---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 62E:"Page 13, line 29, leave out ““modify subsections (2) and (3)”” and insert ““amend subsections (2) and (3) by—" (i)   amending existing paragraphs; or (ii)   adding new paragraphs relating to information on the Register which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual regularly needs to prove”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 72E and government amendments in this group. As I understand it—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—Amendment No. 63 will amend subsection (6)(c) to clarify the wording referring to persons in this case as will be specified or determined by the regulations in that subsection and then limits the powers via the conditions imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b). This change to Clause 14 is welcome in so far as it goes. However, realistically it does little. It means that there is a slight tightening up of the order-making powers in subsection (6) and the Secretary of State’s ability to provide information to a person about an individual’s recorded entry in subsection (1), but not much else. Amendment No. 64 appears to be a drafting amendment. It removes the phrase ““modifying subsection (2) or (3)”” and inserts,"““that he is authorised to make by subsection (4)(a)””." Subsection (4)(a) states that the Secretary of State may,"““by order modify subsections (2) and (3)””." The Government are changing the wording but not the meaning; namely, that an order to modify subsections (2) and (3) needs to go through the affirmative procedure. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has brought forward a number of amendments to meet the comments of the DPRR Committee on the Bill. However, they notably fail to address the concerns the DPRR Committee expressed about Clause 14 relating to this exact issue—something which my amendment seeks to address—namely, that the term ““modify”” in the Bill under the general interpretation in Clause 43 of the Bill, (page 37, line 23) includes the power to omit. The DPRR highlights that,"““the power appears to extend to omitting subsections (2) and (3) altogether, so leaving no limit on what may be provided with the individual’s consent””." The report goes on to state:"““This seems wider than is appropriate in light of the Government’s stated intentions””." Indeed, paragraphs 70 and 71 of the government memorandum to the committee state that,"““Subsections (2) and (3) limit the information which can be lawfully provided under this power””," and that,"““this is limited to core identity information and excludes other administrative and historic data that may be held on the Register””." If subsections (2) and (3) can be omitted and replaced with anything else, this is indeed a far-reaching power which will enable the subsections to be altered beyond the boundaries the Government have indicated. Like the DPRR Committee,"““we are not persuaded that the case for so wide and significant a power has been made””." Given that, I hope the Minister will be able to accept our amendment. It aims to limit modifications to these subsections by allowing the Secretary of State to amend only existing paragraphs or to add new paragraphs relating to information on the register which he is satisfied that the individuals regularly need to prove. Government Amendment No. 74 is linked to Clause 14 in that it adds a new subsection to Clause 23, which itself provides the,"““rules for providing information without an individual’s consent””." As the Minister has explained, it prevents the Secretary of State providing information about an individual to another person under Clauses 19 to 22 unless it is,"““subject to the satisfaction in relation to that other person of conditions imposed by subsection (4)(a)””;" namely, that,"““the person to whom it is provided has registered prescribed particulars about himself with the Secretary of State””." Again, I suggest that this is a welcome addition. However, I also take this opportunity to highlight the continued inclusion of Clause 22, which the DPRR Committee suggested should be removed; hence the inclusion of the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay in this group. The simplest explanation for an amendment to leave out Clause 22 comes from the committee’s report, which states:"““The power in Clause 22 is wider than that in Clause 19(5). It enables the Secretary of State, by order, subject to affirmative procedure, to prescribe any information in a register entry (apart from the audit trail information in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1), any public authority (as defined for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998) and any purposes, thereby making lawful the provision of information to that authority for those purposes without the individual’s consent. This enables the Secretary of State to make information very freely available, including to non-government bodies that perform some public functions.""““In the light of public concerns about the wide dissemination of information to different state organisations, the power in clause 22 requires the fullest justification, and we consider it to be inappropriate unless it can be shown to be fully justified. Paragraph 104 of the memorandum states that, ‘it is regarded as essential to have a reserve power to use in the public interest if it should be necessary’. This is an insufficient justification and we draw this issue to the attention of the House””." I hope that the noble Baroness, having had time to look at the report and come forward on some of the other points, can clarify beyond the arguments already given to the DPRR Committee, why the Government have not taken up the two recommendations addressed in our amendments. I beg to move.