---

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

I thank everyone who spoke and the Minister for the offer of a meeting alongside his colleagues from the MoJ. I believe he will have a very busy diary between Committee and Report, based on the number of meetings we have agreed to.

However, I want to be very clear here. We have all recognised that the story of the Post Office sub-postmasters makes this issue clear, but it is not about the sub-postmasters. I commend the Government for what they are doing. We await the inquiry with urgent interest, and I am sure I speak for everyone in wishing the sub-postmasters a fair settlement—that is not in question. What is in question is the fact that we do not have unlimited Lord Arbuthnots to be heroic about all the other things that are about to happen. I took it seriously when he said not one moment longer: it could be tomorrow.

7 pm

I talked about two very specific cases, and I am looking forward to the ITV drama “The Educational Testing Service versus Home Office”. If that is the only way to get justice, then we have to do it that way. However, I accept the Minister’s offer and I will withdraw the amendment, but I point him and all who go with him to the last bit of my speech because we need some action and detail on disclosure, as Paul Marshall has said. We need to have some sort of oath so that someone is responsible for the evidence that they put in front of a court, otherwise it is only hearsay, as we have heard. I say once again that automated decision-making without having some balancing test is a recipe for automating error. Those are the three things that I am looking for in a solution. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.