|
Mr. Browne: I was in the process of addressing the issue that was of most interest to the hon. Member for Winchester: the options that we are devising for recording and communicating consent depending on the circumstances. Of course, they will be of interest to other hon. Members. I advised the Committee that they include the use of PINs, which are becoming well known in the context of credit cards and other financial cards, and biometrics where the card holder is present.
For situations in which the card holder is not present, options include signed consent forms as well as contractual agreements between the user and information requestor. Those areas most concerned the hon. Gentleman. He can have my reassurance that we will seek the highest level of propriety, to satisfy ourselves that consent to the circumstances of a contract is informed consent and not incidental consent.
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister be clear about marketing tools, which involve tick boxes and small print? It would be reassuring if he were to say that he is not seeking that kind of consent but something of a higher standard.
Mr. Browne: I am on record as being critical of the way individuals have agreed the collection of a significant amount of their information with private organisations, in the context of loyalty cards and other cards, without the necessary level of informed consent. I am far from satisfied that people realise when they sign up exactly how much information about themselves they are allowing private commercial organisations to have. I will certainly not be responsible for regulations or consent forms that replicate that in this area of public policy.
Mr. Curry: I want to inform the Minister about one small exception. I have just been refused a card at Waitrose on the grounds that it could not find any record of any other transactions, merely because I do not build up debts on my credit card. Not having accumulated debts, I was refused a card.
Column Number: 288
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us about the disgraceful and scandalous way in which he has been treated by an institution in this country. Waitrose does not know what it is missing, and it will live to regret its decision.
We will demand the highest standards of security for this scheme, but requiring written consent each time without regard to the circumstances would be impractical and would negate many of the scheme's benefits. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Malins: We have had a most helpful response, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in clause 14, page 14, line 6, at end add—
'(9) If an individual applies to the Secretary of State for the provision to himself of all or any information recorded in his entry in the Register, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to supply to the individual all such information requested.'.
This has crept up on me rather more quickly than I had hoped. The amendment is another example of openness and frankness. As the Bill is currently phrased, what are the circumstances under which I can go to the Home Secretary and ask what is on the register about me as I would like it for my memoirs?
Alternatively, would the introduction of the amendment add anything that would be to my benefit? This is a probing amendment. I move it in that spirit.
Mr. Browne: The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide all or any details requested by an individual included in the register if those details related to his own entry. It is substantially unnecessaryemdash not totally unnecessary, because there are some exemptions that I shall deal with.
As I have already told the Committee on a number of occasions, the Data Protection Act 1998 will apply to the identity card scheme. The national identity register and existing subject access rights under that Act will apply. Broadly speaking, individuals will be able to access information on the register about themselves at their own request.
The Data Protection Act includes exemptions that ensure that information that might not be in the public interest to disclose would not have to be provided. That is already accounted for and well understood in the context of the clause.. This is the right approach. I recollect that the draft Bill contained a clause that cast some doubt on this matter.
One of the further benefits of consultation in pre-legislative scrutiny is that that provision has now been removed from the Bill to clarify it. In addition, we are looking at ways of ensuring that an individual will be able to read his or her card and register entry as easily as possible. For example, we may be able to offer a service whereby an individual could read the information held in his or her entry securely through the internet or public service kiosks. I may have said that three or four times to the Committee and I apologise for repeating myself. Hon. Members may be
Column Number: 289
reassured that the spirit of the amendment is already covered in the scheme. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. Malins: The Minister's reply has helped us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Power to make public services conditional on identity checks
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in clause 15, page 14, line 13, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This is a quite important amendment. Clause 15 deals with powers to make services conditional on identity checks. We must be realistic and confirm what public services we are talking about. The Minister will be able to do that. I assume that he means access to the doctoremdash save for emergency treatment that must be available automatically to anybody; other medical services such as dentistry; local authority housing or education; or a variety of public services—[Interruption.].
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has helpfully pointed out the benefits. It helps to know what public services we are talking about. The clause states that regulations can make it a condition that before I get those services I produce to the person who is going to provide them an ID card, other evidence of registrable facts about myself or both under subsections (1)(b) and (c), which I seek to omit. They are heavy handed. Can the Minister justify his position?
I do not know when the regulations will be introduced. I could be the sort of person who has not yet been issued with an identity card, but may be under an obligation to provide registrable facts to the Secretary of State. When I have done that, it may be some while before I am asked for an identity card.
I find this measure incongruous. I am used to being asked to produce a card for various functions, so that is not a problem for me, but I am concerned about the reference to
''other evidence of registrable facts . . . or
That might create a burden on the individual. I ask the Minister to be kind enough to justify that requirement, and to explain the circumstances in which it might operate, in particular in relation to different people.
Mr. Curry: The clause begins by stating:
''Regulations may make provision allowing or requiring''.
It appears that there is a permissiveness in the legislation. People might well be required to establish their identity, but what does ''allowing'' mean in that context? Does it mean that one GP surgery might require that and another might not? With regard to certain public services—such as when someone applies for a senior citizen's railcard or a bus pass—might
Column Number: 290
some local authorities require that and others might not? What are the circumstances in which there would be that discretion?
How will I know whether the person I am dealing with has the authority to demand that, on a discretionary basis? I would expect to know for which services I need to take my card. The Minister said that we will not have to carry the cards, but the Prime Minister has used the expression ''carry the cards.'' If there will be discretionary requirements, the Minister must tell us about the circumstances for that, and the framework within which that discretion might be used.
Those wonderful expressions ''may'' and ''allow'' leave a lot more room than ''must'' and ''shall require''. I would be interested to know what thoughts the Minister has in his mind.
Mr. Browne: What I have in my mind is that across the public sector there are already many situations in which statutory services require an individual to produce proof of identity—for example, when receiving benefits or when initially registering with a GP. However, of necessity, people doe not need to prove their identity every time they have an interaction with any such services. Part of GP services is to build up relationships, and one would hope that a GP would come to know a person whom they see regularly, and would be able to recognise them. The idea that people will have to produce these cards in all circumstances and for every transaction is neither tenable nor logical, and it is highly improbable—impossible, I would venture to suggest—that a set of regulations would be drafted in such a way.
There are any number of potential relationships in public services where people need to prove their identity, and all of them are potentially capable of being subject to regulations under clause 15. It gives a power to make regulations requiring an ID card or ''evidence of registrable facts'', or both, in order to be provided with a public service.
This measure is not intended to facilitate interfering with or changing a person's entitlements. It is merely intended to give service providers flexibility in deciding what proof of identity is the most appropriate in particular circumstances, and what level of identity check is necessary.
The regulations that can be made under this clause require prior consultation with members of the public likely to be affected, followed by parliamentary consent under the affirmative resolution procedure. There will need to be a separate decision for each service. There will be plenty of opportunity to have detailed discussions on whether, depending on the nature of the service that it provides, a service provider should have the flexibility to require people to produce the highest level of identity. Such things can be tailored to suit individual circumstances, and we do not intend to be prescriptive in this legislation. For example, cost-benefit analysis will have to be done on benefits to ascertain whether the highest level of check would be appropriate, and for what number of transactions. Such decisions will be made in the fullness of time.
Column Number: 291
The other important point is that, under clause 15, we cannot require a person to produce an ID card to receive payments, such as social security benefits, or free public services, such as NHS treatment, until it is compulsory for that person to register under clause 6. That seems logical as well, and is a further protection against full compulsion by the back door.
4.30 pm
| 
