Identity Cards Bill

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to the fray. I am glad to see her. For the reasons that I will give, I do not think that these amendments are necessary. The effect of Amendments Nos. 195 to 198 would be to restrict the provision of information to the security and intelligence services and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to purposes necessary for their functions rather than connected with their functions—the term used in the Bill. I understand the noble Lord is saying that there is a significant and important difference between the two phrases. Amendment No. 200 would make a parallel change in relation to the provision of information to the police. It is, of course, important that the information provided to these agencies and to the police is proportionate to the reason for which the information is being requested. This amendment is, however, unnecessary. The information that is connected with those functions will largely be the same as information that is necessary for those functions. As the noble Lord will know, the European Convention on Human Rights test is that interferences with the right to a private life under Article 8 of the convention must be necessary in a democratic society. That safeguard will apply to the operation of the register by virtue of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act in any event. The case law on Article 8 establishes that ““necessary”” in this context does not mean absolutely necessary or indispensable, but it is really a question of whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim to be achieved. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to act proportionately in carrying out all his functions under the Bill. There will be substantial safeguards to ensure that he does so. The relevant commissioner—either the Intelligence Service Commissioner in the case of the intelligence services or the national identity scheme commissioner in the case of all other bodies that may be authorised to receive information without consent—can review the situations in which information has been provided. The Secretary of State and recipients of information will also have to comply with the regulations set out in Clause 23. As I mentioned earlier, we plan to build an accreditation system which establishes a set of standards that organisations must comply with in order to be provided with information without consent. I noted with pleasure that the noble Lord indicated his assent to taking steps to ensure that accreditation is applied appropriately. I see that he nods his assent now. The specific details of how these organisations meet these standards can then vary depending on the information for which they have a genuine need, the internal systems and procedures in use in their organisations and their existing IT infrastructure. It is intended that each of these organisations will work with the Secretary of State to have their accreditation status reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, in many cases it is anticipated that accreditation would be provided to individual business units within an organisation only in order to reflect the different information requirements and systems that each unit might have. We do not think that one size will necessarily fit all because of the different functions different units have. Once granted this accreditation would not be transferable to different units within the same organisation. The accreditation status would also be subject to review and would be withdrawn if the organisation’s processes slipped below the ID card agency’s required standards. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that the way in which the scheme as proposed in the Bill has been structured covers those issues in the way he wants, and that he is reassured by that.