---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 74A:"Page 21, line 17, at end insert—" ““(   )   The Secretary of State must not process sensitive personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) in connection with an individual’s entry in the Register without the consent of that individual.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks clarification from the Minister on an issue that I first raised in Committee on 16 November, in cols. 1175–77; it was rather a long debate, as noble Lords can tell from the column references. I was concerned that an amendment made on Report in another place may have had unintended consequences and might allow sensitive personal data to be added to the national identity register. Clause 1(6) was added by the Government without debate, because the guillotine prevented it. It was added in good faith by the Government to meet objections that had been raised in another place by the Minister’s honourable friends. Their concern and that of Members throughout the House was that the drafting of Clause 1 meant that the database could contain sensitive personal data. The main concern had been that medical and criminal records could be added to the national identity register. After Committee, the Minister wrote to me to explain why the Government believed that their drafting of subsection (6) remains benign. But she admitted in that letter that there cannot be a complete exclusion of information tending to reveal sensitive personal data from the registrable facts at Clause 1(5) because a photograph or nationality may of itself tend to reveal such data as racial ethnic origin, which is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. But she argued that that is information that everybody would expect to be on a register. That sounds like common sense, but she will understand that I remain a little uneasy about the position on sensitive data and, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I believe that this is a Bill that changes the relationship between state and citizen so much that it is the duty of all of us to ensure that we get it as right as possible for the citizen. The reason why I brought back this amendment, for clarification only, is that I believe that it will be consistent with the position that the Government have taken in the Minister’s letter. It would simply ensure that the Secretary of State could not process sensitive personal data that were covered by Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Will the Minister give me a clear assurance that that is the position that the Government intend to adopt in the setting up and running of the national identity register? I hope that she will explain why she feels that it would not be better to have this in the Bill. I know that she will attempt to do so; let us see if she manages to persuade me. I beg to move.