Identity Cards Bill |
|
Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Newark will explain in a minute how satisfactory we think the parliamentary oversight in this clause. However, I am getting more and more worried as the Bill progresses. The Under-Secretary says that it “might” be sensible to let local government or the fire and ambulance services have access to the information. It might be, but we ought to be told whether that is or is not Government policy and whether it is or is not intended that the Bill should cover that. Andy Burnham: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened to what I said. He will be told, because the House will decide whether a body will be included. It is not for me to dictate which bodies could be included; I simply gave him some examples of how the provisions in the Bill might logically be extended to provide for good public administration. However, ultimately, the House would decide whether that power was ever invoked. Mr. Garnier: I want the Under-Secretary to understand me. I am not making a remark or advancing an argument that is personal to him. I am concerned, on behalf of the Opposition and the citizens whom I represent, about the growing activities of the state. He is wearing the uniform, metaphorically speaking, of a Minister. As far as I am concerned, he represents the state and it is up to the Government, who, under our system, present drafted legislation to Parliament for approval, to explain to the Committee what they have in mind. If they do not have anything in mind, that does not prevent me from complaining that we are passing legislation in a vacuum. I know that the Government say that there will be a statutory instrument before Parliament in due course —we shall discuss later whether it can be properly overseen—but that may not happen for 18 months or two years. In the meantime, as a Member of Parliament, I am required to give the Government the power to do things that they have not necessarily thought about. If they have thought about those things, they are not prepared to tell us in sufficient detail how their thinking has developed. Column Number: 366 The Government must understand that problem if they are to understand the genuine concerns of the public about how Parliament is required to give the Government power. That power must be accountable to the public through Parliament and, if the Government have no idea of what they intend in the clauses, we are all the poorer. I appreciate the arithmetic of the parliamentary situation but that does not prevent me, and should not inhibit me, from making such complaints. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 12.15 pmPatrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in clause 22, page 20, line 15, at end add—
This amendment continues the movement that we started by tabling amendment No. 77, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough has already referred. Amendment No. 78 refers once again to the whole business of parliamentary approval for what the Government suggest in the Bill. The amendment would simply add a new subsection (4). I followed closely what the Under-Secretary said about the previous amendment. I was interested to hear that we won some small gains during the last debate on the Bill and I trust he is prepared to give further ground on this amendment for the simple reason that we know the power to disclose without consent is theoretically extended without limit under the clause. Regardless of the fact that approval is required for regulation, many of us remain extremely worried by the fact that the Home Secretary has essentially written himself a blank cheque. It is difficult to imagine a situation under the clause in which disclosure of information on the register might be justified. On top of that clauses 19 and 21 are already extremely broad. I would have thought that the scope offered by those two clauses was enough. The amendment is very simple. It is designed merely to ensure that parliamentary approval occurs in order that the power to authorise other uses of information under the clause is scrutinised by both Houses. I could go on, but time forbids. I hope that my point is clear and that the Under-Secretary agrees to the amendment. I am interested to know his views. Column Number: 367 Mr. Carmichael: Briefly, I added my name to the amendment for the reasons already outlined by the hon. Gentleman. It seems that we have had vagueness heaped on vagueness, and broadness broadened by broadness. The amendment would put an important check on the manner in which the powers could be extended, but there is a slight irony in the fact that the hon. Gentleman would provide it by way of the so-called super-affirmative procedure. The Committee is aware that I have severe reservations about its efficacy. Ironically, it might even be argued that, by borrowing one of the mechanisms devised by the Government, the official Opposition have managed to produce what would be regarded by some—though clearly not by you, Mr. Hood—as a wrecking amendment. It is important to have a measure of proper parliamentary scrutiny of the inclusion of further bodies under the provisions, which already include a very broad range of powers. I shall be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary, not least to learn whether he can give any reason why the super-affirmative procedure cannot be made to work in this instance. Andy Burnham: Opposition Members have said that the amendment would ensure that bodies were designated under the powers through the super-affirmative procedure, rather than the affirmative. We have come some distance towards the hon. Member for Newark, but I am going to disappoint him, I am afraid, as we shall resist going the extra mile and using the super-affirmative procedure, partly because we feel it would represent inappropriate parliamentary scrutiny of what is proposed. The super-affirmative procedure would be right for powers to do with compulsion, because that would directly affect every citizen of the country. It would, obviously, be a major change. We believe it would be right to use a procedure involving that level of scrutiny in such a case, notwithstanding our exchanges on whether that procedure, as currently conceived, is a workable and effective solution. We endeavour to get back to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on that point. Before going into detail, I should say to the hon. Member for Newark that we did not just elevate the check in the clause from the negative to the affirmative procedure. As he knows, subsection (2) was also added, which directly links any order made under this part of the Bill to the public interest test. We also narrowed the provisions by taking out the measures giving access to the information relevant to paragraph 9 of schedule 1. He will see that that is listed under subsection (1)(a). So, in many ways, we have limited the scope of the clause in respect of comments from Opposition Members. To pick up on the comments made about the previous clause by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, there might be some very sensible reasons for wanting to use the powers—reasons behind which no one need fear anything other than good intent. Local authorities administer public benefits, such as housing benefit and council tax
Another example might involve the emergency services, be it the fire or the ambulance service. Such a service might seek powers to identify people at the scene of accidents. If it emerged that that was a sensible use of the register and a request was made for that information, all of us, as parliamentarians, would have a duty to listen to people in such a position who were asking us to extend their ability to do their job more effectively. We would have that debate in the House if such a request were made. I mentioned the purpose relating to electoral registration. We return to the general point that in our view the Bill will aid good public administration right across the piece. Where there is a high standard of identity verification, it makes sense to allow access to organisations that in their statutory functions carry out identity checks and depend on a high standard of identity verification. I explained to the hon. Member for Newark that the clause is now subject to the affirmative procedure. To go through the same process as is envisaged for the powers to do with compulsion would be to escalate things too far. If anyone were to seek the powers, it would be an obligation too far and could make it more difficult for them to be exercised. I refer him back to the fact that the clause has been significantly strengthened. Bearing my comments in mind, I ask him to withdraw the amendment. Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his clear exposition, and I note that subsection (2) has been included since we last went round this particular buoy. I maintain that super-affirmative powers would be helpful, but none the less, bearing in mind his comments and not wishing to sound more curmudgeonly than normal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 Rules for using information without individual’s consent Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 23, page 20, line 32, leave out from “person” to end of line 34. If parts of the Bill could be described as a dog’s breakfast, clause 23 is the breakfast, lunch and tea. No canine would be dissatisfied when approaching it. As I mentioned, it is completely incomprehensible, but, worse, it will provide the Secretary of State with huge powers to do things that may be in the national interest—we are uncertain that they would be. Column Number: 369 In relation to the Secretary of State, the clause uses phrases such as “may provide a person”, “may by regulations” and “may also by regulations”, and those regulations “may include” certain things. It says that the “rank or position” of the high-ranking police officer
If clause 23 is desperately vague, subsection (3)(c), which I seek to delete, is even vaguer. Subsection (3) says that the regulations “may include” this, that and the other. Subsection (3)(c) refers to
It is simply not good enough to legislate on that basis. I ask the Under-Secretary to explain himself. Andy Burnham: I feel like I am in the headmaster’s study, having to explain myself. I begin by saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the clause will give him some reassurance on the concerns raised in regard to the preceding clauses. Clause 23 lays down the rules. It allows the Secretary of State to lay down the rules for the process by which requests for using information will proceed. That is an important safeguard. 12.30 pmThe clause uses the word “may”, but it is clear what is being authorised. Subsection (3)(b) refers to
Okay, that might be vague, but what it means is that the rank and seniority needed for a request to be made, and for information subsequently to be provided, can be specified. That directly addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre about information swirling round organisations. I take his point on that, but the limits to which it can swirl round can be laid down. There can be limits in relation to the rank of the recipient. Other limits can also be imposed. Paragraph (c) refers to
That is the issue at stake in relation to this amendment. This part of the clause allows the Secretary of State to lay out a clear procedure—for instance, that the request must be delivered in writing. That means that there can be a clear audit of the process; it will all be documented. In our view, that will be a safeguard, rather than a weakness that allows any abuse. Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): My reading of the clause is different from that of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. I think it restricts the use of the register; it restricts who can receive information and imposes requirements on the Secretary of State to specify who can make a request for information. Therefore, I am unsure how this concern arises. Column Number: 370 Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right. This part of the Bill puts in place the rules and safeguards that address the concerns that have been raised. Therefore, Opposition Members should be adding to it, rather than subtracting from it, because each subsection will enable the Secretary of State to be more prescriptive about how requests are made, such as by specifying the person entitled to make applications. Therefore, the clause is important. The Secretary of State may use a power under the clause to impose regulations stating that applications should be in writing. I am sure hon. Members agree that it might be sensible to insist on that, because it will ensure that there is a documented process and that everything is above board and carried out in a proper manner. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s power to insist on such things. Opposition Members can be assured that a rigorous process will underpin access to information, and the Secretary of State’s powers to lay down regulations are clearly set out. We agree with Opposition Members that the rules should be as clear and rigorous as possible to ensure that there is not abuse of the kind that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to. It is obviously right that public bodies have the ability to access information in order for them better to do their job, but it is obviously wrong that that information should then leak out or be abused in any way. These rules will be drafted for the clear purpose that I have outlined; they will give Opposition Members the reassurance they seek. The amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw it. Mr. Garnier: The most significant words the Under-Secretary uttered were that the clause “will enable the Secretary of State to be more prescriptive”. Of course, the Under-Secretary placed the emphasis on the second half—that is, on “to be more prescriptive”—but I am concerned about the first half, which is that the clause “enables the Secretary of State”. Therein lies the philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, and between the statists and those who want the citizen to have a role in the direction of his own life. That may be an unbridgeable gap, but it is a gap that needs to be identified and explained to the public at large. There is no better way to keep something secret than to make a speech about it either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, but let me assure you, Mr. Hood, that Conservative Members will continue to argue for a better balance between the state and the individual, and to argue that the individual should be given the benefit of the doubt, where there is any, as opposed to power and discretion being given to the Secretary of State or the state. I will not detain the Committee any longer by pressing the amendment to a Division. The time permitted by the Government for discussion of the Bill does not permit us to vote on everything with which we disagree, although that is what we would like to do. There will be other opportunities—I suspect in another place—for this aspect, and many others, of
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Appointment of National Identity Scheme Commissioner Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 218, in clause 24, page 21, line 14, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert “Parliament”. I want to expose the fiction of the Secretary of State and the Executive—the Government—being different from Parliament. It will not take an inordinate length of time to do so. We are keen to give Parliament the power of oversight of the Government. We all know that the Executive sit not just in Parliament, but on it. We are talking about an Executive with a large majority—in historical terms, a majority of 66 over all other parties is large, albeit a good deal smaller than the majorities achieved in 1997 and 2001. That majority effectively means that there is no difference between parliamentary oversight and Government diktat. The amendment is perhaps a desperate attempt by the Opposition to get greater oversight of what the Government do in our name. Subsection (1) reads:
That is all very well, but I urge the Government to allow Parliament a rather greater say in affairs of state from time to time. I will be interested to hear what they have to say on that. Mr. McNulty: As ever, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his brevity. He should not be timid: if he wants Divisions, let us have Divisions. There is plenty of time. We are not rushing towards an impending deadline. More time has been made available, so he can have Divisions at his leisure. I do not mean to detain the Committee unduly on this amendment, but let me just say that since the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life reported, all Government appointments have been made under the auspices of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, at Parliament’s behest. Given the existence of the commissioner, we do not feel it necessary for the national identity scheme commissioner to be appointed only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The national identity scheme commissioner will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The standard rules on public appointments will apply and there are untold precedents for such an arrangement—not only in other Departments, but in the Home Office. Column Number: 372 The surveillance commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with Scottish Ministers, the intelligence services commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister and the immigration services commissioner is appointed by the Secretary of State. All are appointed under the auspices discussed and agreed by Parliament according to the Nolan report on standards in public life. That is more than a sufficient safeguard: the process is as open to scrutiny and as transparent as such things can be. Nothing would be achieved by going down the route suggested by the amendment. I hazard a guess that if any other Government were in power, they would make such an appointment in the prescribed manner laid down by Parliament rather than by resolution in both Houses. For those reasons, the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw it. Mr. Garnier: Gosh, I am persuaded by the Minister as far as this: I shall withdraw my amendment. None the less, the balance between the Executive and Parliament is out of kilter and needs to be reformed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 219, in clause 24, page 21, line 27, after “cards”, insert “and the ID Register”. This amendment is simple, but it begs an important question. I fail to understand why we did not get on to debating the substantive matter of identity cards until seven clauses had first been discussed. That led to comments from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and others that the Bill, which we hope will not become an Act, although no doubt it will, should be termed the national identity register Bill. It seems curious that the register should suddenly be left out of an important paragraph of clause 24, which involves us talking about the important issue of the appointment of the national identity scheme commissioner. I do not want to beg the point; with the simple addition of the words in the amendment, we would begin to refocus ourselves on the fact that we are talking about not only a little bit of plastic that nobody can compel us to carry and that we will not be required to surrender when someone asks for it, but the fact that there will be a national register, the objections to which we have already discussed at length. Adding those simple words would help to make things a little simpler. Mr. McNulty: The amendment is simply unnecessary. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 24(2) cover in detail all that is laid out in the legislation and the commissioner’s role in relation to the register. They do not cover
which is why paragraph (d) is there. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) cover the whole gamut of the Bill as the domain within which the commissioner should carry out his or her role. Adding mention of the national register to
Patrick Mercer: We all appreciate art forms in every style that the Minister suggests. Sadly, however, what he is saying is not correct. The amendment would add considerably to the clause, rather than detract from it, but given the fact that we are trying only to add a couple of extra words, and in light of what he said about paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 12.45 pmMr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in clause 24, page 21, line 28, leave out from ‘Commissioner’ end of line 43 and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 184, in clause 24, page 21, line 28, leave out ‘do not’ and insert ‘shall also’. No. 81, in clause 24, page 21, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c). No. 220, in clause 24, page 21, line 36 , after second ‘service’, insert
No. 82, in clause 24, page 21, line 43, at end insert—
Column Number: 374 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 20 July 2005 |