| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a colourful way of putting it but a little wide of the Question. Certainly two members of the advisory group on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act—the Information Commissioner herself and Mr Maurice Frankel, the director of the campaign for freedom of information—made representations on the subject of earlier implementation of Section 77. Mr Frankel made the point that Section 77 would merely penalise what public authorities must already recognise would be unacceptable—that is, the destruction of requested records to subvert an applicant's right of access. On the other hand, I hasten to say that there is no evidence whatever that any government department is deliberately destroying records to frustrate valid access requests. None the less, as I said, prompted by the noble and learned Lord's Question and the representations that I have described, I am consulting across government about the possibility of an earlier implementation of that section.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, when is it intended that Sections 19 and 20 of the Act dealing with publication schemes should be brought into force? Has the noble and learned Lord had equivalent second thoughts about accelerating the regrettable decision not to bring the main part of the Act into force until January 2005?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no, I have not had second thoughts, and that remains the position. As regards Sections 19 and 20, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in as much as Section 77 applies only to public authorities, are there any plans to extend it to the private sector?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when Section 77 is brought into force, it will apply to a request under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. The Freedom of Information Act applies only to public authorities. The Data Protection Act applies to both public and private bodies, but the offence under Section 77—as Section 77(1)(a) makes clear—applies only to requests to public authorities.
The Section 77 offence was created to ensure consistency of approach between freedom of information and data protection in the public sector. The Freedom of Information Act, unlike the Data Protection Act, does not apply to the private sector.
I have no evidence at all that destruction of records to which people are entitled under the Data Protection Act is occurring in the private sector, but if any noble Lords have information in that regard, I shall, of course, consider it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord's reply, particularly as regards the earlier implementation of Section 77. As Section 77 applies to public authorities and creates an offence in relation to withholding information, are the Government primarily concerned with protecting government departments, for the time being at any rate? That was not the impression given previously.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government do not intend to protect government departments. Section 77 will provide a protection for the individual when it is introduced; but there is no evidence whatever—and the Information Commissioner would confirm this—that any destruction of documents by government departments is taking place.
Identity Fraud: Entitlement Card Consultation
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many government departments now issue entitlement cards as identification documents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, three departments do so. The DVLA issues photocard driving licences. The Home Office is issuing application registration cards to asylum seekers. The passport, which helps travellers prove their entitlement to consular assistance, is the
other widely accepted proof- of-identity document in the United Kingdom. The Passport Service is seeking to develop a card form of the passport book.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful reply. With fraud running at a rate of about £1.2 billion a year, would it not be a good idea to introduce a voluntary entitlement card to cover all aspects? I believe that a consultation White Paper will be published shortly on this matter. Does the Minister know when it will be available?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Identity fraud is a growing crime. A figure of £1.2 billion is the current estimate—although it is difficult to be definite. It is clearly one of the issues that will be debated when the Government publish a consultation paper in the summer on the pros and cons of an entitlement card. Without being able to give a precise answer as to the date, the last two days appear to imply that summer is getting closer, do they not?
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, given the appointment of my noble friend to the Home Office, might he consider doing what his predecessor felt unable to do? Will he rewrite the language and use the term "national identity cards"? That is what we are talking about in principle. Is it not true that in every area of public administration—health, taxation, law and order, credit regulation, the benefits system and higher and further education among ithers—there is an overwhelming need for the introduction of a national identity card? That is now the overwhelming view of the British public, as would be found if only we were to test their view in opinion polls.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend is well known for the vehemence of his advocacy of the need for an identity card. I do not think that the Government are interested in an identity card. All that an identity card does is to prove one's identity—or to seek to do so.
Lord Filkin: The issue, therefore, is to what extent an entitlement card which effectively allowed a range of other documentation to be collapsed into it could be of benefit to the public. The Government are unlikely to take a hard view one way or the other but they are keen to see a full and thoughtful debate about the benefits to the public of an entitlement card which might mean that they no longer needed to carry a range of other cards and identity documents.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, approaching this subject from the opposite direction to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are the Government aware that there is a risk, and in some circles considerable concern, that we are approaching the introduction of a national identity card by stealth? Does the Minister
agree that, if we are to have a national identity card, there must be an open debate about it and the Government will have to prove their case? They will have a seriously difficult case to prove.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree on the importance of an informed debate about the pros and cons of an entitlement card and the possible benefits to the public. That is why the consultation paper, when it comes out in the summer, will set out those arguments and seek to engage the widest possible cross-section of the community in reflecting on what might be the benefits and the costs of having or not having an identity entitlement card. This House will no doubt play a vigorous role in the discussion and appraisal of that consultation paper.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I must say, first, that I tremble with anxiety at having been so presumptuous as almost to have got in the way of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. That said, I beg the Minister to go further than merely discovering that an identity card is about revealing identity. It could have other uses. I ask the Government to open their mind. My noble friend asked a very sensible question, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I should have hoped that the noble Lord would take the great risk of accepting those encouraging questions.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have not been here long, but long enough to know that it never pays to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. That was exactly what I sought to signal when I made what the House thought a slightly semantic point. A document that merely purports to prove identity does not add great benefits to an individual citizen. If, on the other hand, a card identified one's identity but also acted as a driving licence and a passport, and gave access to a range of public services, it could be of benefit and constitute an advance. An identity card by itself might not be so advantageous.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds has asked Her Majesty's Government how many separate electronic databases they hold on average on each male and female United Kingdom citizen? The question was asked as long ago as 15th March. It relates without question to the issue of identity cards. Will my noble friend give some indication as to when a reply is likely?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is considerably sooner than if the question had not been answered in oral Questions today. I do not seek to answer it totally. Clearly, a Written Answer should come rapidly forward. This is not a Home Office responsibility, I am delighted to say, but to the best of my knowledge there are some five major databases operated by central government or the devolved administrations: the departmental central index which holds national insurance numbers; the NHS central
register; the UK passport central database; and the databases of drivers and vehicles held by DVLA. No doubt there are others, and I shall do my best to ensure that the proper Written Answer comes as soon as possible.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |