Unlike three other Parliamentary Committees which have
criticised the substance of the Government's ID Card proposals,
this Committee was established in the 1990s to counter "the
considerable disquiet over the problem of wide and sometimes
ill-defined order-making powers which give Ministers unlimited
discretion". In other words, the Committee looks at whether the
executive arm of Government is seeking excessive powers or whether
the powers being sought are subject to sufficient scrutiny by
Parliament.
In relation to whether public services should be conditional
upon an ID check, the Committee stated, "we consider it is not
appropriate to leave the application of that policy to subordinate
legislation" – i.e. it should not be left to the discretion of
Ministers.
In relation to the Government's mechanism to make the ID Card
compulsory, it wrote: "We consider that the super-affirmative
procedure is not an appropriate alternative to a bill for
potentially controversial measures of great public concern".
In both cases, the Committee suggested that these issues be
determined by fresh primary legislation at a later stage in the ID
Card project.
In relation to a wide power to disclose personal data from the
ID Card database without consent of the cardholder the Committee
wrote: "we consider it to be inappropriate unless it can be shown
to be justified."
The justification proffered by the Home Office – that "it is
regarded as essential to have a reserve power to use in the public
interest if it should be necessary" – was dismissed as "an
insufficient justification".
In relation to order making powers which relate to consent, the
Committee said: "We are not persuaded that the case for so wide and
significant power has been made".
On the powers which relate to the content of the database, the
Committee noted that, "the power is not necessarily limited to
information needed to prove identity" and "extends to matters such
as previous addresses, terms of residence in different parts of the
UK and elsewhere and an 'audit trail' of disclosure of register
entries".
The Report thus adds to the weight of the three other
Parliamentary scrutiny Committees who are expressing alarm on
substantive privacy matters:
- The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) Report stated last
month that the database associated with the ID Card risks
infringing the state's obligation to respect private and family
life.
- In the same week as the JCHR Report, the Constitution Committee
reported that the ID Card scheme so alters the relationship between
the state and the individual that the Home Secretary should not be
in charge of the ID Card's database.
- The Home Affairs Select Committee called the powers in relation
to the database "unacceptable."
Each of the above reports contain detailed evidence from the
Home Office concerning the provisions in the ID Card Bill. In most
cases, the critical comments found in the various Committees'
Reports show that this evidence has failed to assuage these
Committees of their concerns.
