Clause 19 - Use for purposes of public authorities etc.
Identity Cards Bill
3:30 pm
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
I wish first to bring the Committee’s attention to amendment No. 178. Here, as with other amendments, I am concerned about the wide drawing of the clause. This amendment would bring the provision of information back to the purposes of the Bill under clause 1. For that reason, subsections (2) and (3) would be removed. The amendment would produce a tighter definition allowing for the provision of information to a chief officer of police
“in the interests of national security”—
that is fine; it is included in clause 1—or
“for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime”,
which is also similarly provided for in clause 1, or, as in the existing subsection (3)(c),
“for other purposes specified by order made by the Secretary of State.”
That wording does not sit easily; it has a certain lightness and there is insufficient specification. I do not, on a quick reading of clause 1(4), see an equivalent provision, although if any other Committee member can find one elsewhere in the clause I will stand corrected.
The newly worded subsection (2) would state:
“The provision of information is authorised in this section where it is ... for the purposes connected with the prevention or detection of crime.”
That is preferable to the version in the Bill, which states that provision of information should be
“connected with the carrying out of any of that Service’s functions”.
That wording is repeated in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) in relation to the director general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of Government Communications Headquarters and the director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Those purposes may be much wider—either now or at any time in future—than those of the Bill. It is more important that the purposes of the Bill are a determining factor in the information to be disclosed.
Amendment No. 179, which is probing, would change the definition, which refers to
“purposes connected with the carrying out of any of that Service’s functions”
I suggest replacing “connected with” with “necessary for”. The words “connected with” might be regarded as a loose, or tenuous, connection, whereas “necessary for” would provide a greater safeguard.
Amendment No. 180 is a stray that deals with amendments on the purposes of the Bill in clause 1. Earlier,I sought to amend the purposes to read “serious crime” instead of “crime”, but that battle was lost and this is a straggling soldier from that skirmish. I do not intend to press it to a vote.