Clause 22 - Power to authorise other uses of information
Identity Cards Bill
10:30 am
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.