HL Deb 29 June 1984 vol 453 cc1171-2

20 Clause 24, page 19, line 34, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2) below,").

21 Page 20, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) Subsection (1) above applies whether or not the data accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party but where the data accurately record such information, then—

  1. (a) if the requirements mentioned in section 22(2) above have been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under subsection (1) above, make an order requiring the data to be supplemented by such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the court may approve; and
  2. (b) if all or any of those requirements have not been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under that subsection, make such order as it thinks fit for securing compliance with those requirements with or without a further order requiring the data to be suplemented by such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.").

In moving these amendments, may I draw your Lordships' attention to a small misprint in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 13 as set out in the list of amendments? In the first line of that paragraph the word "date" should of course read "data".

The important change in this group is made by Amendment No. 21. It deals with marked data; in other words, and as I am sure your Lordships will remember, data which have been obtained from a third party and carry an indication that they have been so obtained—and, if their accuracy is disputed by the data subject, carry a further indication to that effect. Marked data are immune from civil action as regards their accuracy. Compensation cannot be awarded for damage caused by their inaccuracy, and the court cannot order their rectification and erasure.

I believe that your Lordships accepted the need to provide protection from liability to pay compensation in respect of inaccurate "received" data which have been properly marked, but the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did question at Report stage whether it is right to prevent a court from ordering that such data be rectified or erased. He will be pleased to know that on reflection the Government agreed with him that the courts should be able to interfere even with "marked" data if they were inaccurate. Amendment No. 21 allows this to happen. The two other amendments are consequential. Amendment No. 13 merely ensures that the registrar's powers are unaffected, while Amendment No. 20 makes a drafting change to Clause 24. I beg to move.

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

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his very courteous reference to the contribution I made in regard to this on behalf of my noble friends. I am delighted to see this amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.