Identity Cards Bill

I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that in fact the safeguards in Clause 24 do exactly what the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Phillips, seek to do. Perhaps I should clarify a matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, because she may be labouring under a burden under which I laboured earlier in having an older version of the Bill. The noble Baroness referred to parts of the commissioner’s reports being excluded if they would affect the efficient and effective delivery of public services. This was in the old version of the Bill, but Clause 25(4) gives only two reasons for excluding material from the commissioner’s report—that is, national security and the prevention or detection of crime. I see her nodding, so we can accept that the two items in question have been expunged. The noble Baroness will remember that they were taken out because of various concerns, and I hope that I have been able to reassure her on that point. This rather large group of amendments deals with a number of problems that we will come to in the next two groups when we deal with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Dholakia. In answering, I will seek to address some of those issues thematically. Bearing in mind the complexity of the points raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, it may take me a little time to go through each amendment in order to reassure Members of the Committee that their concerns are not merited. I do not quite share the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, regarding what our world will look like in a very short time, but that does not mean that I do not understand the basis of his concerns in relation to safeguards and security. Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, it may be worth reminding your Lordships why we are proposing to create an entirely new post of national identity scheme commissioner to provide oversight of, and report on, the operation of the identity card scheme. First, the creation of this new commissioner will not replace any existing safeguards. For example, the Information Commissioner’s powers relating to data protection and freedom of information will apply to the operation of the national identity register. Similarly, the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration would be able to review any complaints about the agency issuing identity cards, brought to it through a Member of Parliament, in exactly the same way as it currently does for complaints about the UK Passport Service or other government departments and agencies. So nothing in that regard changes. The creation of the national identity scheme commissioner is an additional safeguard. At the moment, there is no such commissioner relating to the issue of passports or driving licences, but we recognise that the introduction of an identity card scheme, which, as we have discussed, the Government have always intended should become compulsory, raises additional issues and we believe that we are right to create this new level of oversight. I hope that noble Lords opposite will approve of what we are proposing. It is an important safeguard not just in relation to the arrangements for issuing identity cards but also in relation to the operation of the national identity register, including the arrangements for the provision of information from the register, as well as keeping under review the uses to which ID cards are being put. This is a very wide remit. The commissioner will be there to reassure the Home Secretary, Parliament and the public through his published reports that the identity card scheme is operating correctly. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that delivery on the issues about which he is concerned will be carried out in the way in which we have cast the commissioner’s role in the Bill. We believe that Amendments Nos. 221, 221A and 222 are all unnecessary. The first of the matters which the commissioner must keep under review is the arrangements maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions under the Act. The primary duty of the Secretary of State under the Bill is set out in Clause 1(1)—the duty to establish and maintain a register of individuals. Furthermore, the statutory purposes in Clause 1(3) refer to the provision of a secure and reliable method for ascertaining registrable facts about individuals. It follows therefore that the commissioner already has oversight of the matter set out in Amendment No. 221 moved by the noble Baroness. Arrangements made by the Secretary of State in relation to the accuracy and integrity of the information held on the register will fall under arrangements made by him for the carrying out of his functions under the Bill. Amendment No. 221 specifies one aspect of those arrangements, but we do not think that it is necessary to do so. For much the same reason, we take the view that Amendments Nos. 222 and 221A are unnecessary. The commissioner is bound by virtue of Clause 24(2)(c) to keep under review the arrangements, made by persons to whom information may be provided, for obtaining, recording and using the information available to them under the Act.       The measures taken to ensure privacy and confidentiality must inevitably be encompassed within that. The subsection also refers expressly to using the information. We would therefore submit that the spirit of Amendments Nos. 221, 221A and 222  is already reflected in Clause 24. Furthermore, I reiterate that the Secretary of State, as a data controller, will be bound by the Data Protection Act 1998. The commissioner is able to obtain information for the purposes of carrying out his functions, as Clause 24(4) provides that it is the duty of every official in the Secretary of State’s department to provide the commissioner with all the information that he requires for the carrying out of his functions, and this includes information from the register itself.