Clause 21 - Use for correcting inaccurate or incomplete information
Identity Cards Bill
11:30 am
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Amendment No. 183 would have a similar effect on clause 23, which we touched on briefly a moment ago, to that which amendment No. 73 would have on this clause. I want to ensure that there is no unnecessary, uncalled for or unjustified growth in secret government.
The clause is entitled “Use for correcting inaccurate or incomplete information” and it will allow the Secretary of State to tell someone who is not the subject of the information that something recorded about an individual is inaccurate or incomplete, and allow him to tell that unspecified third party that the information on the register is inaccurate or incomplete without letting the subject of the information know either that the information is inaccurate or incomplete or that he has told someone it is inaccurate or incomplete.
Unless the Government can persuade us otherwise, the Secretary of State should notify the subject of the information in writing that he has taken action under the provision within 30 days of doing so. There is no magic about the figure of 30 days, and if the Government want to specify another period I shall be happy to go along with it if it is reasonable.
I have a philosophical objection to things going on about me out of my sight unless there is a good and justifiable public policy reason for them to do so. I understand that there will be occasions when the register might say, for example, that I am a suspected drug dealer, people trafficker or money launderer. The third party—let us assume that it is the police, and perhaps the chief constable of a particular area—may wish to gain access to the information about me on the register, on which those data have been recorded.
I appreciate that, on other occasions, one of the Ministers has said that opinion evidence or opinion shall not be recorded in the register. However, I drew their attention to the definition of personal information in the Data Protection Act 1998, under which opinion evidence or opinion seem to be recordable.
I appreciate also that there shall be occasions when it might be in the interest of the detection or the prevention of crime for that third party, if it is a police authority or officer, to know that the information designating me as a suspected people trafficker or a money or drug criminal is inaccurate. It might be in my interests for that to be corrected. I also have a right to know the information about me on the register that is wrong.
This short debate has briefly exposed the dangers inherent in the ID register system as well as the use that can be made of it by the state either for or against my interests and, more particularly, without my knowledge. The more we computerise and dehumanise government, the more important it is for the individual citizen to be treated as a human being rather than as a digit and as a collection of inanimate information.
The Bill is all about giving the Secretary of State undefined powers to do undefined things, nominally in the interests of the state and in the interests of ourselves as a collective of individuals. However, we are becoming pieces of information to be processed, rather than human beings. If we are to move down this road for reasons of administrative and governmental efficiency, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the Government exist to benefit the individual and to benefit society, which is a collection of human beings, not just numbers.
I urge the Government when addressing amendment No. 73 and amendment No. 183, which relates to clause 23, to explain how they can justify the movement of information about me, whether accurate or inaccurate, in circumstances in which I am wholly ignorant of that traffic.