative instruments. After a spate of shootings in London earlier this year, the Prime Minister called together a gun summit in February. He brought together Ministers, police chiefs and community leaders for crisis talks on what he perceived himself as a growing problem. The media were told that there would be a review of gun laws to establish increased sentences for young offenders with penalties for being gang members. What has happened to that review? It was reported that at the summit Ministers were given clear warnings from senior officers who said that many shootings involved the same highly mobile criminals using the same stock of constantly circulating weapons. After the murder of one victim—Billy Cox, aged 15, shot dead in his bedroom—Cressida Dick, the Met’s Deputy Commissioner, said that London offenders were now being caught in cities across the UK, either trying to take over the drugs markets or carrying out enforcement for local drugs barons. She said: “We are dealing with greater mobility of the more serious and entrenched offenders. We are seeing firearms being used in several different crimes, and sometimes by different offenders. It is simple to hire a firearm for the night, give it back, and not be associated with it”. It is important to take strong and effective measures against the illegal use of guns. If the Government want to give a clear message about their commitment to reduce the level of gun crime, they should accept my noble friend’s amendment tonight.
Time
17:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord DholakiaMy Lords, I am delighted to support this amendment. I have done so on three previous occasions—and one thing you can sa…
Speaker
Lord DholakiaLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I am delighted to support this amendment. I have done so on three previous occasions—and one thing you can say about the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that he has been consistent in his approach to gun crime. The Minister has said repeatedly that the Government have ample powers to deal with gun crime, yet the evidence is there before us to see that despite those powers gun crime is on the increase, too many innocent lives are lost and, more disturbingly, more and more young people, some of them children, carry or use guns. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was good enough to provide statistics. Gun crime has grown at an alarming rate in this country and has, overall, doubled since 1997. Crimes involving imitation firearms have quadrupled. The vast majority of people who legally own guns use them responsibly. The aim of further changes to the law must be to tackle the threat from weapons that are held or used illegally. Gun crime is a complex problem and tackling it requires a holistic approach. We need to use intelligence-led policing to attack the organised criminal gangs responsible for many of the shootings in some of our urban areas. To achieve better conviction rates, we need to encourage more people to come forward by improving the protection offered to vulnerable witnesses. It is also important that the Government support community groups that work with young people who are at risk of becoming involved in drugs and gun crime. We hope that the amendment will go some way in sending a signal that more needs to be done to tackle this problem and that the Government are not afraid to enact legislation of this nature. I am delighted, therefore, to support the amendment.
Time
17:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord RamsbothamMy Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I am happy to lend the strongest sup…
Speaker
Lord RamsbothamCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I am happy to lend the strongest support that I can to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It has the benefit of being simple, clear and entirely understandable, given the increasing problem of gun crime on our streets. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, mentioned the support that he received from senior police officers when he spoke with them. I have also spoken on this matter to serving police officers, who find it extraordinary that there has not been universal support for this measure and that it has not been introduced previously. One of them who served with me in Northern Ireland said that, in fact, there are more guns in this country than we were looking for in Belfast, when we had every available measure, such as metal detection and other methods, to help us and the police in searching for such weapons. I admit that it is extraordinary, given the level of this crime and the Government’s keenness to act on many aspects of crime, that there is a sort of dilatoriness in dealing with gun crime, In addition to admiring the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in pursuing this issue, I point out that he has pursued the issue of a register of firearms; 11 years after Dunblane, one has still not been established. Extreme urgency seems to be attached to some other measures. I wish that the same urgency was put to the firearms issue, which is causing increasing concern among the people who suffer most. Last year, I went to a club in Moss Side, Manchester. There had been 15 or so murders around the club over the previous five years, all of which involved the use of firearms. I talked to a group of young people from a radio club called “Unity Radio” which was operated to provide these young people with information from the area. The question that came up over and over again was, “Why can we not do more to rid this area of the guns that make our lives here such a misery?”. We have here an opportunity to put in the police’s hands something that would do that and which would therefore do so much for our people who are suffering from this problem.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Neill of BladenMy Lords, I add my voice to those who support the amendment. We live in a violent society. We have daily, or certainly…
Speaker
Lord Neill of BladenCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I add my voice to those who support the amendment. We live in a violent society. We have daily, or certainly weekly, reminders of the terrible use of violence to kill or wound people. The use of knives is one method, and brute force is another. People are dragged to the ground by a gang and kicked to death. Guns are a frequent method of inflicting death. That violence involves, among other things, rival gangs. This House should be looking at ways to make the country safer. Today we are looking at firearms. We have a simple proposal to give the police the power to search people or vehicles for firearms. This is not indiscriminate stopping, there has to be a genuine belief. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is founded on the proposition that a police constable or officer believes that firearms are being carried by a person or are in a vehicle. We are not dealing with something random. We are dealing with very serious crime. I hope the Minister, when she puts forward the Government’s answer, will not resist it on technical grounds based on the language because the amendment could be redrafted in various minute respects and perhaps made easier to apply. One might have expected the amendment to be embraced warmly at an earlier stage of the Bill. Tonight we want to test the principle of whether this House is in favour of giving the police a simple method of trying to catch those who are carrying guns and to cut crime.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Mayhew of TwysdenMy Lords, it is pretty trite doctrine that the best deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. As has been brought ou…
Speaker
Lord Mayhew of TwysdenConservative
Quote
My Lords, it is pretty trite doctrine that the best deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. As has been brought out in this short debate, we are facing a year-on-year increase of the gun culture. It is partly due to the complexities of the law surrounding the undoubted powers of the police to search for guns. The laws are proving less than satisfactory because they are so complex and, as we heard, because police officers are unwilling or at any rate reluctant to get involved in them. The Government have been charged with being dilatory by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—a less charitable word would be “obstinate”—and taking refuge in the fact that there are many ample powers, as Ministers have said, to deal with guns. I think that my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s proposal has this very strong beneficial effect: it is simple. Presentationally, it will be known in the circles where guns are carried that the police now have the power to seal off an area and search everybody and that you are more likely to be caught. That is the essence of the proposal’s virtue. I hope the Government will cease to be dilatory and say, “Yes, let’s give it a try”.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord DearMy Lords, as the only representative of the blue line present in your Lordships’ House today I would like to support th…
Speaker
Lord DearCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, as the only representative of the blue line present in your Lordships’ House today I would like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Successive Governments have regulated the legal use of firearms to the point where many believe that the legal owner is over-regulated. Yet society as a whole has steadily lost control of the illegal carrying and use of firearms, particularly over the past four or five years. The growth is obvious. I will not weary the House with the figures because they are a matter of record. Guns are carried as a fashion accessory, as many of us know. They are carried illegally to further a turf war, often driven by the drugs trade. One of the more worrying factors about the current growth of illegal firearms is the quite awesome power of the weapons concerned. The low-velocity revolvers and sawn-off shotguns of the old days, highly dangerous though those two weapons were and are, nowadays have far been surpassed by the growth of weapons used by criminal gangs. They include military weapons or weapons that use Parabellum ammunition, very high-velocity projectiles and often fully jacketed bullets, and often they are fully automatic weapons with a staggering rate of fire. Young people—they often are young—are in possession of those sorts of weapons, so a largely unarmed police force is facing a highly dangerous situation on the streets. In passing, it is worth noting that the majority of patrolling officers know that they could very well meet someone with that sort of weapon in their possession who has a desire to use it in order to evade arrest, and those officers are continuing to patrol our streets. An amendment such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has my full support. It would give incredible courage and support to an overstretched police force; it would help to make our streets safer; and it would help to drive crime down.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord StewartbyMy Lords, when the noble Baroness responds on this amendment, I should be grateful if she could bring us up to date on…
Speaker
Lord StewartbyConservative
Quote
My Lords, when the noble Baroness responds on this amendment, I should be grateful if she could bring us up to date on the matter of the register. My noble friend Lord Marlesford has been raising this point for so long that I am beginning to wonder whether the Government have some sort of policy hang-up in this area. It is not possible to think of any good reason why this matter is still in limbo, so I ask myself whether there is a bad reason for it. If there is a bad reason, which I would define as a lack of commitment on this whole area of policy, perhaps we should know about it. The register is not the subject of the amendment, but the whole response of the Government on gun crime seems to be a little gently paced and I think that we need to see things moving rather more rapidly.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, we have heard speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Dear, and from my noble and learned fri…
Speaker
The Earl of OnslowConservative
Quote
My Lords, we have heard speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Dear, and from my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, made the very important point that those who own guns legally are over-regulated and those who own them illegally are not caught. This House is supposed to be a House of experts and clever people. The Government have now been given polite advice by experts and clever people and they should accept it.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount SlimMy Lords, I have spoken on this subject in the past and have made a few unfavourable remarks not only about the Governm…
Speaker
Viscount SlimCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I have spoken on this subject in the past and have made a few unfavourable remarks not only about the Government of today but about the previous Government. As the noble Earl said, loyal and legal citizens have been penalised and yet criminals are walking the streets and carrying guns with complete impunity. I do not feel that the Government are in control. I echo the words of the noble Lord who said that there seems to be nervousness in this area, but perhaps we can keep it under the carpet, so to speak. I also have very much in mind the police officers, who have a myriad of possibilities regarding what they can and cannot do but nothing very simple. Here is a simple directive which supports the police officer on the beat and elsewhere. I say again that the Government are not in control at the moment. They should show much more perseverance in removing guns from the streets of our country.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, I want to reiterate what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said about this amendment. It has a particul…
Speaker
Baroness Carnegy of LourConservative
Quote
My Lords, I want to reiterate what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said about this amendment. It has a particular merit which perhaps we have not seen in many previous attempts to legislate. If you are a young man who carries a gun for the sort of reason referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear—as a fashion accessory or just as a statement of what a great man you are—and if you know as you walk about the street at any given moment the police might seal that bit of the street off, search everybody and find the gun, that would be a real disincentive. It is the kind of thing that a casual carrier of a gun would understand. The news about that would get around, so the amendment has a particular merit. As I read the Bill, the amendment would apply to Scotland. I talked to one or two people because the noble Lord is my noble kinsman, and I was especially interested in discovering whether it would go down well in Scotland. It was thought that its simplicity and the fact that young people would understand it would go down very well indeed. As noble Lords will realise, ever since Dunblane, this subject has been much discussed in Scotland. I enthusiastically support my noble kinsman.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Neill of BladenMy Lords, does the power the Minister cited enable the police to close off an area that is part of this scheme?
Speaker
Lord Neill of BladenCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, does the power the Minister cited enable the police to close off an area that is part of this scheme?
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, the police have powers to close off areas. As a result of the anti-social behaviour legislation and other Bil…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, the police have powers to close off areas. As a result of the anti-social behaviour legislation and other Bills that we have put through, we have now got a power that enables the local authority and the police to designate an area for a particular purpose, if they believe that is necessary. We have to look at whether this power is proportionate, because proportionality has featured high. I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, smiling, if not laughing.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsMy Lords, I would not normally interrupt. The Minister has misconstrued my remarks. She has just argued that there are…
Speaker
Baroness Anelay of St JohnsConservative
Quote
My Lords, I would not normally interrupt. The Minister has misconstrued my remarks. She has just argued that there are ways of designating areas. I was remarking to my colleague that designation cannot take place on the spot. My noble friend's amendment gives immediate recourse to the police to carry out a search where they have reason to believe that firearms are being carried. I would never laugh about that. I was merely smiling at the Minister trying to get out of a very deep hole that the Government have dug for themselves.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for suggesting that. However, the powers that I have just identified enable the po…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for suggesting that. However, the powers that I have just identified enable the police to take appropriate action in every case where they fear that there is a gun or there may be reason to look for it, as I have indicated, both in the car and on the person. Therefore, this power is unnecessary. Let us just look at what the noble Baroness says in relation to the existing police power. It is clear that if the existing power is too complex one would have to look at whether it could be simplified. On searches, the law is clear, straightforward and for once, simple. The police are familiar with the legal provision setting out the extent of their powers. The existing power to search is not overcomplicated. The police are content that it works in practice and they use and have used this power for many years. Although firearms legislation might be complicated in other areas, it is not in relation to the existing power to search. Taking up what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said about the police position and other comments about contact with the police, he will be familiar with the way in which ACPO works. The fact that it chooses the police officers who will be entrusted to lead on its behalf in the force's response to activities and initiatives and come to a concerted position on the propriety of making representations and how they would be put through. The noble Lord will know that it remains the view of both the ACPO lead on the criminal use of firearms, Chief Constable Keith Bristow of Warwickshire and the Stop and Search lead, Deputy Chief Constable Craig Mackey of Gloucestershire, that the following is the force's expressed position: “a) there are sufficient powers already in existence to detain and search; b) the amendment as drafted would create a wide extension of police powers; c) the power has not been requested by the police, nor do they identify a gap in current legislation that requires such new powers”. That is the ACPO position, expressed on behalf of the police force. In making these consultations, it is only right and proper that we go to ACPO, ask the police what its view is and then listen to it. That is its informed, current view of those who are responsible for carrying out these duties on a day-to-day basis now, as opposed to what may have been or will be their position. We take those views very seriously indeed. There is therefore a concern which has been dealt with. If other measures are necessary, we will come back to the House to ask for further support. The review that was mentioned is ongoing. The first meeting of a working group including community members will be held on 18 May, reporting back to the round table on 26 June. The issue is under active and vigorous discussion. Of course we understand the great need to get this right, which is why a great deal of time and attention is being attached to it. The National Firearms Licensing Management System has now been rolled out to all 43 forces in England and Wales. The final data-cleansing work to connect the system to the PNC is under way. We have come a long way. I absolutely agree with those who say that it has taken a long time compared to the National Firearms Licensing Management System. That is wide of the amendment, and I am happy to give that indication, but these amendments on Report are about whether we need further legislation. All the indications are that we do not. I therefore invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment, although I am confident that he will.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord MarlesfordMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I particularly thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for thei…
Speaker
Lord MarlesfordConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I particularly thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their interest in and support for the amendment. I was particularly unconvinced when the Minister referred to the ACPO view. It happens that, when I first started to do this some months ago, I spoke to that bit of ACPO—in Worcestershire, I think. I spoke not to the Chief Constable, but to his chief staff officer. We discussed my amendment, and he said how sensible it was. We all know that the Home Office still has quite a lot of influence in its remaining days. No doubt Sir Humphrey was able to produce a rather good reply which the noble Baroness could read out. Frankly, however, I prefer to take the view of the noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Ramsbotham, and my own experience speaking to chief officers of police only last Monday. They gave a totally different view from that which the Home Office chooses to interpret as being the police's view. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 120:
Speaker
Baroness NoakesConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 120:
Time
18:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I am afraid that I must resist these amendments to the Bill, but I hope that in so doing I will be able to pe…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am afraid that I must resist these amendments to the Bill, but I hope that in so doing I will be able to persuade the noble Baroness that her concern about the issue is not as well founded as she may fear. The amendments would place restrictions so that HMRC cannot apply to intercept communications, or authorise intrusive surveillance, in the interests of national security or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. As the noble Baroness knows, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, intercepting communications and intrusive surveillance are subject to stringent safeguards and controls and are possible only where necessary to prevent or detect serious crime, in the interests of national security or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. I am grateful to her for highlighting her understanding of that and setting out what we debated on the last occasion. However, national security and the economic well-being of the UK are mentioned in the Act as these powers are available to a number of law enforcement and security agencies, some of which may need to use the powers for those purposes. I understand that she is saying “I'm not talking about them, I am just looking at HMRC”. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs applies to use these powers only for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, not in the interests of national security or for the purposes of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. I was trying to make a distinction about the different roles that the different bodies would seek to take in applying those powers. Safeguarding the economic well-being and national security are not part of the statutory functions of that department and noble Lords may know that it is unlawful for an agency to act outside its statutory functions, so an application would be both inappropriate and unsuccessful. In particular, the purpose of protecting the economic well-being of the UK is concerned with matters relating to national security and this was discussed when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was debated. The link between national security and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom is also recognised and reinforced by the code of practice on the interception of communications. As the noble Baroness has identified, that code of practice states that the Secretary of State will not issue an interception warrant unless a direct link between the economic well-being of the United Kingdom and national security is established. In addition, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act ensures that an authority to intercept communications can be granted as necessary only in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom where the information which it is thought necessary to obtain relates to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Isles. That is set out at Section 5(5) of RIPA. Amendment No. 121 may also have drafting errors. It would insert new subsection (3A) into Section 32 of RIPA, but there is already a subsection (3A) that was inserted by the Enterprise Act 2002. If it gives comfort to the noble Baroness, I am always grateful for having officials who will trawl through the minutiae to stop me entering into error and I understand the noble Baroness's acuity in looking at these issues and that she may not necessarily have the number of people to support her in that regard. In addition, the amendment refers to paragraph (m) of subsection (5) of that Section, but that paragraph does not exist so the legislation would become difficult to interpret and operate. The amendment is possibly intended to refer to paragraph (m) of subsection (6) of Section 32 of RIPA. Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 are unnecessary as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs can apply to use these powers only for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and not for protecting the economic well-being of the UK or in the interests of national security. I therefore assure the noble Baroness and the House that the situation will not be altered by Schedule 11. In addition, the amendments would complicate what is already complex legislation and could make it more difficult to interpret and apply. For these reasons, I must resist them. The noble Baroness was in essence asking how we can be sure that HMRC officers will use these powers appropriately and will not misuse them. The training provided to HMRC staff who are investigating serious tax crime, and the stringent safeguards and procedures that come with these powers, will ensure that they are used appropriately. The procedures ensure that any possible use of one of these powers is subject to strict internal scrutiny before an application can even be made for their use. The powers are used only where other methods of investigation have failed or would clearly not succeed in obtaining the evidence or intelligence being sought. Many of the powers require independent external authorisation before they can be used; for example, a warrant must be obtained from the Secretary of State before communications can be intercepted. The use of all these powers is also subject to regular, independent external inspection to ensure that officers use them appropriately. We have spoken in the past about the procedures that we have followed in authorising interceptions. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will see that, although I share her concern about getting this right and I understand her fear of the possibility of one issue bleeding into the other in a way that we would both regard as wrong, we have structured the Bill in a realistic way which prevents that happening. Having given the noble Baroness that assurance, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness NoakesMy Lords, the Minister will be aware that the three ways of using the power are set out separately in the Act under Sec…
Speaker
Baroness NoakesConservative
Quote
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the three ways of using the power are set out separately in the Act under Section 5 and Section 32. There is no interdependence between them. The Act does not state that the economic well-being should be read in the light of the security of the nation. There is a code of practice relating to Section 5 which makes that explicit link, but there is also a code of practice covering surveillance. That does not make the link; it makes no mention of it whatever. The natural interpretation would therefore remain. Will the Minister comment on that?
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, that is not necessarily so, because one of the difficult aspects of putting this legislation together is that…
Speaker
Baroness Scotland of AsthalLabour
Quote
My Lords, that is not necessarily so, because one of the difficult aspects of putting this legislation together is that various agencies will be responsible for different areas of activity commensurate with their own limitations. When one reads the legislation, one must look at the purpose which is likely to be addressed by this agency—that is, HMRC—what its function is and, therefore, how it will be used. One then looks at the codes of practice which apply quite directly to each. I am happy to look again at whether the code of practice needs to be refined. I do not believe that the codes as they are currently structured need such definition, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness if, on mature reflection, we reach the view that something may need to be changed. I do not believe that that will be necessary, but I am happy to see whether my assumption is correct.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness NoakesMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look again at the codes of practice. That is helpful.…
Speaker
Baroness NoakesConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look again at the codes of practice. That is helpful. In her usual way, she has pointed out the technical deficiencies of one of my two amendments and for that reason, I shall withdraw it today. I shall carefully read her remarks on the way in which HMRC’s powers can be used. I do not believe that it is clear beyond peradventure that HMRC could not be said to be protecting the economic well-being of the country by the way in which it prosecutes its activities in collecting and managing the tax system. I shall carefully read what she has said at the Dispatch Box to see whether it constitutes sufficient assurance for those who may come to use these powers in the future and who may look back at what she has said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Henleymoved Amendment No. 122: 122: After Schedule 11, insert the following new Schedule— “Intercept evidence Admissibility o…
Speaker
Lord HenleyConservative
Quote
moved Amendment No. 122: 122: After Schedule 11, insert the following new Schedule— “Intercept evidence Admissibility of intercept and metering evidence 1 (1) Notwithstanding section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (“RIPA”), evidence of— (a) the contents of an intercepted communication (“intercept evidence”), and (b) communications data (“metering evidence”), shall be admissible in criminal proceedings to which this paragraph applies. (2) This paragraph applies to— (a) proceedings in respect of serious crime; (b) proceedings in respect of an offence or offences relating to terrorism. (3) An application for permission to introduce intercept evidence or metering evidence, or both, may be made by the prosecution for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution to which this paragraph applies, and not otherwise. (4) Unless and until an application has been made by the prosecution in any such proceedings the provisions of section 17 of RIPA (exclusion of matters from legal proceedings) shall continue to apply in connection with those proceedings. Considerations for allowing intercept or metering evidence 2 In deciding whether to admit intercept or metering evidence the court shall take account of all relevant considerations, including in particular— (a) any application by the Secretary of State to withhold the evidence or part of the evidence on the ground that its disclosure, or the disclosure of facts relating to the obtaining of the evidence, would be contrary to the public interest, and (b) any submission that the evidence was obtained unlawfully. Interpretation 3 In this Schedule— “communications data” has the same meaning as in section 21(4) of RIPA; “intercepted communication” has the same meaning as in section 4 of RIPA; “RIPA” means the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23); “serious crime” has the same meaning as in section 81(2)(b) of RIPA; “terrorism” has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11). Minor and consequential amendments 4 (1) In section 5(3)(b) of RIPA, for the words “or detecting” substitute “, detecting or prosecuting”. (2) In section 17(1) of RIPA, after the words “Subject to section 18” insert “and the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007”.” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment with Amendment No. 21, on which the House divided last Wednesday. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 76 [Orders of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers]: [Amendments Nos. 123 to 126 not moved.] Clause 77 [Supplementary, incidental and consequential provision]: [Amendment No. 127 not moved.] Clause 78 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]: [Amendment No. 128 not moved.] Schedule 12 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 129:
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 129:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 130 to 132:
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 132:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 133:
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
moved Amendment No. 133:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 134 to 138:
Speaker
Lord Bassam of BrightonLabour
Quote
moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 138:
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 64 more speechesShow less

EnactedSerious Crime Act 2007