---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I shall be very happy to seek to do so. The noble Baroness is right to refer to the content of the letter and the reasons we have set out. It is important just to run through what ““sensitive data”” means, because it emphasises why a photograph could arguably be sensitive data. I say ““arguably”” because people tend to fall on both sides of the argument. Some say that it is not sensitive data—it is just a photograph; whereas others say that it is sensitive data. That is what causes us the difficulty. Some noble Lords may not be familiar with the definition of ““sensitive data””, so I shall remind the House what it is. It is the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject; his political opinions; his religious beliefs; whether he is a member of a trade union; his physical or mental health; his sexual life; the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence; any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to be committed by him, and the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court. It is clear to those noble Lords who are now familiar with Schedule 1 to the Bill that the register will not contain substantive information falling within any of those categories. Moreover, any addition to the list of information in Schedule 1 would have to be consistent with the statutory purposes, which in effect rules out any possibility of adding, for example, medical or criminal records. However, as I have indicated, it is arguable that information that is in itself innocuous is in fact sensitive personal data within the DPA definition. For example, a photograph may reveal someone’s racial origin or indicate a particular disability or religion, perhaps because they are wearing a capel, a turban or something of that sort. So one sees why the debate over photographs comes about. I am sure the noble Baroness is not seeking to prevent the provision of photographic information from the register without consent; for example, to the police under Clause 19(3)(b) for the detection of a crime, and that could quite possibly be the effect of amendment No. 74A. For the reasons I have given, I hope she will feel comfortable about withdrawing it. I understand perfectly why, in the normal way, the issues that would fall within ““sensitive data”” would be excluded. If there were not an argument about the photograph, I would have been happy with the amendment, but there is. There will be those who say the photograph clearly identifies a number of those issues, and that is our problem.