Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 192:"Page 15, line 33, leave out paragraph (b)." The noble Lord said: The heading for Clause 17 refers to the:"““Power to provide for checks on the Register””;" that is, for checks and not for information. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the Long Title refers to issues of identity rather than information. Amendment No. 192 would leave out altogether Clause 17(1)(b). It would mean that:"““The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising a person providing a public service in respect of which—""(a)   a condition is imposed under section 15""to be provided with information recorded in the Register that he requires for the purpose of ascertaining or verifying registrable facts””." Perhaps it will help the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 193. That may expedite matters and make my short dissertation clearer. Amendment No. 192 would strike out paragraph (b). I do not like the paragraph because at the end it refers to ““any other enactment””. It states,"      ““(b) a condition for the production of an ID card, or of evidence of registrable facts, or both, is imposed by or under any other enactment””." I do not like the provision because it is very broad and unnecessary; it would be eliminated by the amendment. Amendment No. 193 would cut out the word ““ascertaining”” in the provision,"““for the purpose of ascertaining or verifying registrable facts””." I believe that this clause should be confined to verification and should not allow a body to ““ascertain”” facts; that is, to gain access to facts that he, she or it does not currently have. Indeed, it goes dead counter to the heading of the clause, which refers to the power to check, not to powers to inform or supply information. One has to be cautious about and, indeed, jealous of citizen information. It is one thing to provide identity checks, but it is another thing to allow public services, which are very widely defined in the Bill, to go on fishing expeditions in the register seeking facts which may not be directly germane to what is in hand. It goes too wide. The right to seek new information rather than simply to verify it is not consonant with the heading of the clause and would not be a wise provision. On that basis, I beg to move.