The noble Lord’s closing remarks do not quite cover the whole intent behind the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out, it is certainly not the intention of the amendment to say that every cross-check that takes place in the system be notified to an individual. I really sought to have some reassurance about how there could be a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that an innocent person—not a fraudster, drug smuggler or potential terrorist—might not be caught up in the perpetuation of incorrect information held on them because no one bothered to tell them about it.
I say that against the background of other debates that we have had tonight, from which it is clear that the Government will use private databases as a way of verifying information. The Government referred to credit reference agencies and Tesco, but the agencies in particular could have inaccurate information. We have all read of cases in which people find themselves denied a credit rating. They are perfectly honourable people, but the wrong address has been ascribed to their name. We know that those kind of errors are perpetuated.
At the beginning of the Minister’s kind and careful response, in trying to reassure me he said that there was a good chance that the innocent person would be contacted. By the end, he was saying that it was almost certain. That is the problem; there is that divergence even in his answer. My concern is that rigour and good practice in administration tend to follow only on the duty to do something. Certainly, this was a probing amendment at this stage of the Bill, let alone this stage of the night. I will look carefully at his answer, particularly as he is talking about the Data Protection Act, which I find may have some problems in terms of how it relates to the Bill. I will think carefully about it before deciding whether there is any need to bring the amendment back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power to authorise provision of information in other circumstances]:
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 December 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1343 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:06:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286987
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286987
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286987