Serious Crime Bill [HL]

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 afterClause 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 someform 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.