Identity Cards Bill |
|
Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister. I suggest, however, that such examples could be covered by inclusion in a prescriptive order, not under the broad and general power under the Bill. Mr. McNulty: I understand that concern, but under the clause, by definition, the Secretary of State and the authorities—I was going to say “or his agents”, but that would just fire the conspiracy theorists—implicitly cannot go fishing for biometric or other data simply because the measure allows them to pop the information on the database once they have secured it, no matter how they have secured it. It is about processes outwith the process of registration for the ID card, where it might be useful to store those data on the database, even though the individual was not entitled at the time. The hon. Gentleman suggests, as we suggested earlier this morning, that the passports for 16-year-olds can be processed months before their 16th birthday. I should add that that is all done under royal prerogative rather than by legislation, so it will not be found in any legislation anywhere. However, it might be useful if the UK Passport Service had that information to hand already, instead of having to wait until someone was 16 and one hour old, and therefore entitled to an ID card, before it was provided with that person’s permission and acquiescence—with all that I
I emphasis that the clause is not intended to allow fishing; it should be understood entirely in the context of data from another legitimate source that could be stored on the database within the statutory purposes, and all that follows from that in terms of registrable facts; and it provides the flexibility to allow that data record to be created for an individual, even though that might be done prior to their due entitlement. Mr. Wallace: I am sorry to labour the point, but I should like to address registrable facts, which the Minister assured us earlier were those to which the entry could be limited. His example of an individual coming back in after having been removed from the country is not a registrable fact. [Interruption.] Mr. McNulty: I take the point, and I am sorry for intervening from a sedentary position. The residency status is clearly defined in the Bill, as was elaborated on yesterday, and even the hon. and learned Member for Harborough found it in the end, despite an inquisitive interjection. That is a registrable fact, as are the biometrics that are captured currently by the asylum registration card system in terms of asylum seekers. That, plus the point at paragraph (b) on statutory purposes, and so on, provides an appropriate safeguard. However, we think that rising 15s, and those who are removed and may subsequently apply in other circumstances for asylum or entry, are useful areas for data that it would be a shame to miss because we were rigid, rather than more flexible, in our interpretations. The ARC system has been enormously successful in capturing multi-applications—that is, those who apply in three or four different names, or who already have an extant application from elsewhere, or from within our own system. It would be useful if those elements were captured and flexible. Paragraph (b), and all that flows from it in terms of that magic little phrase on statutory purposes, should give the assurance, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seeks, that this is not a fishing and trawling exercise—I do not use those terms because he is from Orkney and Shetland—for the authorities to pick up any data that they want and bang them on the database just because they fancy them. The provision is not that broad or Orwellian; it is simply drawn in the terms that I have discussed. Mr. Carmichael: The pleasant aspect of dealing with Bills such as this is that it is a change from fishing and trawling exercises. I do not have any difficulty with the examples that the Minister gave, or the way that he gave them. He says that it might be useful to be able to hold these pieces of information, and he is right in that. There is a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider
The Minister said that that is also helpful. However, no parliamentary scrutiny of the executive decision is involved and it is for the Secretary of State to decide
We are dealing with vagueness heaped upon vagueness. The cumulative effect of the different levels of vagueness causes me concern. The statutory purposes outlined in clause 1 are broad to say the least, and necessarily so. Some of the registrable facts are broadly defined. Again, I remind the Committee of the concerns that I expressed yesterday about the broad definition in clause 1(5)(g). I am concerned that if one gives a broad power to the Secretary of State for broadly defined statutory purposes in relation to broadly defined registrable facts the net goes rather wide—to continue the Minister’s metaphor—in terms of the information that can be caught. I do not say that that is his intention or that of the Government, but the worst-case scenario is that the provision is wide. Mr. McNulty: I rise to make some minor points. First, the provision is not that wide, because we are talking about data that are already captured rather than sought and data that must comply with registrable facts. In terms of individuals and the use of this sort of power, the Information Commissioner provides oversight. He has a duty to report to Parliament on an annual basis. Therefore, it is not entirely accurate to say that there is no oversight or scrutiny of this, or any other power. Mr. Carmichael: The Minister makes a good point about the Information Commissioner. I had not considered the possible role that he would have in this area, albeit that safeguard is one step removed. It is a cut-out and worthy of note. I am concerned that this is not the only way in which this part of the Bill needs to be presented. It might be possible to give the power to the Government to make statutory instruments—secondary orders—to prescribe those people whose information would be held on the database under subsection (4). That would bring a degree of transparency and immediate parliamentary scrutiny, which is currently not present in the Bill. I am not satisfied that we have covered the matter in its entirety. I raised a couple of points that the Minister has not dealt with. I do not necessarily criticise him for that, because I was raising them more or less as they entered my head. If he would have regard to the report of the Committee’s proceedings later, he might wish to drop me a note on the issue. Given that time is moving on and that we are still discussing clause 2, and mindful that we might wish to revisit the matter at a later stage, I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 2.15 pmMr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
Column Number: 112 There was a brief discussion on this subject on the last occasion that the legislation was discussed in Committee. The Minister’s predecessor, the Chief Secretary, addressed questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who moved a similar amendment to the one currently under discussion. I did not find the Chief Secretary’s response on that occasion terribly illuminating, and I wonder whether the Minister will have a better go. In dealing with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, the Chief Secretary said:
a measure on the provision of entries to the person in respect of whom the entry is made—
He went on to say:
We therefore have absolutely nothing to worry about. No doubt the Minister thinks that that is all fine and dandy, but in respect of this new Bill in this new Parliament, we feel that we need far greater clarification from the Minister about the rights, or the absence of rights, among people who are the subject of information on the Government computer. Without such clarification, and without assurances that information about an individual will not be stored, added to or removed without his knowledge, the citizen will be in a position of insecurity. This is not a complex point. It is straightforward: those who are the subject of Government-controlled information should have some knowledge of the fact that they are the subject of Government attention. I would like the Minister to explain briefly why proposed new subsection (4A) should not be added to the Bill. Mr. Carmichael: There is a lot of merit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, which chimed with the point that I made in relation to amending clause 8 and the requirement to let the person know, especially if information might be imported to the database from another source. It is important not only that the person is made aware of that, but that they can check the accuracy of the information. Mr. McNulty: I was chuckling to myself, because I read a little further in the Hansard that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough quoted. The hon. Member for Woking goes on to say:
That tickled me. I wish to make two points. First, I must disappoint the hon. and learned Member for Harborough by simply repeating the now Chief Secretary’s earlier comments. Nothing has changed in terms of the Data
The Data Protection Act contains the normal caveats about practicability, national security, seeking to prevent or disrupt a crime and associated elements. If the amendment were accepted, it would oblige us to tell every person about the details of their entry, regardless of whether they were under scrutiny for national security reasons, with all that that entails, or whether they were being dealt with as part of the prevention and detection of crime. Under the amendment, we would have to tell them everything. That cannot be what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to prevail. As the Chief Secretary said when he was in my position, in many cases the entry will have been made at the individual’s request. The DPA already holds general rules on notification rights, with caveats on practicability, national security and the prevention and detection of crime. Many people will know that they are registered, as they will have applied and been issued with the ID card. However, any person who is concerned that they may have been registered without their knowledge will have data subject and access rights under the DPA; that fuller position, which is rightly in place, covers what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do far better than the amendment does. The amendment is seriously deficient—I do not cast aspersions on drafting abilities—because it does not have the caveats and flexibilities that prevail in the DPA in terms of access to data. Mr. Ellwood: Will the Minister clarify whether there is any provision to prevent an employer who knows that a potential employee has an ID card from requesting a summary of what is on the register? Mr. McNulty: There is no provision for anyone to request and receive a summary of any item of data on the registration database. That is very clear and I have said it previously. The only “access” that anyone will get is as follows. If a person is registered as someone who seeks verification and has duly gone through that process, all they will receive is verification by those working with the database that the database verifies the facts presented by someone purporting to hold the identity of which those facts are part. No one is ever getting read-outs or hard copies of what is on the database, whether it is an employer or anybody else. No, employers cannot have a summary of what is on the database for any employee who may or may not have an ID card. That is clear. Access, along with costs and technology and a bunch of other factors, will underpin our deliberations, but it must be access in the context of verification, not access in terms of hard copies of data or fishing exercises in the database carried out by assorted people to get what they want. All those
Mr. Ellwood: Whether the Bill is voluntary or not, some Labour Members have made it clear that they would like what the Minister describes to happen. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) mentioned yesterday that she would like to see such matters progress. It would be wrong for the Committee not to— John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): She said the opposite. Mr. Ellwood: I stand corrected. I am trying to say, however, that if this is enabling legislation that could lead to the introduction of compulsory ID cards, it would be wrong for us not to bring the matter up as we are discussing things. We are dealing with the Bill and the ability of the security forces and the police, and so on, to carry out many of their operations to make our world safer, and they will not be able to do that until we live in a compulsory environment. If I can just get back to the point— The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be able to get back to it later, but this is an intervention, not a speech. Mr. McNulty: I was about to intervene on the intervention, Mr. Gale, but I thought better of it. The Chairman: Order. Let me explain myself to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. I think that I am right in saying that this is his first Committee. Although he may not have gleaned it from the behaviour of some other Members, an intervention is intended to be incisive and brief and should relate directly to the point that is being made. Once the Minister has taken his seat again, if the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye and expand on the points that he wishes to raise, he may just get lucky. Mr. McNulty: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I agree entirely with the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. Collectively, it is our job—and certainly the job of the Opposition—to ensure detailed scrutiny of the Bill. However, that must be done on the basis of points that are relevant in the first instance to the amendment; I do not mean that in a patronising way. The points that are made should be germane to the substance of the Bill and not to what will or will not prevail three Parliaments down the line or to something in some newspaper or other. That is the only reason why I gently chide the hon. Gentleman and ask him to find the clause that says that ID cards are to be carried compulsorily and need to be presented, and that the police are to have all these new powers. Column Number: 115 The amendment has been presented in the context of access and people receiving summaries, hard copies or whatever of the data, but that is not the purpose of the database. Its purpose is to verify and substantiate ID and no more. The serious point is that even if the gist of the amendment were acceptable to us—and it is not—we would not accept it in its current form because of the absence of those normal flexibilities under law that prevail in the DPA. Such things are about practicability, so that the power is not open-ended and comprehensively permissive. Crucially, elements about national security and the work of our assorted police forces are not in the amendment, so that makes the thing flawed anyway. As I said, the Data Protection Act is a specific measure about people’s access to assorted Government and other databases. It is specifically about those areas and nothing more, and they are a far better place in which to accumulate people’s powers and rights on access to information held about them. Those issues should not be tagged on in the way that the amendment proposes. I am sure that I have not come even remotely close to convincing the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, but I have tried. For all the reasons that I have given, I ask him to seek leave withdraw the amendment. Mr. Ellwood: First, I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Gale. As a junior member of the Committee, I have to learn the tools of the trade. Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is not a junior member of this Committee; he is a member of this Committee. We are all of equal status. He should not feel that simply because he has come into Parliament in 2005, his rights to speak up for his constituents are any less than anybody else’s. The Minister may be a Minister of the Crown, but he is also a Member of Parliament. We are all equal here. Mr. Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that vote of confidence. I appreciate what the Minister has said, and I understand all the aspects that he mentioned. I apologise if I did not make my case clear. I was trying to ask whether an employer, organisation or human resources department could demand a printout. Could they tell somebody asking for a job that they were not sure about their background and get that person to pay £10 to the Home Office or the organisation from which the data could be obtained? We have established that that would be the cost. Could the employer make the person get a summary of what was on the register so that they could qualify further their knowledge about the person’s background, other than what was on the ID card? That was the scenario to which I was referring. I was not suggesting that organisations and employers would somehow be able to have direct access to the register, as the Minister suggested. We have already established that there are strict firewalls, for want of a better word, to prevent that from happening. Column Number: 116 2.30 pmMr. McNulty: Briefly, taken in that regard, the individual can clearly pass that information on if they give consent. If I misinterpreted the absence of the individual and their consent, I apologise; I took the scenario to be the employer going to the verification process or the database to seek the data. Consent of the individual is paramount in that regard, rather than otherwise. If the individual provides the consent, they can stand up various aspects of their identity with the employer. That can happen only in relation to very limited data—the front end of the data in terms of establishing who the individual is—and only with consent. That is the key point. Mr. Garnier: The last few minutes of the exchange have proved interesting and useful. They demonstrate the number of concerns that individual members of the Committee and members of the public will have about the way in which the legislation has been framed. There will be circumstances where some employees, particularly those of the state, may be required, as a term of their contract of employment, to provide details of residential status and so on to their potential employer. There might not be direct access by the employer to the database, but, possibly under the contract of employment, there will be a requirement for the employee to provide details. Mr. McNulty: Certainly there is such provision in the context of previous asylum and immigration legislation, but only in that limited field. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill currently wending its way through our parliamentary process there are even more demands on the employer to stand up, and to regularly touch base with, their employees in terms of that residency status. Such provision exists, but it is not germane to this Bill. Mr. Garnier: The Minister makes the point for me. It is one that I made earlier. Things will become a matter of practice and of routine. If people want to do anything in the United Kingdom in future, they will have to flash-and-go; people will have to show their identity card. People with whom we have intercourse—Members will know what I mean—will require the presentation of the identity card, because it will act as the instant verification machinery for all that is stored about them in the Government’s machine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East did us a service today. He opened up yet another area where access creep has been revealed. This little debate has taught us that there is bound to be a growing change in the balance between the individual and the state. The Minister can do nothing to prevent us from gaining that impression. Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an example of an item of information that an employer might ask for that would be on the identity register database and is not currently on another database? Column Number: 117 Mr. Garnier: If I am quick enough in turning the pages of the Bill, I will. I think that paragraph 9 of schedule 1 might contain the answer. I overheard my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre say something. Mr. Wallace: One thing that we talked about yesterday in relation to the register was the police national computer number. That would be on the register and, if I am not mistaken, an individual requesting it would be given their PNC number. Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that that at least provides the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) with one example. There may be others and if he wishes me to write him an essay on the subject, I will have to let him down. I want to focus briefly on what the Minister said. He highlighted the vagueness of the way in which the Bill is drafted. There is a lack of balance between what the Government call entitlement and the order-making power. I do not need to detain the Committee further with my worries. I certainly will not press the amendment to a Division. Mr. Wallace: I have one query, which my hon. and learned Friend might answer. In other legislation there is protection for the individual, such as the protection that does not allow an employer to ask a female employee whether she was intending to have a baby. While it is not compulsory in the financial sector in certain parts of the country to register to vote or to have a certain credit record, such matters are hard because financial institutions operate a flash-and-go system. People are not forced to have financial records, but if they do not it is difficult to receive a loan. Will the Government put in place a measure that will protect individuals from being forced by commercial convenience to disclose information? Mr. Garnier: I do not know is the short answer, and I do not suppose that the Minister does either. That is what worries me so much about the Bill. As we have said, it is a Christmas tree on which as yet all sorts of undescribed or undefined things will be hung. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I wish it to be on the record that Opposition Members have grave concerns about how the Bill is developing and how the Government are incapable of responding to our worries. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Information recorded in Register Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 25, leave out paragraph (b). The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 20, in clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out paragraph (c). Column Number: 118 Mr. Garnier: Although I anticipated a Division on clause 2 stand part, it did not occur. I wholly disapprove of clause 2 and, had there been a Division, I would have voted no. The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to call a Division if he so wishes. But the moment has rather passed. Mr. Garnier: Precisely. You spotted that too, Mr. Gale. That is why I expressed my opposition to clause 2 remaining part of the Bill, at the outset of my remarks on amendment No. 19. I do not think that members of the Committee are now in doubt about what I think of clause 2. However, the arithmetic of the Committee would have defeated me even if I had raised my voice earlier. The amendments would delete subsection (1)(b) and (c), which cover
and
The provisions describe two of the four categories of information—indeed, the only information—that may be recorded in the register. What does that mean, and why? |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 8 July 2005 |