Identity Cards Bill |
|
Mr. Carmichael: I should like to know, too. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham): What a pleasure it is to—[Hon. Members: “Speak.”] Members of the Committee will realise that I am not here just for the ride, but to make a contribution to the debate, which is the first under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale.The amendments are not the widest drawn proposals but, judging by their introduction by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, they must be probing amendments to find out the type of information. In fact, they could be wrecking amendments if they were accepted, because the information to which they refer is crucial to the proper running of the system. Mr. Garnier: If they had been wrecking amendments, they would not have been tabled, and if they had been tabled as such they would not have been selected. The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is extremely perceptive. Andy Burnham: I am not an IT expert, but if I can I will explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman some of the information to which these subsections refer. As he says, paragraph (c) refers to
and paragraph (b) says:
Column Number: 119 The ability to manage the security and performance of the register’s IT systems is reliant on being able to assess effectively the operation of the system, and the pieces of information referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) are key to allowing that to happen. Although I am not an IT expert, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to give some examples of such information. We are talking about error, database or event logs, which are essential for problem diagnosis or safe recovery of information in case of a systems failure; necessary technical data, including network event information and encryption codes, which will be used to detect and prevent security attacks and protect the integrity of the data; and certificate revocation logs to ensure that lost or stolen cards cannot be used in attempts to access the register. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that such information relating to a card being cancelled or disabled is crucial if we are to ensure that the system has integrity and that people are not seeking to use a card that has been disabled. That is the type of information to which paragraph (c) relates. The authorities running the database would attach a code to an entry to indicate its expiry and the fact that the card can no longer be used. The clause is also about keeping useful records of cards and card reader and biometric reader information, such as current operational status, manufacturing information and fault history. Such pieces of information are well-established elements within standard IT infrastructure packages and are essential for the security and operation of a database of this type. I hope that the examples I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman are sufficient. I have more detailed technical descriptions if he wants me to provide them. I hope that he will understand that this provision is innocent and purely for the good running and integrity of the database, and to ensure that people who are accessing it are doing so against a live entry that has been entered properly. Mr. Garnier: I do not think that I could say that the Minister has whetted my appetite, nor can I say that I am either better informed or any the wiser, although that may be as much my fault as his. None the less, we have heard with interest and some amazement what he has told us. I think that I shall leave it there. The Chairman: There is a Thursday afternoon feel about this Committee. I take that as a request to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Garnier: Indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out paragraph (d). The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 128, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (2). Column Number: 120 No. 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 38, leave out ‘both practicable and appropriate’ and insert ‘reasonable’. No. 129, in clause 3, page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (3). Mr. Carmichael: The amendments can also be put in fairly short compass: they are probing in nature, rather than ones that I wish to pursue, at least at this stage. However, the Minister may say something to change my mind on that—it has been known to happen. 2.45 pmMany of the arguments that would be advanced in relation to these amendments are the same as those advanced yesterday in relation to the amendments that sought to limit the amount and nature of information that will be held under clause 1(5) as registrable facts. The purpose of the amendments is to remove from the register information that is held at the request of the subject of the entry. The nature and the extent of the information held on the database must be strictly limited. Although the explanatory notes give an interesting example of emergency contact information, I am not persuaded that that alone would be sufficient justification for extending the scope of the clause. However, being mindful of events in the city earlier today, I am aware that there might be some merit in that. There is scope for abuse. It is conceivable that people could agree to information being held on them if not exactly under duress, then under misrepresentation. How many times in the course of the working week do we sign forms without reading them properly? Someone of limited intelligence, or without good literacy skills, or whose first language is not English, might have a form put in front of them that says, “Just sign here so we can keep a record of this information. It is for your own good.” It is even more likely that people will not understand the full legal significance of information held in relation to them. Let me remind the Committee of the example I offered yesterday in respect of reference numbers: people might not know how a reference number might be understood by somebody accessing the database. On balance, there is no real need for this sort of information to be held on the database, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point. Mr. Garnier: I want to address amendment No. 21 and, possibly, amendment No. 129. Amendment No. 21 would alter clause 3(2), which deals with information recorded in the register, by changing the wording of paragraph (c). The clause is divisible into separate parts. Subsection (1) deals with information that “may” be recorded in the register, and subsection (2) deals with information about an individual that “must” be recorded in the register. Herein lies an area of concern. Information about an individual that must be recorded in the register, whether or not it is authorised by schedule 1—which we will deal with in due course—occurs when an individual applies to the Secretary of State requesting the recording of the information as part of his entry. I would be interested
However, subsection (2)(b) states that
Here, we return to the old problem. To refer to it again will seem repetitive, but that has to be done every time we return to it. We have not seen the regulations, and we have no idea what the Government envisage in respect of the information that they intend to describe in their regulations. We are simply legislating in the dark. It is not good enough, in my submission, to legislate in the dark, particularly about an area of public policy as sensitive as this. Even if a person makes an application because they want something about them to be recorded in the register, and even if it fits with the regulations that we have yet to see, they can only do that if the Secretary of State—tug our forelocks—considers that it is practicable and appropriate for it to be recorded in accordance with the applicant’s request. How does the applicant make the application? Does he pop down to some Jobcentre Plus office? Does he go down to some local authority, or a Department for Work and Pensions office, or does he have to make a formal written application on a form, pay an application fee and send it off to the Home Office or one of the Government offices—in many cases, the Government office for the east midlands, based in Nottingham? How are such applications to be made, and how is the Home Secretary to reach a proper consideration of the practicability and the appropriateness of the information that the applicant wishes to have recorded about him? For my part, I find it difficult to think of information about me that I would want the Secretary of State to have, unless it were for some reason that would advantage me, as opposed to being convenient for the state. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East is going to tell us something. Mr. Ellwood: I can think of one example that might be useful: next of kin details. Mr. Garnier: There we are. Perhaps. What that indicates is not only that the information on the register about me will contain compulsory information that I have to put there, but that it might become a general store cupboard for my entire life, which, for my personal convenience or for the facilitation of the statutory purposes, the Government decide that I should store there as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, yesterday or the day before, told us that huge numbers of bytes of memory would be required on the Government IT system in order to store and accumulate, and to allow the exchange of, that information. We all have our concerns about the Government’s ability to procure and manage IT projects, but I want to know what citizens will have to do in order to satisfy the Secretary of State that the
Liberal Democrat amendment No. 129 seeks to delete subsection (3), which states that where
and
that should stand as a “conclusive presumption” that the information to which the direction relates is accurate and complete information about that matter. I want to focus our attention on the expression “conclusive presumption”. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I, and possibly others in the Room, may be familiar with presumptions of one sort or another: some are rebuttable, some are irrebuttable. Some are rebuttable in the course of criminal proceedings but not in civil proceedings, and so on. A conclusive presumption is a fairly concrete dam—a large hurdle—which the citizen, or somebody else who is relying on or who wishes to question the information, will have to overcome. I am concerned about that, but perhaps my concerns will be assisted by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Carmichael: Indeed, it is curious that the expression “conclusive presumption” has been used here. Certainly it is possible that both an individual and the Secretary of State could be mistaken about something, yet they would not be able to get over a conclusive presumption. Surely there would be no difficulty in having a rebuttable presumption. Mr. Garnier: To push that a little further, there are other occasions, for example under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, in which the recording of a conviction against an individual can stand in civil proceedings as a presumption that he was rightly convicted, and had performed the criminal act. That can sometimes be overturned—the method need not detain us now. However, this seems to be a novel introduction of a category of presumption into the Bill. Mr. Carmichael: The hon. and learned Gentleman can perhaps confirm my understanding of conclusive presumption—I think that the distinction between a presumptio juris and a presumptio juris et de jure is that the latter category includes such things as the presumption that there will be 24 hours in the day, whereas anything else would be a rebuttable presumption. Mr. Garnier: Clearly, they talk of nothing else in the bars of Lerwick. The hon. Gentleman is right. One’s date of birth and the fact that one is the child of the person who is recorded as one’s parent on one’s birth certificate are considered to be presumptions that the court, for obvious reasons of efficiency and the
I am concerned—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is, as it is his amendment and he has given some thought to it—about the use in this sensitive piece of legislation of the expression “conclusive presumption”. If this were a straightforward criminal justice Bill, affecting the relationships between private individuals, my concerns would not be as marked as they are about this Bill. However, we are considering a potential Act of Parliament that contains a strange expression underpinning an insidious alteration in the relationship between the citizen and the state. No doubt the “nothing to fear, nothing to hide” brigade will say that I am fiddling around and making silly points about something that we need not worry about. I am genuinely concerned that where the balance between the state and the citizen is to be changed, we should be told everything, and the Government should be as clear, open, candid and frank as they can be. Where powers are given to the Secretary of State, as they are in this clause, to do things adverse or beneficial to the interests of the citizen, we should be told more about them. So it is with amendment No. 129, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister, whichever Minister it is, has to say. Andy Burnham: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he hopes that the Government will tell him everything. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister and I have been doing. There has been no attempt at any point to withhold any information about this legislation. Let me begin with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. As he knows, clause 3(2)(c) provides that where a person makes a request to add voluntary information to his entry in the register, the Secretary of State must record that information, among other things, where it is “both practicable and appropriate” to do so. That is the purpose of the clause. His amendment would remove the ability of the individual to ask for that information to be added. I think that he indicated that that was a probing amendment, in which case let me take him through a few things that we think might be appropriate, and perhaps he will be reassured. During the consultations that the Government carried out following the publication of the initial Green Paper in 2002, the ability to record voluntary information was mentioned frequently as a feature that people would like the legislation to cover. I refer the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland back to the statutory purposes. He will know that they relate to the individual’s convenience. Clause 1(3)(a) states that an aim is to provide
We must bear in mind that spirit. The provision that we are discussing links back to the Bill’s original purposes. Many people who were questioned during the consultation saw the advantage in being able to record information such as organ donor status. I have had
3 pmThe hon. Member for Bournemouth, East raised an interesting point about next of kin. I remember that when I set off on my first Inter-rail trip with my first passport at the age of 18, my mum insisted on having the details that used to be on the back page written in—I think it was an old blue passport but the details can be put in the current one. People could write down the next of kin and address details. Emergency contact details in a more modern context involve exactly that kind of information. I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing sinister behind the provision. We believe that it carries forward the spirit that I mentioned. People want to have things about themselves that would be useful to them in an emergency situation included. We should give them that provision. Mr. Ellwood: This is an interesting debate about what could be placed in the legislation. I think the Under-Secretary said that he was in discussions with blood donor organisations. Am I correct in that? If that is the case, and if there is a requirement to have discussions, would that mean that such organisations would be placing the information on the register? Will the Minister clarify the situation on the information? If we are talking simply about my placing such information on there, it goes no further than the debate we have had so far. If the Minister is suggesting that another organisation, separate from the governmental organisations, will be able to place information on there, that opens up a whole new ball game. Andy Burnham: I am happy to clarify that point. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised it as well. He mentioned “sign here” and asked whether people would be under any pressure to record information when they might not want to do so. They might not understand what they were adding to their entry. I assure Members that we are talking purely about a request made by the individual and not one that empowers an organisation, albeit one with a noble and useful purpose such as an organ donation organisation. Such an organisation is not empowered to request the information gathered. It is the individual’s prerogative whether or not information should be added. I have had discussions with the BMA. It is important to say that it sees a lot of practical advantage from the Bill. Members might know that it is keen to expand the number of people who are registered as organ donors. I would not want to overstate its support, but obviously there is potential for people to make the request more easily known to the authorities. I stress again that this is about an individual voluntarily deciding to add information to the register. Column Number: 125 The hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked about how such applications would be made. I believe that the intention is to allow a space on the application form in which individuals could give information that they would like to be included. Once the regulations had been passed, the intention would be to set out the types of information that they would like to include under the heading. The process would be voluntary and entirely at the convenience of the individual. It would be at their disposal to decide whether it was in their interests to include that further information; no coercion at all would be involved. Mr. Garnier: Does the Under-Secretary not think that his life would have been rather easier if these regulations, forms and so on had been prepared in advance of this discussion? He would then have been able to say, “There is absolutely nothing to worry about; here is what we propose.” At the minute, however, he is guessing and cannot reassure me about the application procedure. He says, “I believe” or, “It is hoped that”. A little more certainty at this stage would have been useful for the presentation of the Government’s case and the relief of Opposition fears. Andy Burnham: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should say that I am not guessing. I have just outlined the process by which people would add such information to the register. As I said, there would be a space on the application form—that is pretty clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that I cannot hand him the national identity register application form with all its boxes and details, and I cannot do that. However, we have not yet passed the Bill into law; it is proper that we should be discussing such issues now so that if concerns are raised, they can be taken on board before final decisions are made. I am trying to explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman the clear process by which that information would be added. That other section would list, for instance, the kind of information that people may want to add. That seems an entirely sensible process, and a lot of people would take advantage of it. Mr. Ellwood: If somebody wanted to make a subsequent change or addition to what was already in that block, would they be charged? What would the process be? How much would it cost to do that? Andy Burnham: As the Bill makes clear in other places, it is for the individual to be satisfied with the information held about them on the register. They will be in full control of what is applied in the register, particularly in the voluntary section, when they enter their details on it. If people want to make a correction, a process will be outlined through which they can simply and easily do that. Before now, we have said that internet access to the record would be free. A process will be outlined whereby people can amend their record simply. It will
Mr. Garnier: Did the Minister say that the only way of doing that would be via the internet? Andy Burnham: No; that would not be the only way. However, the scheme is to be designed for ease of access to the individual’s record—obviously with the necessary security measures in place—so that people can access and view their records on the database with ease and, if necessary, request that changes be made. That should be as simple as possible and at as little cost as possible, if any cost at all. It is in everybody’s interest that the record should be accurate and reflect the individual’s wishes, particularly about the extra information that could be added. I move on to other points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He questioned why this part of the Bill was secondary legislation. The information placed in the register would be entirely voluntary. In that spirit, I hope he understands that it is proper for the provision to be left flexible, so that we can consider the range of information that people might wish to register. Mr. Wallace: I want to clarify internet access to the record. Will the individuals’ process of accessing their record from the internet be free? Andy Burnham: I can confirm that there will be no charge to amend a record that is held on the register, unless—there is an “unless”—a new card needs to be issued. If that is necessary, a charge will probably be attached to it. However, if the matter is one of simply correcting or expanding a record on the register, there will be no charge and it will be there for the convenience of the individual. Mr. Ellwood: I am sorry to press the Minister, but I noted yesterday that there was a charge of £10 for the data to be checked. I understand now that it is possible to do that via the internet for free. Andy Burnham: That is a different point. The charge of £10 relates to a data access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is a usual charge that most public authorities make because a certain administrative process is involved. The point made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister was that the Government are clear that the system is being conceived to allow people free access to their record via the internet. There will be no charge to view the record on the internet. I hope that my explanation has clarified the point for the hon. Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough did not talk a great deal about amendment No. 21, but I shall expand on some of the reasons why we believe that the practicable and appropriate test is right, but not the test of reasonableness. He referred to an intervention by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre about the potential size of the files that could be held. In that sense, practicable is important because the information to be held will be of a reasonable size that can be stored easily on the system. The test of
People who are unhappy with the Secretary of State’s decision not to record information about them will be free to complain to the national identity scheme commissioner. Although he would not have the power to direct the Secretary of State to reverse the decision, he would be able to examine and report on the way in which the Secretary of State had used his power under the clause. I hope that my comments have cleared up matters. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 8 July 2005 |