Identity Cards Bill

I would hate to disappoint either the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, or the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. If this would change entirely the noble Lord’s attitude to the Bill, that is a powerful temptation. But I hope, without succumbing to that temptation, to be able to explain to his satisfaction why the Bill delivers that which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, seeks, and that both noble Lords will feel better able to support these provisions. I know too that the noble Baroness has tabled Amendment No. 217 because my honourable friends did not have the opportunity to answer her honourable friends when this matter was raised in another place. I will take up her invitation to give as full an answer as I can at a quarter to 10 in order to make sure that she does not feel it necessary to bring the amendment back on Report. Clause 23(a) and (b) empower the Secretary of State to make regulations limiting the provision of information to circumstances in which an application has been made, and specifying the persons entitled to make such applications. Subsection (3)(c), which the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would remove, enables the Secretary of State to impose other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made. It is therefore a safeguard which allows the Secretary of State to be more prescriptive about the form applications must take. For example, the power could be used by the Secretary of State to impose regulations stating that these applications must be made in writing. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it would be sensible to use the power in that way to ensure that there is a formal record of any request for provision of information. However, the effect of the amendment would be to remove the power to make such provision. I know from our earlier discussions that the noble Baroness wants such provisions to be available. This is a safeguard to ensure that a really rigorous process covering the provision of information without the consent of the individual is in place. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have both emphasised the importance of the administrative process and the need to ensure that it has an appropriately high degree of integrity. Amendment No. 218 would preclude the Secretary of State from making regulations that require the person to whom the information is being supplied and/or the applicant for the information, if different, to be approved by the Secretary of State. The power in Clause 24(4)(a) is needed to enable the Secretary of State to set up an accreditation scheme for the approval of persons to whom information may be provided. Again, this is an important safeguard. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, have both indicated that they are enthusiastic about an accreditation procedure because it provides the kind of important safeguard that jointly we want to see. Noble Lords have queried how information can be provided to someone not specified under Clauses 19 to 22 and how the applicant and recipient may be different. Subsection (5) allows for the provision of information to subordinates of those specified in Clauses 19 to 22. For example, Clause 19(2) allows for provision of information to the Director General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, while subsection (3) allows for the provision of information to a chief officer of police. There is no need for the Secretary of State to accredit those individuals because they are named in the legislation. But regulations under Clause 23(5) may permit the Director General or the chief officer to authorise subordinates of a particular rank or status to receive information on their behalf. Subsection (4)(a) gives power to make regulations requiring those people to be accredited before information is provided. So that is why the accreditation and the delegation are important. Although the applicant for and the recipient of the information will normally be the same person it is possible that they may be different. For example, regulations under subsection (3)(b) may provide that applications for the provision of particularly sensitive information, such as paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 information, may be made only by very senior persons. But that senior person may authorise someone else in his command—for example, the officer in charge of a particular investigation into serious crime—to be provided with the information in accordance with regulations under subsection (5). The purpose of subsection (4)(a) is to ensure that whenever information is provided from the register the request has been made by an appropriate person and the information is given only to an appropriate person. Additionally, any regulations made under this clause are subjective to the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble Baroness wanted it; we have given it. This will ensure that Parliament has the chance to have a say on the regulations that will be proposed under this clause. So it all fits together. As to Amendment No. 219, I listened carefully to all that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said in moving his amendment. I understand the concerns he has expressed. I understand what his amendment is intended to do and the structure that the proposed new clause seeks to put on the face of the Bill, but I hope to persuade him that it is unnecessary. The Bill does not attempt to control what recipients of information can do with it. This is because what is lawful for them to do with it will depend on each recipient’s own common law and statutory powers—for example, what the police can do with information received will depend on their common law powers, their powers under PACE and other police legislation. The Data Protection Act rights and duties as a data controller will apply to this information in the normal way, as will the Human Rights Act requirements of necessity and proportionality. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to attempt to control or restate these matters in guidance under the Bill. So all of that applies. I agree with the noble Earl that both the Information Commissioner and the National Identity Scheme Commissioner will have a strong interest in the uses to which information from the register is put. The Information Commissioner’s normal powers under the Data Protection Act apply to the database and to the uses of information from it. There is no attempt in the Bill to restrict, exclude or change them in any way. They remain as strong as they are expressed in the Act. The use made of information from the register is specifically included in the remit of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner by Clause 24(2)(c). We had an opportunity to discuss that earlier in Committee and I hope that I was able to reassure noble Lords in that regard. So, with those comprehensive reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will feel she has had the answer deprived her honourable friends in the other place and that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will see that the structures we have put together are sound.