HL Deb 29 June 1984 vol 453 cc1174-5

22 Page 20, line 24, at end insert ("; but, in the case of data in respect of which services were being provided by a person carrying on a computer bureau, the court shall not make such an order unless such steps as are reasonably practicable have been taken for notifying the person for whom those services were provided and giving him an opportunity to be heard.").

Lord Elton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22 to Clause 24.

As your Lordships know, computer bureaux process or provide processing facilities for personal data which are held by others. The main obligation which the Bill imposes on bureaux, therefore, is to take adequate security measures and when damage to a subject occurs as a result of a bureau's failure to do so a court may order it to pay compensation and, more importantly in the present context, to erase the personal data in question under Clause 24(3).

Clearly the data user, whose data are being processed by the bureaux, has a direct interest in the question whether the data should be erased. It would be wrong if the court could order the erasure of the user's data without steps being taken to bring this prospect to the user's attention and the user being given the opportunity to be heard in that connection.

The amendment, therefore, recognises this by requiring the court to take measures for the purpose of enabling representations to be received from the data user before making an order under Clause 24(3). I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible precaution. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Elton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.