I do not want to repeat too much of what has already been said very compellingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The definition of protected information is of course central to the working of the scheme. Whether or not information is protected by Clause 62 from disclosure is very likely to impact on the extent to which public authorities will share any information under Clause 61. Broadening that definition will also extend the scope of the criminal offence. So we also consider that orders under Clause 64 should be subject to affirmative procedure.
I, too, cannot understand why the Government have omitted the information on which anti-fraud organisations will be specified. I look forward to hearing further information from the Minister. I appreciate that we can return to this matter on Report. Nevertheless, before we finish debating this matter, I hope we shall know exactly which organisations will be specified, even if that is on Report. The noble Baroness is nodding, which I hope is encouraging.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Burnett
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 26 March 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1511-2 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:27:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_387949
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_387949
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_387949