Clause 20 - Further uses connected with the prevention and detection of crime

Identity Cards Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:15 am on 19 July 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Home Affairs) 11:15, 19 July 2005

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 20, page 18, line 45, leave out subsection (3).

The amendment seeks to delete subsection (3). The clause title reflects, no doubt, a worthy and uncontroversial desire—preventing and detecting crime—but we are entitled to greater scrutiny of the clause than a simple nod-through would provide.

Subsection (1) refers to “section 23”, and states:

“The Secretary of State may, without the individual’s consent, provide a person with information recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register if—

(a)the provision of the information is authorised by this section; and

(b)there is compliance with any requirements imposed by or under section 23 in relation to the provision of the information.”

I will not read clause 23 out, but I defy anybody who reads it to have a better idea of what the Government intend at the end of the read-though than they had at the start.

Clause 20 goes on to deal with the provision of information that does not fall within the audit trail under paragraph 9 of schedule 1. It then states:

“Section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, (restriction on disclosure of information for overseas purposes) shall have effect”.

I want to hear what the Government are doing in that regard.

May I underline again my general concerns about the nature of the Bill as it is increasingly revealed? Subsection (4) makes it clear that the provision of information falling within the audit trail of paragraph 9 of schedule 1

“is authorised by this section if it is provided—

(a)to a person to whom information may be provided by virtue of any of subsections (3) to (5) of section 19 or is made as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section”.

Subsection (4)(b), which is the little catch-all, states:

“for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime.”

These are not tedious debating society points. We are affecting the relationship between the state and the individual. I urge the Government to apply their mind with greater vigour to the access and function creep that the subsection deals with and which my amendment invites them to address.

Photo of Andy Burnham Andy Burnham Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) 11:30, 19 July 2005

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I consider none of his amendments, or the comments he supplements them with, debating points. In this case, he is dealing with a serious point, but his concern would more properly be directed to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Clause 20 simply aligns the Bill with measures in that Act on the provision of information without consent.

Section 17 was included in the Act to ensure that, for the purposes of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings, public authorities can disclose information that is subject to statutory restriction on   disclosure. Under section 17(2), information that is subject to a statutory bar may be disclosed for the purposes of carrying out, initiating, bringing to an end or facilitating a determination of criminal investigations and criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Clause 20 will ensure that information from the register can be provided without consent

“for any of the purposes specified in section 17(2)(a) to (d) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001”,

provided that there is compliance with the rules set out in clause 23, which we will come to later.

Those rules lay down a clear framework in which information can be given. This takes us back to other points. For instance, the rules lay down the rank at which an official in an organisation can be supplied with information and the use to which information can be put. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the assurance he wants, although it may be buried, certainly is in clause 23, which provides some safeguards that he seeks.

Subsection (3), which would be deleted by the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment, is one of the safeguards, so I am surprised in some ways that he has directed his attention to it. It will allow the Secretary of State to give a direction prohibiting the provision of information for use in specified overseas proceedings. Again, that mirrors the corresponding power in section 18 of the 2001 Act. The amendment would remove that power.

Under section 18, the Secretary of State might prohibit information from being provided for overseas purposes if he considers it more appropriate for any jurisdictional matter or investigation to be exercised or carried out by a court of the UK or a third country. If the Bill allows for the provision of information in the circumstances set out, it follows that the gloss put on section 17 by section 18 of the 2001 Act should be reflected in the Bill.

The clause will simply extend to the national identity register the powers that already exist in respect of other data sources in the UK. It is right that the Secretary of State should be able to specify overseas proceedings for which he considers the disclosure of information under clause 20 not—I stress “not”—appropriate. That safeguard and restriction reserves to the Home Secretary the right not to comply fully when a request for information is made.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that the clause deals with quite a narrow point and that it brings the Bill fully in line with legislation already passed by the House. There are safeguards in place, and I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

The Under-Secretary said that a framework is set out in clause 23, and that it is clear. I accept that, in his eyes, the vagueness of clause 23 provides a framework. It certainly is not clear, but we will discuss that in due course. I am not in the least   satisfied with how this part of the Bill is constructed and we may return to the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Alistair Carmichael Alistair Carmichael Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Subsection (4)(b) deals with the authorisation of provision of information if it is provided

“for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime.”

I am curious to know why the word “serious” is included when it is not included in any other definition in the Bill.

Photo of Andy Burnham Andy Burnham Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

I shall consider that point. The clause deals with the relationship between the Bill and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which, by definition, deals with serious crime. I think that is the reason for the drafting, but if it is not I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The clause relates to a measure that deals specifically with serious crime, which is why the provision is drafted in that way. However, I assure him that I will come back to him on the point.

The audit trail of paragraph 9 information may be sensitive and we have ensured throughout the Bill that there is a higher test for access to such information. Only when serious crime is involved will police forces be able to access that information, which is probably why the provision is drafted in that way. If I need to clarify any of that in writing, I shall do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.