Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 210ZA:"Page 18, line 35, leave out ““person”” and insert ““public authority””" The noble Lord said: This group comprises eight amendments, all tabled in my name. I propose to advance only Amendments Nos. 210ZA, 211 and 213A. The matters dealt with under Amendments Nos. 210A and 210B were thoroughly canvassed in earlier amendments, so there is little or no point in repeating the arguments for and against those matters. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that Clause 20 covers the prevention and detection of crime and is another in this important series of clauses, Clauses 19 to 22. It is the only one which does not deal with public authorities alone. As drafted it entitles the Secretary of State, without the individual’s consent, to provide a person, in this case not confined to public authorities, with information on that individual recorded in his entry in the register. It is fair to say that the clause received scant attention in the other place, although I believe I am right in saying that the issue of who the Secretary of State could authorise for the purposes of disclosing information held on the register was dealt with in Clause 22. As a result of representations made in the other place, that clause was confined in its scope to the provision of information to public authorities. I seek to insert the same qualification in Clause 20. It is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to impart confidential information held on an individual in the register other than to a public authority for the purposes set out in this series of clauses. I hope that the Government will be minded to do here what they did in the later clause. I should have said that I shall also advance Amendment No. 211A, which was tabled late; I apologise for that. It seeks to confine the purposes for which the information can be disclosed to three paragraphs in Section 17(2) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As noble Lords know, Clause 20 is limited in scope to classes of information which may be disclosed under that section; that is, Section 17 of the 2001 anti-terrorism Act. It would be proper of me briefly to refer to this section because some noble Lords will recall that there was a great deal of almost agonised debate over the Bill, in particular over Clause 17. Much comment was made at the time about the fact that the disclosure of information powers conferred under that clause were not confined to anti-terrorist activities at all. When it was debated here, restrictions to the clause were agreed. However, they were overturned in the other place and not restored in this House. For the benefit of noble Lords, Section 17(2)(a) to (d) can briefly be described thus. Paragraph (a) allows information to be disclosed for the purposes of any criminal investigation here or abroad; paragraph (b) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings here or abroad; paragraph (c) for the purposes of the initiation or ending of investigations or proceedings; and paragraph (d)—which is the paragraph I seek to have excluded by my Amendment No. 211A—for the purposes of,"““facilitating a determination of whether any such investigation or proceedings should be initiated or brought to an end””." So, in an extreme case, if my Amendments Nos. 210ZA and 211A are not accepted, under Clause 20 the Secretary of State will be entitled to reveal information to an individual contemplating the bringing of proceedings, here or abroad, in circumstances where, because there is no limitation on its seriousness, the crime concerned can be a minor matter. I emphasise that Section 17(2)(d) allows disclosure where the person concerned may be at the point of deciding whether or not to commence investigations. Given that there is no restriction on the type of crime to which it may relate, and given that it is not confined to a public authority but extends to individuals, it seems wholly inappropriate that this power should be allowed in the way proposed. For example, if I was contemplating a private prosecution in respect of, say, damage to my property by my neighbour, Clause 20 would, on the face of it, allow me to apply to the Secretary of State for the revelation of information on the registry entry of my neighbour as a preliminary to prosecuting. It goes way, way too far and I hope that the Government will recognise the Committee’s general concern about Clause 20 as it stands and respond favourably to the amendments. Of my other two amendments in the group, one is a wording amendment. I do not propose to enlarge upon what is contained in Amendment No. 211 because it is a minor matter. The fourth amendment in the group, Amendment No. 213A, seeks to insert into Clause 20 a proportionality requirement so that, in disclosing information, the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that the disclosure was proportionate to what was sought to be achieved by it. It may be that the Minister will be able to say categorically that that inclusion in the clause is unnecessary because of the import of the principle of proportionality under the Human Rights Act. If she can say that on the record, categorically and with no ifs or buts, I should be minded to withdraw the amendment. That is all I have to say on the four amendments in the group that I am now moving. I beg to move.