Clause 19 - Use for purposes of public authorities etc.
Identity Cards Bill
5:30 pm
Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
We tabled the amendment to tease out how the information held in the national identity register will be used, in particular by law enforcement organisations. We want to redraft the terms under which the information will be used in response to a concern that has been expressed not only by us, but by other organisations such as Justice, Liberty and the Law Society, about the breadth of the powers set out in the clause. We suggest to the Government an alternative that would more specifically focus the powers. We also want more clarity about their precise intention in advancing the existing wording.
Amendment No. 173 sets out the framework for the alternative wording and amendment No. 174 would strengthen one aspect of it. We want to introduce the concept of necessity and have said throughout Committee proceedings that a potential breach of privacy is acceptable where it is both proportionate and necessary. We always wish to see that enshrined in legislation.
We suggest an alternative wording, which says that the information should be necessary for carrying out the functions of the Security Service, rather than simply ''connected with'' them. The amendment tests the existing wording and I seek assurance from the Minister that the normal tests of necessity and proportionality apply, even though the wording seems to be a much vaguer form of ''connected with''.
Amendment No. 175 returns to a theme from the beginning of proceedings on the Bill—that was not very long ago, although it may seem like it—when we sought to establish what level of crime might justify the use of the national identity register. We debated whether the Bill should refer to crime or serious crime. The amendment would introduce the notion of seriousness.
It is important that we are able to test where the use of the data may occur. I have referred to that previously and it echoes a debate about what happens with data that people create by using the internet, where they are concerned about a potential breach of their privacy. We had a big debate on that and the previous Home Secretary unusually changed position from the beginning to the end as the public realised that the law enforcement agencies wanted a much broader range of access to a much greater range of personal data than they felt comfortable with.
I accept that the public want to be protected from criminals, terrorists and so on, but at the same time they want some privacy. We are trying all the time to test where that balance should lie. The amendment has been tabled to draw out the Minister's understanding of how he will apply that test under the clause. It also reflects our concern that the necessity and proportionality tests should be rigorous and an issue of principle in defending the article 8 right to privacy.
I hope that the Minister and other Members can tease out some of those concerns in this short debate. Other amendments address specific aspects of the data in relation to matters that are also serious—they involve fraud and the Inland Revenue—but which are in a different category from those we are debating in this group, which deals with those agencies that investigate crime and carry out intelligence and secret service functions.