Clause 25 - Reports by Commissioner
Identity Cards Bill
4:15 pm
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Amendment No. 84 stands in my name, the names of my hon. Friends, and the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). The amendments can be divided into two sections. The first deals with the balance of power between the Executive—the Home Secretary—and Parliament, and the second deals with the power to edit the report. As Opposition Members, we are keen that the balance of power should be redressed—as I said earlier, it is out of kilter—and that Parliament should have a greater say in the commissioner’s reporting function. If the Secretary of State is to control the reports that are laid before Parliament, and if the commissioner has first to report to him rather than directly to Parliament, we should be told if not what the commissioner has had to edit, at least when he has had to edit his report or reports at the request of the Secretary of State. It is not clear in the Bill whether items or sections of the commissioner’s report that are removed from the report placed by the Secretary of State before Parliament will have been redacted or simply removed without Members of Parliament knowing what has been taken out.
Time does not permit me to read out each amendment in the group under discussion, but there is a serious argument and an issue to be joined between Parliament and the Executive. Here we are in Parliament trying to control the Executive over where the power to dispose should rest. Clause 25(1) states that
“the Commissioner must make a report to the Secretary of State about the carrying out of the Commissioner’s functions.”
Since, as the Government would have it, the commissioner is appointed by the Secretary of State subject to all the public appointments issues that the Minister mentioned, no doubt the Government think it right that the commissioner must report to the Secretary of State.
We, on the other hand, say that, despite the fact that the commissioner will be appointed by the Secretary of State, the commissioner is carrying out a public function for which he should account to Parliament, not because we distrust the commissioner, but because this is a hugely important issue of public policy. It is a whole new departure in the relationship between the state and the individual, and we, as protectors of the rights of the individual, the constituent and any individual who may not be a citizen but who happens to be within our shores, should have the right to inspect and to demand of the commissioner his report.
Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 essentially make the same point. They would command the commissioner to account to us rather than to the Secretary of State. I can understand that as a matter of common sense the commissioner and the Secretary of State may discover matters about crime and terrorism about which it would not be sensible for the public to know. None the less, even if the commissioner cannot tell us everything, he should at the very least present via the Secretary of State a report that blacks out what cannot be seen, so that we know precisely what exercise the report has been through before it was presented to Parliament.
That is the essential import of our two sets of amendments to that one line. I shall not labour the point further, save to say that in relation to amendment No. 221, the provision requires an explanation, which I hope that the Government shall not feel inhibited from giving to Members of Parliament.