Extract from Lords motion
to consider the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No.
18) Order 2018
(Lab): My Lords, we
have some experience of monitoring of this kind of a rather
unfortunate nature—I am thinking of G4S and its very poor record
in bygone years. I wonder, first of all, who is to be carrying
out the job: is it going out to tender or are people already
lined up for it? Who has conducted or is conducting the trials at
present? What is the cost involved in the work that is being
undertaken? Is it a matter for the individual authority,
probation service or whatever to commission this? What system
will there be to get feedback at a national level about the
success or otherwise of the scheme as it goes forward?
(Con):...The noble Lord, , asked about the suppliers. I
think I mentioned in my opening remarks that commercial
discussions will be going on over the summer but we obviously
know who the suppliers will be, subject of course to the
conclusion of those commercial discussions. The first lot is for
the electronic monitoring system itself, which will be going to
Capita. Then we have Airbus, which will be mapping the data from
the tags and then supplying it to the monitoring
system. G4S will be providing the hardware, which
I saw a prototype of this week; it looks entirely robust and fit
for purpose. The last of the four lots is Telefónica, which of
course is a mobile phone operator and will be providing resilient
mobile telecoms for the network to enable transmission of data.
That is where things are in terms of the suppliers...
To read all the exchanges, CLICK
HERE
Extract from remaining
stages (Commons) of the Data Protection Bill
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab): I wish to speak briefly to
amendment 15 and to say to those on the Front Bench that this is
their opportunity to actually do something as Ministers. I urge
them to make a late change and not just to drift on with
legislation that was drawn up before the Windrush scandal. They
can go and talk to the Secretary of State—have a discussion with
him—and decide now to accept amendment 15. I really urge
Ministers to do that, because what the Bill is doing is immensely
serious. The Bill is incredibly widely drawn. This exemption
allows the Home Office to refuse subject access requests in
immigration cases and to put in place data sharing without proper
accountability in any case where it meets the maintenance of
effective immigration control or the investigation or detection
of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective
control, and yet, repeatedly, we have had no explanation from
Ministers as to what effective immigration control means. That is
because, in truth, it is immensely broad. It could mean meeting
the net migration target, sustaining the hostile environment and
enabling a deportation that the Home Office thinks is justified,
even if in practice it has made a mistake. It could mean
decisions being taken by immigration removal
centres, G4S, Serco or any of the many private
companies contracted by the Home Office to deliver its so-called
effective immigration control...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
