I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The other day I read in some detail about a breakthrough in a test case where biometric information did not prove a reliable way of protecting against fraud—but that is not the point that I was making. Regardless of whether you have biometric information, we are dealing in these amendments with a great deal of information that is not biometric and never will be. I do not want to jump ahead to a debate that we will have on Clause 64. There are some, better lawyers than me—I keep confessing to the noble Baroness that I am in deep water in these legal exchanges—who argue that Clause 64, which deals with data protection rules, opens up the whole thing so that the protection which she says is in the clause, under the data protection legislation, is not in fact there. We could get into the problem of debating two parts of the Bill at once, but we will have to come back to this to make sure that the data protection laws apply in this case.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Crickhowell
(Conservative)
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 c1274 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:17:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386781
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386781
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_386781