Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 22, page 19, line 45, at end insert—

'(ca) any disclosure of information which results or would result in interference with an individual's private and family life is proportionate, and is for the purpose of—

(i) the protection of public safety or public health, or

(ii) the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;'.

The amendment is perhaps different in tone and type from a number of other amendments that have been debated so far. We are all aware that clause 22 provides general powers for wide-ranging disclosures of details from the register without the consent of the cardholder. The Government have so far given few examples of why they need such powers, other than to say that they are useful to have. The clause thus permits general disclosure without consent for unspecified purposes, where the only thing that we can be sure of is that the purposes are not national security or crime and taxation, which are the subject of other disclosure powers.

It is important to stress that the equivalent of the clause was criticised as unacceptable in the Home Affairs Committee report on the draft ID card Bill. I cannot lay my hand on that reference this morning, but I believe that it is right and is contained in that report. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that at some length to satisfy me.

The clause is an obvious target of criticism by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Perhaps the Government will allow that Committee to report fully before the Bill has left the House of Commons, although I do not suppose that they will allow it to do so. In responding to the debate, the Minister has a golden opportunity to bring us up to date on the timing of the Joint Committee's report and its relevance to this matter.

My amendment links clause 22 with article 8 of schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the first paragraph of which sets out a general duty of a public authority to respect an individual's private and family life and communications. The second paragraph outlines the exceptions from that obligation, so as to permit a public authority to interfere with private and family life, and therefore sets out the legitimate purposes that must underpin clause 22 disclosures in human rights terms. The second paragraph says:

''There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.''

It will not have escaped the attention of Government Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends that clause 22 makes no mention of necessity, hence amendment No. 118, which introduces a proportionality test.

The Committee will note that my amendment makes no mention of article 8 requirements in relation to the words  

''necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security''

and

''for the prevention of disorder or crime''.

I have no need to deal with those purposes. Crime, national security and taxation are the subject of clauses 19 to 21. We have also dropped the public ''morals'' part, too.

If one removes those elements of article 8, what is left pertaining to clauses 19 to 21 are the words,

''no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety . . . the protection of health . . . or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.''

So the database could be used in public health emergencies when, as is sadly possible, thousands of corpses have to be identified and buried quickly. I think that the amendment is consistent with article 8, because it requires the disclosure without consent to be necessary in a democratic society, and requires the purpose to fall within an article 8 exception.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

May I say that the timing of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report is out of my hands, which is entirely appropriate? I am aware that it is conducting an inquiry, although I am not aware of any particular communication from it that would assist hon. Members as to when it is likely to report. The Bill was published in November and what the Committee chooses to prioritise in its significant amount of work is a matter for it. I want to put it on record that there would be no question of the Government's allowing or disallowing it to do anything. This is entirely a matter for that Committee and the Government would in no way seek to interfere with the timing of any of its work.

I can deal with the amendment relatively quickly. We expect most checks on the register to be done with the consent of an individual. There are, of course, powers in the Bill that authorise the provision of information without consent in certain specified circumstances—for example, in relation to the police or security services. We have gone into the detail of those. However, in the light of the great variety of situations in which the scheme will operate, it is necessary to leave a certain discretion to provide relevant information from the register to relevant authorities.

Clause 22 is necessary to ensure flexibility and to prevent the need for further primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman figured out one set of circumstances where it might be necessary to provide a relevant authority with information. I am not entirely clear from the way he introduced the example whether it would precisely be covered by the Bill as drafted. That set of circumstances might already be covered.

However, there are circumstances where the Bill does not already cover the provision of information and where Parliament might decide it would be appropriate to give such information. Such examples   might include giving information to local government for fraud investigation, to the Registrar General for statistical purposes or to the emergency services in the event of a major incident, if Parliament decides that that is necessary. None of those are covered thus far in the Bill by the definition of those to whom information may be given without consent. I am suggesting that there is the flexibility for provisions to be written in response to individual sets of circumstances if Parliament decides that that is appropriate and necessary.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

I am getting more and more concerned. One might have been concerned about the provisions in clauses 20 and 21, but clause 22 is even more draconian. This is a case where the stricter provisions under clauses 20 and 21 do not apply and the purposes can be extended by order of the Secretary of State. The Minister has just given the example of ''for statistical purposes''. We are talking about matters without the individual's consent. Why on earth would anybody want to make an entry in the register without the individual's consent for statistical purposes? His example makes me even more worried about the clause.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he might well have misunderstood me. I did not say that people would be able to make entries in the register for statistical purposes. As I understand it, the Registrar General will not be a Department in terms of clause 19(5), but we can understand that sometime in the future Parliament may wish persons who are not authorities covered by the Bill to have access to that information. If Parliament chooses not to do that, they will not have access.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

On the principle of how we deal with legislation in the House, if the Minister is saying that he has a list of bodies that he anticipates will want access in the future, why has he not included them in the primary legislation in a schedule that lists them all? Why has he left it to this catch-all clause if he can imagine today that they are going to need access at some point?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not anticipating that bodies will need access. I was asked what bodies the provision could cover. The hon. Member for Woking set out circumstances in which it would clearly be in the public interest for Parliament to consider whether access to the register by an authority that was not already a public authority under the Bill should have access to identify, for example, a significant number of bodies of people who had been killed in a major disaster. That would of course be a matter for Parliament.

Standing here before the Committee, I cannot envisage every set of circumstances in which, when the register is in place, Parliament may decide that it would be in the public interest for access to be granted.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

I must press the Minister on this point, because if he does not satisfy me on it I suspect that he will not satisfy a large number of bodies outside the Committee. He has given the example of collecting statistics. That may be a legitimate reason for seeking to look at an entry on the register, but it is   not a good reason for doing so without the individual's consent. We have to restrict the occasions when an entry on the register is going to be inspected without an individual's consent to purposes of national security and serious crime, rather than the much more trivial purpose of statistics. The fact that the Minister gave me that example makes me more, not less, concerned.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I gave the hon. Gentleman that example because we are in a situation where, for historical reasons, the Registrar General for Northern Ireland will be a public authority—

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

It does not matter whether they are a public authority.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have an inconsistency here. Because of historical reasons in the statutory basis for those bodies, the Registrar General for Northern Ireland will be a public authority under the Bill, but the Registrar General for England and Wales and for Scotland will not. I am not suggesting that I have it in mind that the provision will be used for statistical purposes, but I gave that example to show the distinction between those who may be public authorities and those who may not.

Mr. Curry rose—

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

If the right hon. Gentleman will remain in his seat for a moment, I want to proceed because there are other restrictions. This cannot be done without Parliament's permission. Clause 22 is necessary to ensure flexibility and, in certain circumstances such as those figured by the hon. Member for Woking, to prevent the need for primary legislation where it would be appropriate to provide such information. I give similar examples to those given by the hon. Gentleman. For example, the local authority would not be a public authority in the Bill's terms for fraud investigation. The provision is subject to the affirmative order-making procedure so that an organisation cannot be added without parliamentary approval, and the same authorisation and oversight arrangements will also apply.

Mr. Curry rose—

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I must discuss the amendment, which is important. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Amendment No. 118 would include a requirement for any provision of information to be proportionate in its interference with an individual's private and family life and entirely appropriate for the purpose and protection of public safety or public health or the protection of the rights and freedom of others.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I do not accept it.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, I reassure him that the amendment is unnecessary because of the application of the Human Rights Act to the Bill. I understand that Opposition Members are not all fans of the Human Rights Act, although it appears that they are fans of some of its provisions and can understand why it is relevant for the protection of rights. Using the amendment, they want to fillet the Human Rights   Act and apply some of it to the Bill and disapply other parts. However, it is a matter of fact that the whole Human Rights Act will apply.

Under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, a public authority must not interfere with a person's right to a private or family life except in limited circumstances. Those include where it is accordance with the law in the interests of national security, public safety and economic well-being of the country; for the prevention of disorder and crime; for the protection of health and morals; or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The courts will also consider whether the action taken is proportionate to the aim to be achieved. That responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about the willy-nilly use of this information.

The exercise of the powers under clause 22, in addition to requiring parliamentary approval, is subject to the provisions of section 6 of the Human Rights Act, whereby:

''It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.''

That effectively means that any discretionary power must be exercised in a manner fully compatible with article 8.

I should also mention that the circumstances whereby information may be provided under the amendment are more limited than those in the European convention on human rights. That means the scheme could not maximise its benefits. The amendment excludes being able to provide information without consent to additional organisations, even in the interests of national security, economic well-being or the prevention or detection of crime. That means that we might not be able to provide information to local authorities for fraud prevention purposes.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Every 10 years the Government carry out a census. Can we have an assurance that that census information will not be cross-referenced with information kept about people's identity in the database? Will there be no temptation to cross-reference those two pieces of information? They are crucial. For example, the distribution of local government funding depends heavily on the outcome of the census.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I clearly understand that, but I am not clear from how the right hon. Gentleman asks the question whether he is encouraging or discouraging cross-referencing for accuracy.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

My purpose involves whether there will be a cross-reference. The data bank will contain a colossal amount of information about individuals and the people resident in the United Kingdom. The census seeks to discover a great deal of similar information and is the basis for determining significant amounts of funding and, therefore, the formulation of policy. Will there be a relationship between the permanent database that is constantly changing—that to do with identity cards—and that once-every-10-years photograph of the population, which is taken in the census?  

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I think the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that there ought to be. If they are both accurate in their assessment, there ought to be a correlation between them.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

So there will be a cross-reference.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I am not suggesting that there will be a cross-reference. The historical information in the census is published. That is clearly information that will be used for the verification of information—

Mr. Curry rose—

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

If the right hon. Gentleman will take his seat for a moment, that is exactly what he is asking me. Census information is public information. It would not be appropriate not to use that for the verification of information that goes into the register, surely.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Let me explain. One assumes that the most reliable volume of information held about the people who live in this country will be the information held in relation to identity cards. That will be constantly updated.

The census—once every 10 years—takes information about people living in this country, but in many respects is often deficient, because people may not fill in the forms. There are whole swaths of the population who tend to be missed by the census. That plays through into such things as local government funding.

This is what I want to know, and it is a point of information, because we have talked about statistics. What are the Government's purposes? Might they try to verify the information in the population census using the identity card information already held in their databases and seek to reconcile the two? Perhaps the census will become unnecessary.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The census information, I understand, is aggregate information; otherwise, the detailed information is protected for 100 years. This legislation does not seek to interfere with that. It is not the Government's intention to interfere with any of those provisions in relation to the census.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

It is not a matter of interfering. The ideal database is a cross-reference to the census.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. We cannot have lengthy exchanges involving speaking from a sedentary position. I am happy to call Members when they have a point to make. It may help if I say that, on this wide-ranging clause, it is in order to have a stand part debate, if members of the Committee so wish.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

Let me have one more attempt at giving the right hon. Gentleman a simple answer to his question, which, I must confess, I do not fully understand, although that is entirely my responsibility.

The census statistical information is aggregate information and, as we know, when it is published it can be significantly out of date. The right hon. Gentleman has already expressed his worries about local information in relation to his constituency and others. If he is asking whether the clause will enable population data to be updated by the Registrar   General if more recent information was available, it will empower that. However, Parliament would have to decide whether that was appropriate use of the information. He is concerned about the accuracy of the information and the basis on which it is used thereafter for other public policy decisions. Clause 22 will enable population data to be updated if more recent information is provided to the Registrar General, if such regulations were drawn up.

To return to the amendment, it is unnecessary because the issues are already covered by the Human Rights Act. In any event, we should note that the national identity scheme commissioner will oversee the provision of any information held on the register, including its proportionality—the issue that exercises right hon. Gentlemen under the clause. I invite the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I am bound to say that many Opposition Members are disappointed by the Minister's reply, although he has tried hard to help us. He seemed to justify the clause—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—by saying that he thinks it necessary because it will create flexibility. Well, that is not a precise observation and I hope that, when he speaks on clause stand part or to the next amendment, he can give us concrete examples of why the clause is necessary. I know that he has given one or two, but Opposition Members want examples of real-life cases where the clause will be necessary as such matters are not covered by other clauses.

I have a feeling, especially in relation to human rights, that the matter raised by the amendment—perhaps narrowly—is likely to return to us during future proceedings on the Bill, so I do not choose to establish the opinion of the Committee. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 138, in clause 22, page 20, line 6, at end add—

'(3) No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision;

(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal;

(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and

(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.

Again, the amendment relates to parliamentary approval. By way of background, we know that power to disclose without consent is extended theoretically without limit under clause 22. Regardless of the fact that approval is required for regulation, many of us remain extremely worried that the Home Secretary has effectively written himself a blank cheque. It is difficult to imagine a situation under the clause in which disclosure of information on the register could be justified.  

Clauses 19 to 21 are already extremely broad in scope and many of us wonder what extra powers of disclosure are envisaged. We talked about such powers a little earlier. With that background, we wonder how likely it is that disclosure powers that go beyond those already in the Bill will not breach data protection requirements or fall foul of proportionality—a matter referred to earlier—and legitimate purpose requirements under article 8, which relates to the right to privacy. That right can be breached only for a specific purpose and any breach must not be excessive for the purpose it serves.

My amendment would allow greater parliamentary scrutiny in an age when full and sufficient parliamentary scrutiny is, sadly, not regularly provided. The amendment mirrors the provision in clause 7(2) requiring a report to be laid before Parliament before any order is made under clause 6 to extend the number of groups to be required to register. Crucially, the report can be amended. I tabled the amendment on the basis that the Government have to be fully accountable to Parliament; it would help towards that end.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Before I call the next speaker, may I make it clear that there will be a clause stand part debate when we have disposed of this group of amendments? I therefore intend that the Committee should stick very firmly to the terms of the amendment, not the terms of the clause.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to give my support, and that of my hon. Friends, for the amendment. It would introduce the super-affirmative procedure that we have discussed on many occasions. That is important in this instance because, under the clause, the Government are taking powers to add a potentially huge range of bodies to the Bill. We will discuss those powers more broadly later. It is important to understand the relationship between primary and secondary legislation.

Under clauses 19 to 21, we discussed in some detail a whole set of restrictions on how a huge range of Government bodies can access the data without consent. Under clause 22, we are saying that, by an ordinary affirmative procedure, other bodies can be added. In a sense, it will make a mockery of the previous clauses, which we have debated in such detail, if bodies can simply be added under this procedure.

If one were suspicious, one would say that there is a deviousness here and that there are secret plans to introduce new bodies that people might have concerns about, but which would not be fully expressed under the ordinary affirmative procedure. They might be better expressed under the super-affirmative procedure that we have put forward. If that super-affirmative procedure were used, there would at least be a report saying why those bodies needed to be added.

One assumes either that level of deviousness or a lack of confidence on the part of the drafters of the Bill—they are not sufficiently confident that they can create comprehensive legislation, so they had to put the provision in. They have gone for not the easiest possible route—that would be the negative resolution procedure—but the next easiest, which is the straightforward affirmative resolution procedure.  

Given the scope of what we are going to discuss in the context of the clause, I do not think that a 90-minute debate in a statutory instruments Committee will be sufficient to deal with some bodies that we are talking about; we had hints of that in a previous debate. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment and accept that, if he is to add substantive new bodies to the list of those that can access data without consent, that should be done with the much greater parliamentary scrutiny that would be afforded if the Bill were amended as proposed.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

First, may I make a familiar moan? The explanatory notes on the clause are utterly useless in explaining what it is about. They merely reproduce the language of the clause. Explanatory notes are pointless unless they are expressed in simple English and do not merely reproduce the language of the Bill. In fact, they are practically useless for all legislation. Can we not have them in English? Instead of referring to the conditions in various subsections, can the notes not have an integrity in their own right, so that we know what the hell we are talking about? That would be better than having this obscure Sanskrit, which purports to be explanation. That is a permanent complaint; perhaps we can do something about it.

Secondly, I would like the Minister to set out what will be in one of the orders that are to come before Parliament so as to give me an example of what we are talking about. He must have envisaged the circumstances that will arise, but I am having some difficulty in envisaging what sort of order we will get. Will an order say that Joe Bloggs of 19 Maple way in goodness knows where can be incarcerated, in order to give him plenty of notice to get away, or will it say that body A is to be added?

Will the Minister give us a nice, typical sample illustration of the order that he might introduce, so that we can conceptualise—to use that wonderful American expression—precisely what we might find ourselves doing in this House?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I take on board the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the explanatory notes, but I should say that there has been considerable consultation on this legislation and there is any amount of other information around, although that does not exonerate those who drafted the notes.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Get a journalist to do it, not a lawyer.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a plea for members of his own profession to be engaged. I have to be careful about what I say about journalists, but I am not sure that what they write always accurately communicates what has happened. I sympathise with him on the need for explanations to be written in plain English.

I have endeavoured to envisage the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to extend the uses of the information. The most appropriate circumstance that I can pray in aid is one that was mentioned previously, which is the emergency services responding to an emergency and seeking access to the information to establish the identity of people who had been killed or seriously injured. It would be inappropriate for primary—or some equivalent to primary—legislation   to have to go through the House in such circumstances before such a response could be made.

I also recognise that in certain circumstances Parliament might take the view that it would be beneficial and in the public interest for some authorities—local authorities for benefit or council tax purposes, for example—to have access to that information. That would be entirely consistent with, and proportionate to, people's rights and liberties. Parliament might agree that that would be an appropriate use for the information.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked me for an exhaustive list of such possible circumstances. I cannot give one, as I do not think that one can be written. Because of that, I suggest that it would be impossible to anticipate and list in the Bill all those circumstances.

I resist the amendment for those reasons. It might be necessary in some circumstances, such as emergencies, or for very good public interest purposes to extend access to the information to bodies not already covered by the legislation. The power is already subject to the affirmative order-making procedure, so an organisation cannot be added without parliamentary approval. Broadly the same authorisation and oversight arrangements will apply to those regulations as apply to others. This is an appropriate procedure.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

In the emergency circumstance the Minister outlined in which a body might have to be added, presumably it will be added only for as long as it is necessary to have access to that information for the purposes of dealing with that emergency? Am I right that it will not become a permanent addition to the list?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is correct that there can be restricted access for a restricted purpose and a restricted time. That is why I use the word ''flexibility''. I do not understand what is wrong with that word; it is appropriate that we should have that flexibility. Once this database is available, providing that the use is subject to appropriate oversight by Parliament and continues to be subject to appropriate oversight by the national identity scheme commissioner, it will be proper for rules to be written to have access, whether for a limited purpose or a limited time.

I understand why hon. Members express reservations about this power and the use of it. I undertake to go away and think about how to come back with further amendments to the provision. If necessary, I shall repeat that undertaking when we have a stand part debate. Such an amendment might, for example, involve consultation with people whom the provisions may affect. That device has been used in other parts of the Bill and it would help to reassure Committee members that the provision will not be used willy-nilly.  

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

We are on familiar territory. The Minister's last words were that he would consider whether he could move towards helping us on this matter, and he was not unhelpful. On that basis, and bearing in mind that there will be a stand part debate, I shall say no more on the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Conway, for permitting a stand part debate. It is important that we put on record our fears about the potential abuse of the clause. I do not think that anybody would disagree that the emergency services might need urgent access in the circumstances that the Minister set out. However, part of what we are doing is to try to ensure that there are not routes for people to use the provisions in ways that would be publicly unacceptable and dangerous from a civil liberties or human rights point of view.

We regularly see how the courts test legislation and try to establish the limits of the powers that Parliament intended to impose on a Secretary of State. In this case, the powers appear to be limitless. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the Home Affairs Committee report, which in paragraph 272 states:

''It is not acceptable to have as broad a Clause as 20(5)''—

the wording in the original draft Bill—

''simply because the Government is unclear about its objectives.''

The same criticism applies in this area. There are a range of scenarios, but a lack of clarity. The fear is that bodies that could have a serious impact on the individual could be added through a fairly weak legislative procedure.

The Minister has said that he undertakes to think about the matter, and that is helpful. I ask him to think specifically about the earlier debates on the information in relation to paragraph 9 of schedule 1. During debate on the earlier clauses, we made a clear distinction that a threshold should be made before the audit data, which is accepted to be more personally intrusive, is accessed. One of the concerns about clause 22 is that there is no apparent distinction, as there is in paragraph 9, for a threshold that should be set at a higher level for potentially personal data.

The Minister described some bodies that could be added that would be beneficial. However, we have to consider whether foreign law enforcement agencies, for example, could be added under the procedures. Recently, we have had many debates in the House about bodies that have grown, such as Europol, and about concerns about the intrusion that they could make on the individual citizen without being fully under the control of the UK authorities.

There are questions about US passport control or US law enforcement agencies, which might say, ''The biometric passports are okay, but we really   want to check the national identity register.'' Could such agencies be added under the procedure? Clause 22 does not seem restrictive in any way about which could be added. Am I right in saying that any external or foreign law enforcement agency could be added as a body that could access the data through clause 22?

I understand why the Government want that kind of flexibility. We have a perennial debate about legislation that puts in place a primary legislative framework, with all the detail coming in the secondary legislation. However, it is always important that we do not leave loopholes through which a Government—perhaps with the best possible motives, perhaps in the public interest—could push through legislation without appropriate scrutiny.

A 90-minute debate in a statutory instrument Committee to decide whether a foreign law enforcement agency should have access to our national identity database would be entirely unacceptable. Furthermore, at the back of our minds we retain a concern that a less beneficial, malicious or malign, Government could use the provisions of any piece of legislation to put through something that was entirely inappropriate. It looks as if clause 22 is just such a clause; it could, through a very weak parliamentary procedure, allow Governments to add bodies that would be publicly unacceptable.

We take the Minister's undertaking that he will consider the issue again in the spirit in which it was intended. However, I hope that he will give further assurances and refer specifically to whether foreign law enforcement or border control agencies could be added through the powers under clause 22.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I shall be brief, because I have rehearsed in earlier contributions many of the arguments that would have been relevant on clause stand part.

I have given an undertaking to the Committee to consider the possibility of adding a duty to consult persons who are likely to be affected by the order. I will also consider whether it is possible to insert a reference to provide that information falling under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 could be supplied for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime, which is a qualification that applies otherwise.

The breadth and width of the clause in relation to bodies outwith the United Kingdom, which the hon. Gentleman identifies is, in my reading of the clause, entirely possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.