Perhaps it would be convenient to deal with that point first, but I am happy to give the affirmation sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, in relation to those matters and to confirm that, as so often, she is absolutely right. The assurance is there.
We have discussed in Committee the matter raised by the Lord, Lord Blackwell, but I am happy to repeat my argument. The statutory purposes of the register are two-fold. First, it will facilitate a convenient method by which individuals will be able to prove registrable facts about themselves—that is, to prove their identity. Secondly, it will provide a secure and reliable method by which registrable facts about individuals can be ascertained or verified where that is necessary in the public interest.
These statutory purposes have been expressed in an explicit manner following the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. We thought it important to make those two purposes absolutely clear. ““Necessary in the public interest”” is defined in subsection (4). It includes national security, the prevention and detection of crime, enforcement of immigration controls, enforcement of prohibitions, unauthorised working and employment, and securing the efficient and effective provisions of public service. Subsections (5) to (8) define registrable facts, and we spent time in the past three days in Committee discussing the definition of those details. Today we have talked about details of physical characteristics. Clause 1, then, established the national identity register, and that is rightly the foundation stone of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, questioned whether agencies could by compulsion, indirectly, oblige people to give them the disclosure of information that they seek. We believe that Clauses 14 and 18 deal with that situation. Clause 14(1) states:"““Provision of information for verification or otherwise with consent . . . The Secretary of State may provide a person with information recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register if—""(a) an application for the provision of the information to that person is made by or with the authority of that individual; or""(b) that individual otherwise consents to the provision of that information to that person””."
For clarity, Clause 14 means companies can get information but only with consent. Clause 18 makes it unlawful to demand consent to a check or production of a card except in the circumstances set out in that clause. I think that deals with the noble Lord’s second question, whether indirectly you could somehow oblige people to make the disclosures.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is covered by the comments I have already made to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the issue of whether we should use the PNC. We have already had an extensive debate on that, and I hope I have adequately explained why we thought the PNC number should not be included, and why that was a proper response to the concerns that were raised in the other place and by several noble Lords in this place. We have come to a happy accommodation in relation to those concerns, and with a degree of clarity.
On the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, no one will have access to the register except those employees in the agency with authority to do so. The organisations mentioned may, with the individual’s consent, seek confirmation of the individual’s identity, together with provision of a limited amount of information that it is not on the face of the card, such as address.
Lastly, I come to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I must say that if he and I continue agreeing with each other, people will start to talk. Identity cards are only an intergovernmental issue; the EU has no competence on the matter. I know the pleasure that that answer will give the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
I thank the noble Baroness for indicating that she is probing. However, I had hoped that we had cleared up a number of opaque issues, and I am going to do all that I can to ensure—notwithstanding the fact that the noble Baroness said that she would raise some of these matters at a later stage—that this matter will not be brought up again. I was hoping to close this part of the debate down—but I cannot do that, and I shall allow further debate.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 November 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c1667-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:33:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279342
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279342
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_279342