(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberI am very happy to explore the cost landscape after this Bill because, as I said, I am principally not at odds with the noble Lord at all.
I was somewhat concerned by the lack of response to what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about UWOs being a niche activity. I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee that one of the effects of the change in the Bill will be that they will very much not be a niche activity. Certainly the original intention—I understand, having read the legislation that brought them in—was that there would be 20 per year. Can we have some reassurance that there are going to be a great deal more and it will not be a niche activity?
I share the sentiment of my noble friend that they will not be a niche activity. The measures in this Bill, particularly in terms of costs, will make it far easier for our law enforcement agencies to not be stymied by costs in bringing these things forward.
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberI agree with the noble Lord that the ICO criticised some areas. However, last Friday it acknowledged a number of improvements. LFR is used for a policing purpose; it is used to detect serious criminals and might be used to find missing people. The framework in which it operates includes common-law powers, data protection, human rights legislation and the surveillance camera code.
My Lords, is it not important to make a distinction between the use of modern technology to assist in the possible identification of an offender and its evidential status? That distinction is very important.
My noble friend is of course absolutely right.