Police and Justice Bill

Before the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, returns to the fray, perhaps I may ask one or two more questions. The Minister referred to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. He will appreciate that this amendment was put forward not because we disagree with the committee’s conclusion that the order-making power was appropriate in this form. We tabled the amendment to challenge how that power is to be used, and not the manner in which orders are to be put before the House. The Minister grasps the point about how one ensures that expedited information does not reach inappropriate organisations and he gives an assurance that there will be proper processes. He talks about organisations making an application and that perhaps there will be a licensing system. The difficulty is that, because of the way in which Clause 11(1) is currently drafted, we do not have the result to which the noble Lord is directing us. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) we have a description of organisations that is so closely drawn that we know who will get the information. Under paragraph (d), the information may be supplied to, "““a person or body specified, or of a description specified, by order””." The description is generic. Will it just be building societies or credit reference agencies? We do not know what the body will be. It will not be a closely identified group of companies. Is the noble Lord saying that paragraph (d) will be used to set up a licensing system without it being specified in an order that building societies will be enabled? Will an order state, ““We will set up a licensing system whereby other organisations can now apply””? That is what we need to know. If there is that kind of reassurance, that is very acceptable. As Reed points out in its subsequent briefing, in all of this, we have to bear in mind that once information is out there, you cannot get it back.