Extract from oral
answer (Lords) on Banks: Forged Customer Signatures
(Con): My Lords, does
my noble friend the Minister recognise that it is not the banks
that we should be aiming at but the fraudsters themselves. The
City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police and
the National Crime
Agency do a fantastic job. However, in some ways,
Action Fraud should be renamed “No Further Action Fraud”, because
we need more resources. This crime is getting greater. Let us not
turn our fire on the banks but go after the fraudsters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con): I
completely agree with my noble friend that we should look at the
fraudsters. Regarding Action Fraud, we are providing £10 million
to the City of London Police this year to support the upgrade in
the Action Fraud service. A project is under way to transform the
Action Fraud website, where the public can report fraud and
cybercrime. That is part of the continuous improvements to the
national service, which will be fully upgraded by 2024.
To read all the exchanges, CLICK HERE
Extract from committee
stage (Lords) of the National Security Bill
(LD):...I do not
understand why those specifically mentioned, such as the chief
constable or deputy chief constable of the Police Service of
Scotland, have been included but the National Crime
Agency is excluded. I can understand the case to
say that any interaction between anybody in the Armed Forces
above the rank of brigadier, commodore and air commodore, and any
foreign entity will have to be put on a register. That includes
presumably interaction with entities in conflict-afflicted areas.
Perhaps the Minister can reassure me, but it seems quite
extraordinary that those foreign entities that may be either in
allied countries or indeed for operations will now have to place
on a public database the fact that they are preparing to meet a
British brigadier. That seems odd—but I am sure the Government
have a rational reason to include them...
To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE
