Identity Cards Bill

I hope that I will be able to reassure the noble Lord. We believe that Clause 22 is necessary to ensure that the identity card scheme retains the flexibility to adapt to different situations in the future where it would be in the public interest for information to be provided to a public authority which is not a government department and so cannot be specified under Clause 19. We have already discussed the concerns relating to Clause 22—that is, the power, the provision of information and so on—and I shall not go through all that again, but perhaps I may give noble Lords an example. The power might be used to provide photographs or biometric information to the emergency services in order to identify victims of major incidents. At some point in the future, it might also be desirable to provide information from the register to local authorities to help to identify individuals so as to assist with fraud investigation. Other public bodies that are not government departments may also have a legitimate need to be provided with information from the register. For example, the General Register Office for England and Wales may need to be provided with information in connection with its responsibilities for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. It is not a government department and so could be provided with information only if specified in regulations under Clause 22. I accept that the power in Clause 22 to provide information is open-ended in the way that the noble Lord has suggested. However, it is already subject to regulations made under the affirmative order-making procedure, so no public authority could be provided with any information under Clause 22 unless it had already been specified in regulations made with parliamentary approval in both Houses. In addition, on each separate occasion that information from the register is provided to a public authority authorised to receive it under Clause 22, oversight arrangements would also apply, including the rules for providing information to be established under Clause 23. In addition, the national identity scheme commissioner would oversee the use of this power to provide information under Clause 22. Clause 22 was amended following discussion on the previous Identity Cards Bill introduced in the last parliamentary Session so that the only bodies that can be provided with information by being named in an order under Clause 22 are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. It also excludes the provision of information falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, which is the audit log of when an individual’s register entry has been provided. So, in accepting the force of the arguments about affirmative resolutions, one sees how we get a better purchase on how these provisions will be used. There will of course already be an audit log of every occasion when information is provided under Clause 22, as we have discussed. However, I am not convinced that there is a case for having to retain this sort of information for at least 10 years in every case. We believe that there are already sufficient safeguards in the Data Protection Act in relation to the retention of personal data and that those should be retained for as long as it is necessary rather than any set minimum period. The legislation before us needs to allow for the possibility that information can be provided in the future to public authorities. I understand the noble Lord’s concerns. We have been able to address those concerns and I can reassure your Lordships that these provisions provide the rigour that the noble Lord seeks.