My Lords, we, too, will not oppose the Government’s amendment at this stage, though to introduce five new clauses to the Data Protection Act 1998 at such a late stage, even after our various discussions of the noble Baroness’s amendment at an earlier stage, in a Bill that has been before both Houses for some 11 months, is a pretty odd way to legislate. Concern was expressed by my honourable friend Mr Garnier in another place yesterday about taking the civil route to a criminal law end, particularly as the provisions impose what could be severe penalties in the form of fines and as, my honourable friend put it, the commissioner will find himself the policeman, the prosecutor, the jury and the judge. That seems to be a difficult role for him to pursue. My honourable friend in another place hoped for further explanation from the Government if they had time.
However, we appreciate that the Government have tried to move on. We are grateful for a letter from Mr David Hanson on this matter, setting out what the Government were trying to do. Though we voted against it in another place, we shall now accept it with those misgivings and hope that the Government will be able in due course to provide some explanation of how the regime is going to bed down.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 7 May 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
701 c588 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:12:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_469886
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_469886
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_469886