---

Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2006

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear exposition of the order. It seems to me that there are three issues arising from its contents. First, would the innocent joint cardholder be told why the card was withdrawn? The noble Baroness effectively covered that point in her opening remarks, and the answer is, satisfactorily, no. Plainly, the innocent party would be told that his or her partner had breached the terms and conditions of the contract; but there would be no obligation to go any further than that—indeed, it is prohibited to go any further than that. That is an entirely satisfactory response from the Government. Secondly, does the order guarantee that there would be no prejudice to the innocent partner taking out a new account on his or her behalf? It seems to me that, once again, the noble Baroness has answered that question satisfactorily. If there was any doubt that the innocent party would be prejudiced, I am in no doubt whatever that the Government would take steps to ensure that that could not happen. The final issue relates to the criminal data that form the basis of the knowledge for the bank or financial institution to remove the card. Once the contract had been cancelled and the card removed, would that criminal documentation remain on the files of the bank or the finance firm? Once again, I understand that the answer to that question is no; that would serve no useful function and it would, in my view, be inappropriate for a number of reasons for it to remain. Those three questions having been answered satisfactorily by the noble Baroness, I am perfectly content with the contents of the order.