Consumer Credit Bill

My Lords, before I respond, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, I offer his apologies to the House. He had to leave early because he is committed to a meeting with foreign visitors. I hope that noble Lords will accept his apologies. With this amendment, as with some others tonight, there is a sense of déjà vu—or, as a football commentator said, ““déjà vu all over again””. The amendment raises an important issue that has been the subject of considerable discussion throughout the history of the Bill. Indeed, a similar amendment to this was tabled in Committee in your Lordships’ House, although I acknowledge the change that has been made to it to deal with receipt of notice. Without repeating the same arguments around data sharing in full, I should like to summarise the Government’s position. The Government believe that it is important to explore the benefits that data sharing in the credit industry may bring in encouraging responsible lending. However, it must be recognised that data protection laws exist to protect the general public interest in data privacy. We need to ensure that any encroachment on data privacy is necessary and proportionate. As I reminded noble Lords in Committee, the Government have committed to consult on data sharing to establish the most proportionate response to the issue. The consultation document is currently being prepared and will be published as soon as possible. If the consultation reveals that legislation is necessary, we will look for the first available opportunity for this. It would be imprudent in these circumstances to pre-empt that consultation, particularly given the importance of the issue of data protection. Rushing our approach to data sharing now would also run the risk of overlooking the wider context. In particular, we would need to be absolutely clear that any legislation on data sharing by the credit industry contained the appropriate provisions to ensure that those sharing the data were not in breach of the data protection principles or requirements of the Data Protection Act. It is not altogether clear that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord fulfils those requirements. I should also point out that, if industry is convinced of the necessity and benefit of data sharing on historic accounts, there is nothing to stop it proactively seeking debtors’ individual consent to do so, on an opt-in basis. Indeed, there have been examples where industry has done this. With this explanation, I hope in the circumstances that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.