Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister for the care she has taken in setting out the framework of this part of the Bill and for setting it against the background of Clause 64 stand part. While she was speaking, I was reconsidering whether I would want to object to Clause 64 standing part. I will not do so at this stage. That does not mean I am happy with the clause, but the Minister has properly addressed the questions I was going to ask. Throughout all of this, I and other noble Lords on this side of the Committee have been extremely concerned that the Government are in danger of enabling the further exchange of personal information where that is not appropriate. The Minister is trying to reassure us that this cannot be the place for that to happen and that many mechanisms will be put in place. She refers to a criminal offence being created. I was intrigued, by the way, when I was sitting waiting for this Bill to come on—we always seem to start late in the evening—and listening to her noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham wind up on the Government’s Statistics and Registration Service Bill. He also referred to the creation of a criminal offence that would, one hopes, tackle those who wrongly reveal information. The trouble with that is that it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. With our amendments we are trying to persuade the Government to ensure that personal information does not go beyond appropriate exchange. The Minister says that one has to look at the role of the Audit Commission and the strict control it has. In talking to the Audit Commission before Second Reading, I was impressed with its approach. It is one of the most reputable organisations in this country or elsewhere. The commission’s argument is, as the Minister proposes, that it identifies what may be information that is out of the ordinary. A data match might throw up some activity that might lead to concern, which is then for someone else to deal with. The commission does not say, ““This is the conclusion we draw from that information””; instead, it says to the public authority, ““Have a look at this””, and leaves it to that authority. It says there is no leakage of information—but we have suspicions about the way information is transmitted between organisations, and that might not be the case. In addition, because of the way Clause 64 operates in conjunction with the Data Protection Act, there is a concern that some personal information might be disclosed that we would say should not. The Minister tried to give a general answer to some very specific questions, but in an appropriate way—I do not think it was out of place on this debate. On occasion when she was being, general I did not find it satisfactory. For example, when dealing with my Amendment No. 105, she said that an organisation that is to be a specified anti-fraud organisation will not be ““chosen lightly””. Well, I hope not. Am I supposed to say ““Wonderful!””? If the Government chose such an organisation lightly, where would we be? She said the Government will have ““a process”” for deciding it. Good gracious me, which Government in this country should not? Finally, she says—again we come back to it—that the Government want greater flexibility than will be provided by having a list or examples in the Bill. Again the Government want flexibility while Parliament tries to exert scrutiny. The only crumb of comfort we have been given through all this is the Government’s proposition that it will be a CIFAS-like organisation—but that does not tell us what might happen in the future. So I am not still not happy with the amount of proper accountability we have achieved—in fact, I do not think we have achieved any. I will need to look at this again before Report. Some of these amendments will not return, such as, obviously, those that are shadowed by the Government’s. I shall not re-table an amendment to leave out Clause 64; I will try to deal with this in a more targeted way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 61 agreed to. Clause 62 [Offence for further disclosures of information]: [Amendment No. 106 not moved.] Clauses 62 agreed to. Clause 63 agreed to. Clause 64 [Data protection rules]: [Amendments Nos. 106A to 108 not moved.] Clause 64 agreed to.