Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 110: 110: Schedule 6, page 68, line 13, leave out ““further”” and insert ““any purpose mentioned in subsection (2) to the”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 110 and 112 limit the further purposes to which data-matching exercises can be carried out to those already listed in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, propose that the Secretary of State's order-making powers to add to the purpose for which data-matching can be undertaken should be removed in their entirety. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114, alternatively, propose the removal of the words ““in particular”” from proposed new Section 32G(2) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the insertion ofthe word ““serious”” in order to clarify the nature of the crime for which data-matching may be extended to prevent or detect. I am afraid that I have to resist all these amendments. In relation to the first amendment, I would be chary about confining ourselves at the outset to undertaking data-matching solely for the purposes of preventing and detecting fraud in circumstances where we already know that there may be other public evils which could be greatly ameliorated through the use of these exercises. Proposed new Section 32G(2) does not provide the Secretary of State with a carte blanche to add further purposes at his whim. Quite the contrary, this can be done only with the approval of both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. With respect to the proposed alternative amendments, I turn first to the suggestion that the words ““in particular”” be omitted from new Section 32G(2). I understand this amendment is based on the primary concern expressed by noble Lords in Committee that, because the current list of potential new purposes is non-exhaustive, this creates uncertainty and therefore unease as to the nature and types of purpose that might be contemplated. To put it another way, one might describe this concern as possible ““function creep”” I think that the noble Baroness has described it like that in the past. However, if that is the case, we cannot see how the omission of the words ““in particular”” will make any difference. The section will remain open-ended because of the continued presence of the word ““includes””, which imports the concept that these are examples only and not an exhaustive list. I can deal with the further alternative proposal to preface the word ““crime”” with the word ““serious”” in relatively short order. The simple insertion of this word does not, in itself, provide any guidance in practice as to what would qualify as a ““serious”” offence. The amendment makes no attempt to define what would constitute a serious offence and for that reason it simply will not do. Moreover, it is difficult to limit the uses to which this tool could and should be put simply by saying that it must be restricted to serious crime. I gave the example in Committee that the tool could be used to identify registered sex offenders working in schools. This in itself might be a breach of the conditions placed on a sex offender but would not be a ““serious offence”” within the meaning of Schedule 1. However, data-matching may prevent or detect the offence committed when a person on the sexual offences register slips through the net and is employed in direct contact with children. I would also offer the example of immigration offenders. Overstaying visas may not be considered by some to be a serious crime. None the less, it is something that the public would be keen to see the Government use every tool available to them to prevent and detect. On Amendments Nos. 110 and 112, notwithstanding the specific objections I have identified above, I thank the noble Baroness for letting her amendment stay because it gives me an opportunity better to explain how we deal this. I can see merit in the thinking behind these amendments to ensure that the prior definition of any new purpose which may be added appears in the Bill. On that basis, I have tabled amendments that will confine the potential extension of purposes for which data-matching can be undertaken to those currently listed as examples in new Section 32G(2): namely, first, assisting in the prevention and detection of crime other than fraud; secondly, assisting in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders; and, thirdly, assisting in the recovery of debt owing to public bodies. I hope that these amendments squarely address the specific concerns that have been raised. I thank noble Lords for pursuing these matters, which enabled us to have a good discussion and, I hope, come to a solution which meets all our ends. I therefore beg to move.