Simon
Hughes: That is an important point. Obviously, when
somebody is cautioned, they have accepted their guilt for the offence.
The hon. Gentleman is asking whether, when they are told, “We
believe there is evidence to prove this offence, so we are asking
whether you accept guilt and we will then decide how to punish
you,” they will also be warned whether they realise that there
might be implications. The Minister might be able to help us with that
important question. People need to be told about the consequences of a
guilty plea in such a
case.
Harry
Cohen: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make.
I want to make another, broader point about cautions generally. What
will the implications be if people accept a caution and get draconian
add-ons? That might be right—I am not saying that it is
not—but if it happens, those people might not accept a caution
and the huge administration of the police and Crown Prosecution Service
might end up saying that they will drop the case, rather than taking it
forward. Somebody might be deemed a possible danger, given that aspect.
I wonder whether that has been considered. It is a more general point
than is dealt with in the order, but it needs to be thought about in
respect of add-on
offences. I accept
that it can be argued that people who download child porn should not
get the benefits of some services that are delivered electronically,
including credit cards. Surely, however, that decision should be made
by Parliament in the context of child protection. All the evidence
heard by the courts in the context of a case should not apply as an
unintended by-product of giving banks extra powers. That worries me a
little.
2.53
pm
Vera
Baird: I shall deal in turn with the points that have been
raised. Once the
information is processed by a card issuer, they will close the account
because of a breach of their terms and conditions. If an account had
been closed because of a breach of terms and conditions by the other
party, a joint holder of an account would be told only that, and
nothing else would be said. If any further query were received, the
co-holder would be referred to the other holder for any explanation,
and none would be given by the
bank. The hon. Member
for North Southwark and Bermondsey put his finger on why it is
necessary to close the account: taking the card away is insufficient,
because people can buy such services with just the card number, without
flourishing the card, so the account will still be available to them. I
suppose there is nothing to stop the bank opening a separate account
for the innocent party if they wish, so there can be no implication of
withdrawing financial services from that other individual
permanently.
I hope that that explanation
has dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby and
Kenilworth, who also asked about PayPal, whereby one can use a credit
card to pay PayPal, which then pays the bill for something. The
recipient of the final payment does not know the particulars of the
payer. Where a direct connection can be made between the credit card
and the indecent image bought through PayPal, the situation will be
exactly as though PayPal had never intervened. I understand that PayPal
and CEOP work closely together on such investigations. That is my
reassurance on that
point.
Simon
Hughes: I thank the Minister for being precise in her
answer to the point first raised by the hon. Member for Rugby and
Kenilworth. Will she communicate through her officials to the industry,
which has clearly been responsible, that it would be unfair for an
organisation not to give non-offending cardholders the same treatment
in future dealings as it gives those who have never been associated
with an offending cardholder? There is a risk that the organisation
might say, “For an easy life, we’re not going to offer
any services to the other partner.” It would be helpful if we
communicated the fact that there will be no prejudice to a non-offender
who happens to be a joint account
holder.
Vera
Baird: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it
is not likely to be valuable practically. Banks want business. The
business that they do not want is that of the offender, who might
re-use their cards. I imagine that they will treat the innocent party
in exactly the same way as any other innocent party. However, that is a
good point, and I will ensure that it is taken
back. The first
concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry
Cohen) was that the order permits the use of data for administering
accounts or for cancelling a payment card. If, as is almost inevitable
in most cases, it is decided to close the account, the data will have
to be destroyed as soon as that is done. There is no justification for
keeping data about an individual who does not have an account. That is
the end of it. It is analogous to the example he gave of using data to
employ someone and then not being allowed to keep them. There is
probably no
incompatibility. My
hon. Friend also asked whether the police will warn or advise people of
the possible consequences of accepting a caution. Maybe they should,
but it is not an extra punishment in the sense of something inflicted
by the state. It is a systematisation of what might happen
anyway. Theoretically,
Barclaycard could go to Bow street magistrates court and every other
court to find out who has been convicted and using what information,
and use that route to break contracts because it does not want that
kind of custom any more. This is not a penalty imposed by the state; it
is a separate breach of contract brought about by the same act
amounting to an offence, where the other contracting party simply
terminates the contract. That is a private right in the private
world.
I am not sure that it is always
useful to think of analogies on one’s feet, but I suppose that
if someone drove in an unlawful way that breached their insurance
conditions and that was at the same time a crime, they would be
arrested and punished if convicted, and their insurance company might
quite separately withdraw its services. That would not be considered an
extra penalty imposed by the state. That is not a bad analogy, although
I did think of it on my
feet. I want to
correct myself. I believe that I said that there were 1,497 relevant
cases.
Simon
Hughes: You said
1,579.
Vera
Baird: I am sorry. I am not the most brilliant at figures.
In 2004, there were 1,297 cases, of which 1,062 were found guilty and
363 were cautioned.
I hope that I have dealt with
all the matters raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and
Wanstead is concerned that people might not accept cautions if they are
told of the consequence. It is an open question whether that is likely
to be the case or whether it will produce more encumbrances on the
criminal justice system. It is relevant to know whether the police will
tell people that the consequence is likely to follow, but I hope that I
have been able to satisfy him that it is not an extra penalty, but the
separate breach of a private
contract.
Jeremy
Wright: This is not something that I have raised with the
Minister before, but it has just occurred to me, rather like her
analogy. She obviously wants the effect of the order to be not only the
successful prosecution of those who commit offences and the
consequences that it describes, but a deterrent to others who might be
tempted to download child pornography or commit any of the offences
described. What are
the Government doing to persuade the banking industry and the financial
services industry to make their customers and clients aware of what the
consequences might be in respect of financial services if they were to
engage in behaviour of that
sort?
Vera
Baird: Yes, that is a good point. It is intended that the
order should not only stop or deter reoffending by removing part of the
mechanism that facilitates such action—apparently, in operation,
all the cards that resulted in people being arrested were used again,
so that is a mischief that wants blocking off—but should provide
an advanced
deterrent. People on
the margins of considering whether to look at such material will
realise that they will not only put their conviction record at risk if
they take the information, but that they might lose their credit card.
In addition, they will have to explain to their partner why they have
lost it. We hope that that will have an effect,
too. The hon. Member
for Rugby and Kenilworth made a good point when he said that the
financial services industry needs to make it clear to people that such
action will follow. That point has been well taken, and I am grateful
to him for
it.
Simon
Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the
figures. I can see how the first figure, read from a distance, turned
into the second figure of 1,297. I wonder whether she might, by letter
to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and possibly to other
members of the Committee, give the breakdown by Act of Parliament of
those offences over the most recent three years. It would be helpful to
see the trend and to know the score of offences in respect of the
countries of the United Kingdom, given the interest in what is going on
in this area of criminal
justice.
Vera
Baird: The hon. Gentleman is an anorak after my own heart.
I will ensure that the information is
sent. Mr.
Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): The Minister talked
about closing accounts. I may be way off beam, but if a person closes a
debit card account that is part of a joint account agreement, what
happens to the money that is left behind? The innocent party may need
access to it. A debit account is like a normal bank
account.
Vera
Baird: Yes, it is. What happens when someone closes an
ordinary bank account? I suppose that the bank sends the person a
cheque for the contents of that account. I am not a banking law expert
nor am I an expert in much of civil law, but is the hon. Gentleman
asking whether the money would be split
50:50?
Vera
Baird: I imagine that the money would be split in that way
if it were in a joint account because it would be deemed to be in joint
ownership. However, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to take that as
gospel because I am not a great civil lawyer. If an account were closed
and it had money in it, surely the former account holder would receive
the money from the
bank. Question put
and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Data Protection (Processing of
Sensitive Personal Data) Order
2006. Committee
rose at three minutes past Three
o’clock.
| 
