|
Mr. Malins: We are on familiar territory. The Minister's last words were that he would consider whether he could move towards helping us on this matter, and he was not unhelpful. On that basis, and bearing in mind that there will be a stand part debate, I shall say no more on the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Allan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Conway, for permitting a stand part debate. It is important that we put on record our fears about the potential abuse of the clause. I do not think that anybody would disagree that the emergency services might need urgent access in the circumstances that the Minister set out. However, part of what we are doing is to try to ensure that there are not routes for people to use the provisions in ways that would be publicly unacceptable and dangerous from a civil liberties or human rights point of view.
We regularly see how the courts test legislation and try to establish the limits of the powers that Parliament intended to impose on a Secretary of State. In this case, the powers appear to be limitless. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the Home Affairs Committee report, which in paragraph 272 states:
''It is not acceptable to have as broad a Clause as 20(5)''—
the wording in the original draft Bill—
''simply because the Government is unclear about its objectives.''
The same criticism applies in this area. There are a range of scenarios, but a lack of clarity. The fear is that bodies that could have a serious impact on the individual could be added through a fairly weak legislative procedure.
The Minister has said that he undertakes to think about the matter, and that is helpful. I ask him to think specifically about the earlier debates on the information in relation to paragraph 9 of schedule 1. During debate on the earlier clauses, we made a clear distinction that a threshold should be made before the audit data, which is accepted to be more personally intrusive, is accessed. One of the concerns about clause 22 is that there is no apparent distinction, as there is in paragraph 9, for a threshold that should be set at a higher level for potentially personal data.
The Minister described some bodies that could be added that would be beneficial. However, we have to consider whether foreign law enforcement agencies, for example, could be added under the procedures. Recently, we have had many debates in the House about bodies that have grown, such as Europol, and about concerns about the intrusion that they could make on the individual citizen without being fully under the control of the UK authorities.
There are questions about US passport control or US law enforcement agencies, which might say, ''The biometric passports are okay, but we really
Column Number: 355
want to check the national identity register.'' Could such agencies be added under the procedure? Clause 22 does not seem restrictive in any way about which could be added. Am I right in saying that any external or foreign law enforcement agency could be added as a body that could access the data through clause 22?
I understand why the Government want that kind of flexibility. We have a perennial debate about legislation that puts in place a primary legislative framework, with all the detail coming in the secondary legislation. However, it is always important that we do not leave loopholes through which a Government—perhaps with the best possible motives, perhaps in the public interest—could push through legislation without appropriate scrutiny.
A 90-minute debate in a statutory instrument Committee to decide whether a foreign law enforcement agency should have access to our national identity database would be entirely unacceptable. Furthermore, at the back of our minds we retain a concern that a less beneficial, malicious or malign, Government could use the provisions of any piece of legislation to put through something that was entirely inappropriate. It looks as if clause 22 is just such a clause; it could, through a very weak parliamentary procedure, allow Governments to add bodies that would be publicly unacceptable.
We take the Minister's undertaking that he will consider the issue again in the spirit in which it was intended. However, I hope that he will give further assurances and refer specifically to whether foreign law enforcement or border control agencies could be added through the powers under clause 22.
Mr. Browne: I shall be brief, because I have rehearsed in earlier contributions many of the arguments that would have been relevant on clause stand part.
I have given an undertaking to the Committee to consider the possibility of adding a duty to consult persons who are likely to be affected by the order. I will also consider whether it is possible to insert a reference to provide that information falling under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 could be supplied for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime, which is a qualification that applies otherwise.
The breadth and width of the clause in relation to bodies outwith the United Kingdom, which the hon. Gentleman identifies is, in my reading of the clause, entirely possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Rules for using information
without individual's consent
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 20, line 23, leave out from 'person' to end of line 25.
Column Number: 356
We move on to an important clause dealing with rules for using information without the individual's consent. I pause simply to say that so much under the Bill seems to be done without the individual's consent that it comes as no surprise to any of us to see another clause with that heading.
The clause empowers the Secretary of State to make some regulations that make provision on imposing requirements. This is a probing amendment that seeks to omit subsection (3)(c), because is not clear what that paragraph means. It says:
''Those regulations may include . . . provision imposing other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made'',
which suggests that the Minister will have powers to make regulations that may include ''provision imposing other requirements'' further down the line. We do not know what are those
''other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made.''
Perhaps the Minister could explain what is meant by paragraph (c).
Mr. Browne: I hope that I can deal with that relatively quickly. From the hon. Gentleman's contribution it is clear that he fully understands the clause.
To understand exactly what subsection (3)(c) means, one has to read it as a whole. It states:
''provision imposing other requirements as to the manner in which such applications must be made.''
For example, we might like to include in regulations made under paragraph (c) the information that would need to be recorded by an organisation requesting information to ensure that adequate records are kept for audit purposes, or we may want to require the organisation requesting the information to apply in a particular manner, for example, in a specific form in writing, or electronically.
It is right to work through the process in detail in respect of those affected by the clauses, rather than try to anticipate all the circumstances here in Committee. The Bill sets out in principle that organisations could have information provided without consent for the purposes that are specified in clauses 19 and 21. It would be artificial to set out in the Bill exactly how that should work, but it would be appropriate that provision should be made to say whether such requests should be made in writing or electronically. That is why the provision is included.
Mr. Malins: The Minister has been helpful in his response. There are concerns about the clause that might be raised in the clause stand part debate. Who am I to say? However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Conway.
The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot take a point of order at this point in proceedings.
Column Number: 357
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [18 January], (as amended, [25 and 27 January],) to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.
Question put, That clauses 23 to 25 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.
Division No. 10]
AYES
Browne, Mr. Desmond
Casale, Roger
McCabe, Mr. Stephen
Mountford, Kali
Robertson, John
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Mr. Martin
NOES
Allan, Mr. Richard
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Curry, Mr. David
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Mercer, Patrick
Taylor, Mr. John
Question accordingly agreed to.
Column Number: 358
Clauses 23 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
It being after twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
| 
