Clause 3 - Information recorded in Register
Identity Cards Bill
11:00 am
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Let me deal first with the lead amendment. I will then address some of, but not all, the subsequent amendments. Clause 3(4) provides that information
''may continue to be recorded in the Register for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes for it to be so recorded.''
Amendment No. 22, which we dealt with some time ago, would take out the words ''consistent with'' and replace them with the words ''necessary for''. Clause 3(6) empowers the Secretary of State to make an order adding to the information that may be recorded on the register where he considers, again, that it will be ''consistent with'' the statutory purposes to do so. Amendment No. 23 would change that test to one of ''necessary for'' statutory purposes.
One can only assume that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is of the view that the amendments would impose a higher test than the one that is in the Bill for the retention of existing information and the addition of further information. One also assumes that he seeks consistency with the fifth data protection principle, which states:
''Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.''
The second of the two statutory purposes—we always return to those—is in clause 1(3)(b). It is to provide
''a secure and reliable method for registrable facts about . . . individuals to be ascertained or verified wherever that is necessary in the public interest.''
The test in clause 3 of ''consistent with'' the statutory purposes must therefore be read in the light of the necessity test that is built into the statutory purposes. The net result provides no less protection than would a double necessity test. Furthermore, it is not inconsistent with the fifth data protection principle.
In other words, as I have said on previous occasions, one always has to return to the building blocks that permeate clauses 1, 2 and 3. The necessity test that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks is in clause 1(3) rather than in clause 3.
Amendment No. 26, tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would require a super-affirmative resolution for any orders amending schedule 1, whether they added or removed information. Amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would require further primary legislation if the schedule ever needed modification, as they would remove the possibility of modifying the schedule by secondary legislation.
Two further amendments, Nos. 24 and 188, would make any orders either adding information to or removing it from the schedule subject to affirmative orders. That would not be an effective use of parliamentary time. There is already suitable scrutiny to safeguard people's privacy with a balance of negative and affirmative resolution procedures and the requirement that information may be added only if it is consistent with the statutory purposes.
The statutory purposes are not there for fun or just to make the Bill's first three clauses consistent. They are a real test and everything that flows from them needs to be seen in that regard. We shall resist those initial amendments. Although I understand where they are coming from, we do not agree with them.
As for the footprint—the tail end of paragraph 9 of schedule 1—I do not agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). With due apology, he was again using sloppy language. He talked about a credit reference. There will be no record on the database of someone applying for a credit reference. As paragraph 9 states, entries will record when there has been an attempt to verify. The hon. Gentleman talked about identifying people's traits and other elements.
Mr. Wallace rose—