Identity Cards Bill

The position of the national identity scheme commissioner is to supervise the operation of the Act. Therefore, he must be regarded by the Government as a very important safeguard against the possibility that government may misuse the very extensive powers that the Bill gives them. It is disappointing, therefore, how limited the role of the national identity scheme commissioner is in subsection (2). On analysis, one sees that the commissioner is confined to considering structures and frameworks. Paragraph (a) refers to,"““the arrangements for the time being maintained by the Secretary of State””." Paragraph (b) refers to,"““the arrangements for the time being maintained by designated documents authorities””." Paragraph (c) refers to,"““the arrangements made, by persons to whom information may be provided””." Separately is,"““the uses to which ID cards are being put””." Presumably that refers to the uses made by the holders of those cards. I do not understand why the Government should resist the first suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment No.  221A:"““the uses to which information recorded in the Register is put””" by the Government. Why should the commissioner look at how the holder of an ID card uses it if they do not look also at how the Government use the information on the register? Everything is subject to extensive exceptions under subsection (3). I noticed paragraph (c), which refers to,"““the operation of so much of this Act or of any subordinate legislation as imposes or relates to criminal offences””." I repeat:"““as . . . relates to criminal offences””." Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I believe that the people of this country who are not yet alive to the significance of the legislation would at the very least expect that their privacy and the confidentiality of the information provided on the register would be preserved. Those matters are referred to in the second part of Amendment No. 221A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment No. 222, tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. What do we see in relation to criminal offences? Under Clause 29 the unauthorised disclosure of information is a criminal offence. It states:"““A person is guilty of an offence if . . . he provides any person with information that he is required to keep confidential””." Clause 30 creates an offence of providing false information for the purpose of making an entry on the register. Clause 31 creates an offence of tampering with the register. Surely the operation of the legislation in relation to those offences, which deals with the protection of confidentiality, the accuracy and integrity of the register and so on, should come within the scope of the functions of the national identity scheme commissioner. He ought to be able to say that the scheme as set up is unsatisfactory in terms of protecting privacy and confidentiality. He ought not to face an argument, one that would not be put in a court of law but by someone from a ministry, which states, ““You cannot inquire into the unauthorised disclosure of information, the providing of false information, tampering and so forth, because those are criminal offences. You cannot look at anything related to criminal offences””. The area covered by the national identity scheme commissioner has been unduly limited. He should be given the widest possible remit to investigate all matters arising out of the operation of this Bill when it is enacted. In so far as these amendments seek to widen his remit, I support them entirely.