I entirely agree with what my noble friend just said, and she may be encouraged to know that the British Bankers’ Association agrees with her general point, too. For obvious reasons, it strongly supports the general thrust of this provision. It makes an important and relevant point. If noble Lords will forgive me, I shall read what is has to say: "““Key to the implementation of the proposals is to ensure that the public has confidence that data sharing only occurs for the purposes of crime prevention and detection; is restricted to relevant and accurate data that achieves this aim; and occurs in a structured and accountable manner. We support fully the development of strict protocols in the form of codes of practice, detailing the type of information that can be shared and when. The development of such a code or codes of practice, endorsed by the Information Commissioner, will go a long way to provide such reassurance to consumers. We support therefore the proposed amendment to Clause 61 that specifies the need for codes of practice.""Clearly the views of the Information Commissioner will inform the process for deciding what is and what is not appropriate in terms of data mining of public and private sector databases. But, as a starting premise, we would support the mining for all suspected and confirmed fraudsters’ data across the public and private sectors for matches. The overriding principle of data-mining has to be that any matches are the spur to further investigation, not conclusive proof of criminality, and that no footprint should be left which might otherwise influence the future provision of services””."
That is an extremely important statement by the British Bankers’ Association. It establishes criteria and a set of procedures that I wholly support. I believe that, in moving this amendment, my noble friend has raised a very important issue. Clearly, if we do not pursue it today and if we do not get satisfactory answers from the Minister—although I hope that we will—we will have to take it up at a later date. With the support of the British Bankers’ Association, I find it hard to see how the Government can possibly resist the amendment.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Crickhowell
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1280 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:17:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386789
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386789
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386789