---

Identity Theft

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sheikh for initiating this timely debate and for saying that the Government have concentrated too much attention on the ID card issue at the expense of tackling identity fraud. The clarion call of this debate is to draw attention to the progress that still needs to be made. My noble friend rightly drew attention to the serious nature of the problem. As my honourable friend Nigel Evans, the chairman of the All-Party Group on Identity Fraud, has pointed out, the estimated cost of ID fraud is huge—in 2006, it was £1.7 billion, as my noble friend echoed. Nigel Evans has said that everyone is a potential victim of this crime and that an identity, if stolen, can take months to get back, involving the victim in costs of thousands of pounds. Often individuals who are totally unsophisticated in these matters are the innocent victims and in many cases are not in a position to afford these costs. With the increasing sophistication of cybernetics and the increasingly widespread skills possessed by many people, it is essential that the authorities and the Government keep ahead of the game. Like my noble friend Lord Sheikh, I very much welcome the all-party group’s report on identity fraud, which was published in October 2007. This well researched report was critical of the banking industry’s reluctance in the early stages to admit the seriousness of the situation. I believe that this attitude has now changed. Certainly, the British Bankers’ Association gave an assurance that a working group to establish best practice had been set up. What ongoing dialogue are the Government having with the banking industry to address these problems? I hope that the Minister will take note of the recommendation in the report that they should explore the secure sharing of data between government and the private sector. This is not the occasion to debate the all-party report in detail, but it is worth highlighting one or two constructive suggestions that the group came up with. These have been well covered by my noble friend Lord Sheikh. Some of them are possibly small in themselves but all contribute to a robust response to this ever increasing menace. For instance, there is the suggestion that councils should offer safe and secure disposal facilities for hard drives as part of their recycling process. The ““electronic dustbin”” is a fruitful source for cybercriminals. There should be a hotline to enable victims of an ID fraud attack to find out quickly how they should respond—a point again made by my noble friend. An advertising campaign should make people aware of the dangers posed by ID fraud, with dos and don’ts in plain language and simple precautions such as not giving banking details out on blogs and social networking websites—practices that are widespread particularly among young people. The report was also critical of the Government. It noted that in the two years up to October 2007 there had been three Ministers with responsibility for identity theft. The report recommended the appointment of an identity fraud tsar, although this has been greeted by the banking industry with scepticism. My party has an alternative proposal. I raised the matter in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Trumpington on 20 March this year and was grateful for the thoughtful reply that we had from the Minister. My noble friend Lord Sheikh has spoken in some detail about the role of the police. My party has put forward some definitive proposals to deal with the problem. In the March debate, I voiced my party’s concern that the decision to absorb the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit into the Serious Organised Crime Agency has all the marks of an exercise in cost-cutting and sends the wrong signals at this time, given the urgency of the problem that this debate has highlighted. We would like to see the NHTCU re-established with the Metropolitan Police as the ACPO head of cybercrime promoting a new police central e-crime unit. I look forward to hearing of the progress made in that respect from the Minister, although we felt that the proposal received no support from the Government at that time. I urge the Minister to look again at this sensible initiative. More fundamentally, as I said, we will designate a single Minister for cybercrime when and if we get back into office. This debate also provides the opportunity to revisit two other points that I made in the March debate. Since April 2007, online financial fraud can no longer be reported to the police directly. It has to be reported first to the financial institution concerned and it is then up to that bank or credit card company to decide whether the matter should be reported to the police. I said then that this is a cumbersome method that distances the victim from the prosecuting authority. It is a fair assumption that this disconnect between victim and prosecutor could have contributed to the regrettably low number of convictions under the Computer Misuse Act 1990—only 89 in the five years between 2001 and 2006. How is this change in procedure working? I also voiced concern that the police database does not distinguish between crimes committed electronically or otherwise. In view of the urgency of the problem, which this debate has highlighted, this research shortcoming needs to be rectified. We must not sleepwalk into complacency on the subject of cybercrime and, particularly, ID fraud. I hope that we shall have an early opportunity to debate cybercrime in depth. In the mean time, I express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Sheikh for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject and for the comprehensive review of company matters, which he covered in a very informed way. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.