We have put our name in support of these amendments. Clause 61 deals with the disclosure of information to prevent fraud, Clause 64 deals with data protection rules and Schedule 6 is about data-matching.
We are well aware of the importance of this information in tackling fraud. In the very informative session that the Minister arranged with SOCA on this matter, fraud and trafficking in people and drugs seemed to be very high on the agenda. Everything must be done to give them the necessary powers but not at the expense of the dangers inherent in some of these clauses.
I support almost everything the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. We are concerned about Part 3 which, like Part 1, is very problematic and obviously we will have to come up with appropriate recommendations for amendments on Report. Let me take an example given to us by Liberty. I make no apology; this is another German example but nothing to do with cannibalism, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, talked about earlier. The example is an interesting one. It says that German law restricts the ability of the state to conduct data-mining exercises to investigate crimes that have already been committed. Not surprisingly, it places even more stringent restrictions on the ability of state bodies to mine personal data in order to identify the possibility of future criminal behaviour. In a recent case, the Federal Constitutional Court considered an anti-terrorist initiative that involved each of the federal state’s police forces co-operating in a Germany-wide data-mining exercise with the objective of identifying potential al-Qaeda terrorists. The court found this oppression to be unconstitutional and held that data-mining for the purpose of crime prevention is only permissible if there is a clear and present risk. They identify three areas: the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, the security of the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its federal states, and the life, limb or liberty of an individual. A general threat of terrorist attacks, as was assumed after11 September, or political tensions with a particular state were considered to be insufficient justification. In order to mine data to prevent crime, the German police authorities would have to demonstrate a clear and persistent danger of, for example, an imminent terrorist attack. This was the example given to us by Liberty.
I think at this stage we need to tease out the Minister’s intention regarding these clauses, thenon Report perhaps we could come up with an appropriate amendment to share our concern on this matter.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dholakia
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1270 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:38:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386774
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386774
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386774