Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in clause 22, page 20, line 3, at end insert—

‘(da)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 would add to clause 22 a reference to the requirements of the European convention, by implication if not expressly. No doubt the Government will say that such a reference is implied anyhow. The amendment also refers, again by implication, to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act 2000.

I will set the amendment in context. We are dealing with the passing of information to a public authority without the consent of the individual. “Public authority” is, for the purposes of the Bill, defined by clause 43, on general interpretation, as having

“the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998”.

I was going to take the Committee directly to the Human Rights Act 1998, but, as we discussed a couple of weeks ago, a public authority comes to be defined not so much by its name as by what it does. For example, while the BBC is not, for some purposes, a public authority, for other purposes it is.

One can think of any number of examples in which, when making a private contract, a body is not a public authority, but, when it is doing something that affects the individual citizen, it is a public authority. We need to be careful about accepting at face value the definition in the general interpretation clause about what a public authority is.

I also have a complaint that, as before, the Government are requiring Parliament to give them unspecified and vague powers. To see that, one has to look only at clause 22(1)(b), which says that

“the information is of a description specified or described in an order made by the Secretary of State”.

We have not seen those orders. I do not suppose that we will get see them in time for consideration on Report. I doubt that we will see a definition on Third Reading. I doubt that even the other place will receive a definition that would satisfy a reasonable reader when they discuss the Bill later in the year or early next year.

Although “public authority” is defined by section 6 of the Human Rights Act, the definition is not specified or described here, nor is the information referred to in subsection (1)(d). Therefore, it seems to us important that the Government should explain themselves so that, to refer to amendment No. 77,

“any disclosure of information which results or would result in interference with an individual’s private and family life is proportionate”.

That is the individual’s article 8 right under the European convention.

That disclosure of information must be

“for the purpose of the protection of public safety or public health”.

That is my Civil Contingencies Act point. The definitions of public safety and public health in the Civil Contingencies Act are remarkably wide.

Disclosure of information could also be for

“the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Again, under a number of Acts of Parliament passed in the last half dozen years, all sorts of powers are given to all sorts of people, no doubt for good public policy reasons. However, when mixed into the bowl of the Identity Cards Bill, concerns of private rights against the state come to mind.

I want to be assured by the Government, not just by implication and not just because the Secretary of State has rubber-stamped the front of the Bill with his belief that it complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. I have seen that happen many times and I have seen it challenged. I have seen individual aspects of Bills, or of   clauses of Bills, fall foul of the Human Rights Act. I want to be assured that the Government have in mind the rights of the individual and the interference that could be done to the rights of the individual, particularly in relation to his family life and his private life. That is described in our amendment.

See this speech in context