Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 202:"Page 17, line 28, leave out paragraph (c)." The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 208, which stand in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Crickhowell. This group of amendments develops further the theme of our concerns about the audit trail. As we have seen, Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide information held on the register to public authorities and others without the consent of the person whose information is being divulged. Amendment No. 202 would restrict the power of the Secretary of State by denying him the opportunity to specify in an order additional purposes for which public authorities and others could have information provided to them. It would simply delete subsection (3)(c), which is an open-ended power for the Secretary of State to add by order to his power to reveal information. It has been tabled to ask the Government to justify such a wide power. Amendment No. 204 would remove subsection (4)(f). This is another instance of the Secretary of State being given a wide power to exercise by order. It appears that paragraphs (a) to (e) already give a comprehensive list of purposes. Why, then, do the Government require paragraph (f), which means that they can extend the list ad nauseam? What else do they anticipate they will need to add in the future? Amendment No. 205 would remove subsection (5), which gives the Secretary of State an even wider power—if there could be such. It enables him to prescribe any government department or any Northern Ireland department and any of their functions, thereby making lawful the provision of information without consent to that department in the exercise of that function. The power can be used to make information on the register freely available within government for legitimate government purposes. Subsection (5) is yet another example of this House being asked to give the Government powers to do things that they have not yet specified or cannot yet specify. Amendment No. 208 would remove subsection (6), which sets out for what purposes information may be provided without consent to a designated documents authority that issues documents designated under Clause 4. We expressed our concerns in that regard during the debate on whether Clause 4 should stand part, led by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Passports are to be designated documents as a result of this Bill. The Government have said that driving licences may well become designated documents but, as to the rest, there is only conjecture. Yet again, we are being asked to leave the Government with wide-ranging powers. I make it clear that this is a significant issue for me. The amendments that I have tabled today are very much probing in nature because I think I should listen carefully to the noble Baroness’s response before I consider what amendments I may need to bring back on Report. I beg to move.