|
Mr. McNulty: Let me deal first with the lead amendment. I will then address some of, but not all, the subsequent amendments. Clause 3(4) provides that information
''may continue to be recorded in the Register for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes for it to be so recorded.''
Amendment No. 22, which we dealt with some time ago, would take out the words ''consistent with'' and replace them with the words ''necessary for''. Clause 3(6) empowers the Secretary of State to make an order adding to the information that may be recorded on the register where he considers, again, that it will be ''consistent with'' the statutory purposes to do so. Amendment No. 23 would change that test to one of ''necessary for'' statutory purposes.
One can only assume that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is of the view that the amendments would impose a higher test than the one that is in the Bill for the retention of existing information and the addition of further information.
Column Number: 161
One also assumes that he seeks consistency with the fifth data protection principle, which states:
''Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.''
The second of the two statutory purposes—we always return to those—is in clause 1(3)(b). It is to provide
''a secure and reliable method for registrable facts about . . . individuals to be ascertained or verified wherever that is necessary in the public interest.''
The test in clause 3 of ''consistent with'' the statutory purposes must therefore be read in the light of the necessity test that is built into the statutory purposes. The net result provides no less protection than would a double necessity test. Furthermore, it is not inconsistent with the fifth data protection principle.
In other words, as I have said on previous occasions, one always has to return to the building blocks that permeate clauses 1, 2 and 3. The necessity test that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks is in clause 1(3) rather than in clause 3.
Amendment No. 26, tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would require a super-affirmative resolution for any orders amending schedule 1, whether they added or removed information. Amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would require further primary legislation if the schedule ever needed modification, as they would remove the possibility of modifying the schedule by secondary legislation.
Two further amendments, Nos. 24 and 188, would make any orders either adding information to or removing it from the schedule subject to affirmative orders. That would not be an effective use of parliamentary time. There is already suitable scrutiny to safeguard people's privacy with a balance of negative and affirmative resolution procedures and the requirement that information may be added only if it is consistent with the statutory purposes.
The statutory purposes are not there for fun or just to make the Bill's first three clauses consistent. They are a real test and everything that flows from them needs to be seen in that regard. We shall resist those initial amendments. Although I understand where they are coming from, we do not agree with them.
As for the footprint—the tail end of paragraph 9 of schedule 1—I do not agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). With due apology, he was again using sloppy language. He talked about a credit reference. There will be no record on the database of someone applying for a credit reference. As paragraph 9 states, entries will record when there has been an attempt to verify. The hon. Gentleman talked about identifying people's traits and other elements.
Mr. Wallace rose—
Mr. McNulty: I shall not give way for the moment. The hon. Gentleman's argument is simply hot air and not sustained by the Bill in its language. His other
Column Number: 162
points about previous legislation are not terribly relevant because the Bill must be seen in the context of the statutory purposes that I have outlined. For all that he said about prior Acts of Parliament that establish security services or otherwise and that bring them into the open, that does not matter other than in the context of the statutory purposes under the Bill.
I am sure that what I am about to say is the wrong interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it could really be about trying to limit the efficacy and efficiency of those services. I am sure that that is not what he wants to do. Functions are widely drawn deliberately because of the task and functions that we ask those services to undertake, and that is entirely appropriate.
Mr. Wallace: Of course, I concede the credit reference point, but I want to refer to the footprint made each time people present information for a public service, which they are required to produce, and when they are stopped by the police, register with a GP or attend a hospital and have their details verified. Each time a Minister changes which public services require identification to be established before a service is delivered and the remit widens, the footprint will be there.
Mr. McNulty: At the risk of boring the Committee, I must pull the hon. Gentleman up on his language again. Nowhere in the Bill is there a provision to be stopped by the police. So will he please not use language or ascribe provisions to the Bill that simply do not exist? Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that the security services could look through the register. Again, that is not strictly correct. The Bill does not allow anyone to look through the register. We must get our language right.
The powers under clause 9 will provide information to the security and intelligence services when they request it from the register. It is like any other element in the verification process. There is not licence in the Bill for anyone to browse, fish or go through the register at length or in any way, shape or form. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will desist from using poorly informed examples or sloppy language to ascribe matters to the Bill that are simply not there.
Mr. Wallace: There is. Perhaps the Minister was being sloppy in his language by leaving out ''in line with their functions''. The Acts that set out functions, to which I have alluded, allow the security services to request the information in line with their functions. The functions are not specific, so the request could be in line with the function, so it will be order for the Secretary of State to request all information on individuals in a certain part of London. That will be in line with the functions. We could argue about whether that was browsing, focusing or whatever, but it is in line with their functions. The Minister left out ''in line with their functions''.
11.15 am
Mr. McNulty: That is actually the next line on my bit of paper, but that is by the by. We could not, by any terms, say that the provision allowed browsing. When the hon. Gentleman referred to earlier legislation, I said very clearly that we were putting
Column Number: 163
on a legislative footing that which was not on such a footing before—that is, the provisions relating to the security services. Everything in the Bill stems from clause 1, so whatever any other legislation says when ascribing functions to the security services—or any other organisation, state or otherwise—all that they can do in relation to the register is in the context of the statutory purposes of the Bill. That is the reference point: those statutory purposes, not any legislation that created an organisation in the first place. Everything in the Bill flows from statutory purposes.
As I was saying before I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, the powers in clause 19 are to provide information. They are not a licence to go fishing or browsing; they are to provide information to the security and intelligence services when they request any information from the register that is needed to carry out the agency's functions—so, yes, he is right there—in terms of the statutory purposes of the Bill, and no more. It says that on the face of the Bill, right at the start. Clause 1 says what the Bill is about. All the powers and functions in the other 44 clauses that flow from clause 1 stem from statutory purposes.
Two things can happen in Committee: someone alights on a clause and does not read it in the context of the overall Bill—an easy mistake for any Member to make, experienced or otherwise—or someone alights on a reference from another piece of legislation, and looks at the Bill in the context of the old legislation and does not see the wider picture involving the new legislation. There is no facility in the Bill to allow police to stop people and ask for the production of their ID card, and there is certainly no licence for anyone to go fishing or browsing in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
To dwell on what was said on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I take the points made about affirmative versus negative procedure, super-affirmative procedure, and using primary legislation rather than anything else to alter schedule 1, but I simply do not agree.
Mr. Carmichael: Before the Minister moves on to my amendment, and following on from the point raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, the Minister is right that there is no power to browse the register, but he must be aware that it is quite possible that, with a minimum of information, the security services could undertake a fishing expedition. I draw a parallel with the granting of warrants. In order to get a warrant for the security services to search a house, reasonable grounds for seeking the warrant have to be shown. Where is the ''reasonable grounds'' protection in this Bill? Who makes sure that the security services, or indeed any other service, is not using the power to obtain information without proper cause?
| 
