Clause 22 - Power to authorise other uses of information
Identity Cards Bill
10:45 am
Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock and 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.