Identity Cards Bill

I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on his trenchant views on this subject. I am enjoying his interventions in this Bill, as I enjoy most of his interventions on most Bills. I think these are interesting amendments. I hope that when the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has heard what I have to say about them she will accept that, while they raise interesting questions, perhaps now is not the time to put them in place. I shall pursue the amendments further, and the noble Baroness can come to a view of her own. Amendment No. 69 would require a person who has changed their identity, for example because they have been protected under a witness protection scheme, to have the original identity entered on the register after 100 years. Amendment No. 72 would require information from the register to be made available for historical research not less than 100 years after the first entry relating to an individual. As I have hinted, I have some sympathy for those who see information from the register as a source for possible use in future historical and genealogical research. However, I have to say that I do not think we should make a commitment to that in this Bill. It would be more appropriate to wait until a register is in place and has, perhaps, matured a little. Then we can judge how people might view the possibility of making information available in due course for historical research. Clause 3(4) provides that,"““information may continue to be recorded in the Register for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes for it to be so recorded.””" Amendment No. 71 would take out the words ““consistent with”” and replace them with ““necessary for.”” Clause 3(6) empowers the Secretary of State to make an order adding to the information, which may be recorded in the register where he considers that it would be consistent with the statutory purposes to do so. Amendment No. 74 would change that test to one of necessity for the statutory purposes. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has explained that the amendments impose a higher test than the one currently provided for in the Bill for the retention of existing information and the addition of further information. I also assume that she is seeking consistency with the fifth data protection principle, which provides that personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or purposes. The second of the two statutory purposes in Clause 1(3)(b) is to provide a secure and reliable method for registrable facts about individuals to be ascertained or verified wherever that is necessary in the public interest. The tests in Clause 3 of,"““consistent with the statutory purposes””," must therefore be read in light of the necessity test which is built into the statutory purposes. The net result provides no less protection than would a double necessity test. Furthermore, it is not inconsistent with the fifth data protection principle. I understand the reasons for the noble Baroness’s amendments and I have expressed some sympathy for releasing information from the register after 100 years, but it is probably too soon to make such a decision. On the other amendments, I think that we agree on what needs to be achieved, but I do not necessarily accept the need for her amendments in the way in which they are framed. So I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made a point about false identities for people in witness protection programmes, which is exactly what Clause 3(3) is for. If the Secretary of State and the individual agree an entry can be made under Clause 3(3), and it is deemed to be accurate and complete—that is, a true entry on the register. I hope that that matches and meets the noble Earl’s point—I do not think that there was any other question that I was supposed to answer.