Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill.


Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 4:"Page 1, line 13, leave out ““or”” and insert ““recorded, stored and””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to say that Amendment No. 4 can be moved with relative rapidity when compared with the previous debate on Amendment No. 1. Everyone agrees that it is essential that the national identity register should be absolutely secure. Literally everyone—and without equivocation I include the Government Front Bench—has said that it is of the essence in this whole arrangement that the information and personal data in the register are absolutely secure and beyond being poached. The amendment that I advance for the approval of the House—it is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford—would put into the keystone clause, Clause 1, the fact that, as well as security and reliability for the ascertainment and verification of registrable facts, the same characteristics of security and reliability should apply to the recording and storage of the registrable facts. It really is as simple as that. It is fair to point out that the Government are seeking on Report to amend Clause 24. Amendment No. 77 would place on the commissioner who oversees the register a duty to see the extent to which the confidentiality and integrity of information recorded in the register are observed in relation to the functions that are cast on the commissioner under Clause 24(2). The Government have brought forward that amendment from the Committee stage, when various amendments, including one of mine, sought to address that point. The Government’s amendment would require that the four functions mentioned in Clause 24(2) should also have as a common theme running through them confidentiality and integrity of information. I believe that Amendment No. 4 is uncontroversial. I also believe that it is important that the words in the amendment are contained in Clause 1, which sets the tone of the whole Bill and, indeed, defines the statutory purposes by reference to which every other function under the Bill is carried out and construed. At present, Clause 1(3) states that the,"““statutory purposes are to facilitate””," and maintain,"““a record of registrable facts about individuals””." It also talks of,"““the provision of a secure and reliable method for registrable facts about such individuals to be ascertained or verified””." The facts are to be ascertained by the officials of the national identity register and will principally be verified by public authorities as defined in the Bill and, indeed, by the private sector users, of which the Home Office reckoned that there might be as many as 44,000, before the day is done, so to speak. The words that I am seeking to have included would put the recording and storage of that precious and often sensitive information on the same footing as regards security and reliability of method as applies to the ascertainment and verification of that information. I have sought hard to find a reason why that would not be acceptable, but I have not been successful in that. I think that the amendment runs entirely with the tide of the Government’s intentions, so I hope very much that they will accept it. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c466-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Data protection Biometrics Age Costs Fraud Fees and charges ICT Identity cards Investment Interviews Police Personation Procurement National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration Young people Security
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk