Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 17:"Page 1, line 17, after second ““of”” insert ““serious””" The noble Lord said: The amendment inserts into Clause 1(4) (b) the single word ““serious”” so that, in defining what is in the public interest for the purposes of Clause 1, which delimits the whole extent of the measure, we are concerned only with purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime. On the previous amendment, we have already had quite a bit of debate about that notion. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said and will think more about it. In legislation such as this, we are always in the business of drawing lines. She made the point that she felt that the line delimited by the definition of serious crime in the amendment was too far. On the other hand, to have no limit as to what crime engages those important and potentially intrusive powers is seriously inadequate. One could have an officious police force using a parking offence or not having a TV licence as entitlement to access the national register. They are both crimes. More seriously, in a public demonstration, the police could claim that there was the possibility of public order offences and claim to be entitled, under the provision of preventing crime, to go around photographing everyone on the demonstration and performing a facial match with the national register. Those examples may sound far-fetched, but who knows. As I have said many times, in this Bill we should not take chances with civil liberties. For my part, I am of the view, and so are my colleagues on these Benches, that we need a threshold beneath which the provisions of the Bill do not bite and above which they do. Hence my insertion of the word ““serious””. The definition of the word that I suggest in my amendment is that of the Bill itself. The noble Baroness referred to Clause 20(4). That refers us to Clause 43, which, in turn, defines serious crime—because it is used in another clause—by reference to the Regulation and Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Sections 81 to 83. For the benefit of the Committee, serious crime in the Bill therefore means crime that is either violent, involves substantial financial gain, or involves a large number of people in pursuit of a common purpose, where, were they convicted, they would expect a sentence of three years’ imprisonment or more—on the basis that they had no previous convictions. That is the definition in the Bill and it is a substantial threshold to provide. However, we cannot just think of the convenience of the police in contemplating the amendment and the clause. There are hearts and minds issues in the Bill that those of us who are worried about them have tried to explain. We are especially concerned with ethnic minority groups and how they may be targeted if the Bill is too lax. I mentioned briefly before that it was a failure to have some such limitation in Section 17 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. That has left it in what everyone whom I know who is aware of it considers to be a parlous condition. I will leave it at that; we have already had a bit of a discussion on the matter; and look forward to hearing what the Minister and other Members of the Committee have to say. I beg to move.