Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 217:"Page 20, line 33, leave out paragraph (c)." The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 217 seeks to delete subsection (3)(c) from Clause 23. Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 are grouped with it. The Explanatory Notes state that Clause 23 sets out the rules by which the Secretary of State may be authorised to give out information without the consent of the individual who is the subject of that information. That has formed the backcloth to our debates. But, in practice, Clause 23 is highly permissive in the scope of the powers it hands to the Secretary of State. The clause gives the merest hint of what may follow by regulation, but gives no hard detail or justification. There may be some benefits in that, in allowing some flexibility. We had some examples in our previous debate on where we may wish to see the Government having flexibility. Subsections (2) to (4) allow the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing requirements, such as specifying the person or persons who may make any request for information and how it is to be made and authorised before any information is provided under Clauses 19 to 22. Within that, subsection (3)(c) really is the vaguest of the vague. It allows regulations to be made that may include,"““provision imposing other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made””." When the matter was debated in another place, my honourable friend Mr Garnier commented that it was unfortunate they had not had a fuller opportunity to debate and get a response from the Minister; hence, I brought it here in a purely probing manner today to enable the Minister to make a full response. I beg to move.