Identity Cards Bill

I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have contributed to this mini debate. It has been helpful and I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s reply. This is a probing amendment and much has come out of our discussion. To some extent, I am satisfied by what the Minister says. However, some aspects of paragraph 9 have emerged very clearly during the past 37 minutes, and I agree with noble Lords who are anxious about the word ““may”” as opposed to ““shall””. We all heard the noble Baroness’s explanation of that, but I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Thomas that it is not good enough to allow those who are maintaining the register to have absolute and unfettered discretion as to what they put in and what they leave out. As the noble Baroness said, paragraph 9(c) is as much for the benefit of the individual ID card holder as it is for those seeking paragraph 9 information, and I take that point. But, as I said, it cannot be right to allow a person charged with keeping the register to say, ““It could be a bit embarrassing for X or Y if we put in the fact that that government department has been asking repeatedly over the past three years every three weeks for this category of information””. We all need to think about this matter and come back to it on Report. I do not intend to prolong this debate but I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could contemplate one issue hereafter. It is important that if we retain sub-paragraph (c)—and I am persuaded that, if there is to be a paragraph (9), it is proper that that sub-paragraph should be there—the individual whose record in the register is searched under a paragraph (9) request, should know what information is sought. Clauses 19 and 20, and, indeed, Clause 14, are quite specific about the types of information that can be sought. It is important that that should be logged so that the card holder has some idea of what is going on. I should add before withdrawing the amendment that the noble Baroness kept talking about ““verification””. I am not criticising her, but it would be more helpful to the House if she did not use that word because her reference to this part of the Bill was confined to outside agencies, authorities and commercial entities seeking ““verification””, which would be a much less intrusive exercise than seeking information. I think the noble Baroness would agree with me that although those clauses include a use of the register for verification, there is a much wider entitlement for public authorities and commercial organisations that have signed the necessary agreement with the Government to seek any information on the register except in paragraph (9), which is confined to certain cases. I am merely suggesting that the noble Baroness in confining her references to verification might conceivably be misleading herself as to the wider purport of these clauses. I am sure that she is not and I hope she will not mind me making that point.