UK Parliament / Open data

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 26 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
moved Amendment No. 114: 114: Schedule 6, page 68, line 5, at end insert— ““( ) No data matching shall take place unless subject to an agreed code of practice.”” The noble Lord said: I hope that AmendmentNo. 114 will be the last amendment that we take this evening. There is no need for the noble Baroness to pass over a glass of water for my cough, as I have one here already, but I am very grateful to her for her kind thoughts, and I will try not to create a by-election, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, seems to be suggesting. This amendment would insert a new subsection after new Section 32F(1), to be inserted by Schedule 6 to the Bill. It does what it says it does: it prevents data matching taking place until the code of practice under this section has been agreed. This amendment ties in well with our debate on the detail of the code of practice and with earlier debates on Amendments No. 109 and 111, which were moved by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lady Anelay. Section 32F(2) states: "““Regard must be had to the code in conducting and participating in any such exercise””." However, it is not clear whether data matching can occur before or during the design of the code. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case. It would not do for data matching to occur outside the code, especially when we have concerns about the code itself. I reiterate that we on these Benches want to ensure that the Information Commissioner has some control over the code of practice and that it is approved by Parliament or, at the very least, that it is an agreed code. As your Lordships’ House is very much aware, a duty to consult is not the same as a duty to take on recommendations that are made. While I am sure that, in practice, people would be somewhat foolish not to take into account any comments made by the Information Commissioner, one cannot guarantee how future versions of the Audit Commission may act in that regard. It is essential that we ensure that data matching by the Audit Commission is carried out in a transparent, proportionate and accountable way that provides protection for the individual. I beg to move.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c1545-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top