Column Number: 287
Standing Committee D
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
†Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Jimmy Hood
†Baird, Vera (Redcar) (Lab)
†Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)
†Borrow, Mr. David S. (South Ribble) (Lab)
†Burnham, Andy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
†Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
†Drew, Mr. David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
†Ellwood, Mr. Tobias (Bournemouth, East) (Con)
Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
†Garnier, Mr. Edward (Harborough) (Con)
†McNulty, Mr. Tony (Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality)
†Mercer, Patrick (Newark) (Con)
†Mountford, Kali (Colne Valley) (Lab)
†Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab)
†Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
†Robertson, John (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab)
†Ryan, Joan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)
†Wallace, Mr. Ben (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con)
John Benger, Emily Commander, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 289
Thursday 14 July 2005
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
Clause 11
Power to require information for validating Register
Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.
1 pm
Question again proposed.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): In this morning’s sitting, I commented on subsection (5) and the curious absence of Scottish Ministers, and I speculated that, under paragraph (e), they might not be covered in respect of all their functions. I hope that the Government will look into that before we return to this matter on Report.
Subsection (6) raises a curious spectre of a Minister suing Minister within the national Government, or a Westminster Minister raising proceedings against a Minister in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. I presume that that would be an exceptional situation, but that remains to be seen.
The duty under subsection (6)(b) is enforceable in civil proceedings in three circumstances. The first of them is “for an injunction”. The second is
“for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988”.
If I ever knew what that was, I am afraid that I have long since forgotten. However, it appears that it refers to a specific performance of a statutory duty, so it would be considerably narrower than an interdict, which is the Scottish term of art equivalent to an injunction. The third circumstance—we return to the issue of “anybody else who knows me”—is
“for any other appropriate remedy or relief.”
That is very widely drafted.
If the Under-Secretary addresses subsection (5), he might consider giving Scots law its proper place in subsection (6). I realise hon. Members might expect a Scot such as me to make such a point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Andy Burnham): In previous discussions, I undertook to write to the hon. Gentleman in order to set out clearly our position. For the record, it is our understanding that the Bill takes care of his concerns, and that subsection (5)(e) does the job that it is supposed to do. However, I owe him a full explanation on this point. I will endeavour to provide
Column Number: 290
him with that, and I am confident that it will give him the reassurance that he seeks. I will write to him in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Notification of changes affecting accuracy of Register
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 12, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of ensuring that an individual is able to comply with his duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must at least once every two years send in a prescribed manner to each individual to whom an ID card has been issued at his prescribed address a copy of the information recorded as at a prescribed date about that individual in the Register.’.
I trust that our debate on this clause will be straightforward, as we are unlikely to have enough time to discuss it in detail.
Let me explain the purpose of the amendment. Individuals entered in the register and carrying a card, or having access to one, should get the opportunity to self-verify the information that is recorded every couple of years. I understand, and would not wish to minimise, the cost implications. I know that the Under-Secretary will bring up that topic. I am also conscious of the fact that this information will be sent to every household—eventually, every individual will be part of the scheme—and that we will have to address the need for there to be some element of security when sending this sort of information through the post. However, to verify those details it would not be a bad idea—
It being five minutes past One o’clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [5 July], as amended [12 July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Use of information for verification or otherwise with consent
Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in clause 14, page 12, line 31, after “a”, insert “prescribed”.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 160, in clause 14, page 12, line 31, after “with”, insert “all of the”.
No. 161, in clause 14, page 12, line 37, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
No. 54, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
Column Number: 291
Mr. Carmichael: Amendments Nos. 171 and 160 would have the combined effect of making subsection (1) read: “The Secretary of State may provide a prescribed person with all of the information recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register if—”, and the conditions are laid out in subsection (1)(a) and (b). All the amendments are probing amendments, but they raise matters worthy of consideration. The clause allows others to obtain information held on the database for the purposes of verification. A number of issues arise from the amendments.
Amendment No. 171 would require the Government to introduce regulations on those people for whom information can be provided. That was considered by the Committee when it debated the last Bill. My reason for bringing it to the Committee for consideration again is that there is some merit not necessarily in excluding people from the provision of information under the clause—I can see that that would be problematic—but in providing regulations that would put in safeguards for the sake of people with learning difficulties, for example. There could be provisions for their consent to be given. That is one example, coming almost from the top of my head, of the sort of provision that I would expect such regulations to contain. Prescription would be a useful tool for the Government and would contribute to transparency, which is not evident at the moment.
What would be required by way of consent? My concern is that consent would end up being given almost unwittingly. I think of the situation every time I hire a car, as I do from time to time. I initial the form in three places and sign at the bottom. One of these days I shall leave myself sufficient time to read the form so that I know what I am signing. I very rarely do that. If consent is to be given, I am concerned that that should be done in an express and unambiguous way.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): We have returned to something that was discussed when we debated other clauses. During our discussions on clause 3, the Committee decided, against the hon. Gentleman’s advice, to allow some voluntary information, such as the name of the next of kin or blood group, on to the register. Given that decision, does he consider it appropriate for people to be allowed to authorise someone to look at the register by the equivalent of a donor card, along the lines of, “I authorise you in an emergency to look at the register”?
Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but such a provision is not quite relevant to my line of argument. However, it is a fair point, especially if it relates to information that has been provided voluntarily. We are dealing with the manner in which that information can be accessed, and by whom, and what must be done to ensure that the privilege of access is not undermined or abused.
The proposed deletion of subsections (2), (3) and (4) allows the Minister to place on record the effect of such provisions. I am aware that there are implications for the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, which
Column Number: 292
will come into play under the clause. It will be sufficient for him to give us a brief outline of the Government’s intention.
Patrick Mercer: Amendment No. 54 revolves around the concept of consent, which is important in respect of the idea of the register and the card. The hon. Gentleman made much of the going on that, so I shall waste the Committee’s time no further.
The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr. Tony McNulty): I take issue with the last point of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). He has not wasted our time on every occasion. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) to his place. However, it appears that we will not be enjoying the delights of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Perhaps he has flashed and gone, with the flash-and-go ID card system.
I appreciate the brevity of the hon. Members for Newark and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but we are deliberating serious points, a few of which I shall deal with in passing before dealing with the substance of the provision. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about learning difficulties and vulnerable groups. We have clearly said that elements will be put in place to deal with initial applications, the processes that must be gone through to be on the register, and consent. Of course, the amendments touch on the notion of consent, but we will be better served if we have a fuller debate on then when discussing the next set of amendments, because they go to the heart of the matter more readily than this group does.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, amendment No. 171 would mean that the Secretary of State could provide information only to prescribed persons. That is a fair matter to raise and it would mean that anyone who uses the verification service to check the validity of an ID card produced as proof of identity would have to be prescribed in regulations. That is an unnecessary bureaucratic step.
1.15 pm
The basis of the clause is to provide individuals with the choice of when and where to provide their ID as proof of identity and for the individual to be in a position to consent to, or not consent to, the provision of an ID card for a bank, building society or another organisation for verification against the national identity register including, by the by, car hire. When the hon. Gentleman said that, I whispered to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that perhaps hiring a helicopter would be a more likely scenario than hiring a car in his constituency.
The scheme contains substantial safeguards about those to whom information may be provided. As the hon. Gentleman will know, subsection (5) provides for regulations to be introduced on how an application can be made for information confirming the validity of
Column Number: 293
an ID card, or for other pertinent information, such as the address of the cardholder. Subsection (6) already contains the power to require businesses or other organisations to which information is provided to register prescribed particulars and to be approved by the Secretary of State. Thus we will be able to set up a system of accreditation, to ensure that only approved organisations can check ID cards against the register. That is a far more efficient way of readily, and rightly, limiting who is given authority to use the verification service than prescribing such matters in the Bill.
The Bill provides for a power to ensure that information to verify an ID card will be provided to approved organisations only. Also, clause 41(6) makes it clear that the regulations can put conditions on the grant and approval of that accreditation. Approval can be suspended or withdrawn if, for example, there is reason to suppose that a business has been making checks on ID cards without the holder’s consent. I do not think it necessary to go further and require each and every organisation to be prescribed. That would be unduly bureaucratic and overweeningly centralist—as we would expect from the Liberal Democrats. I am only joking; the hon. Gentleman should ignore that.
Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would allow the Secretary of State to provide all the information on the register, with the consent of the individual, and would remove the restrictions on provision of information under subsections (2) and (3). That is quite strange and goes too far. The hon. Gentleman himself alluded to the provision allowing an individual, under the Data Protection Act 1998, to secure the information held about him at any stage. That goes to the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newark, too.
Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would remove an important safeguard that was explicitly included following comments made about the draft Bill by a range of organisations and individuals. They wanted to ensure that organisations would be provided only with information that was relevant to verifying the identity of the individual or customer. Under the building blocks of the Bill, the verification service is pertinent only to the front end of the data—that is, those pieces of data necessary to verify someone’s ID. We do not want organisations climbing all over an individual’s entire set of data, or going fishing in the database. Thus subsection (2), which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to amend, excludes the provision of all the information held under the scheme. That is much more about ensuring the integrity of the register than it is about the individual’s identity. We are talking about recorded history, registration and ID card history, and the validating information provided by the individual.
1.18 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
Column Number: 294
1.34 pm
On resuming—
Mr. McNulty: It was remiss of me not to have said earlier that we also note the continuing absence of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I did not want him to feel left out. I hope that between now and the end of the debate he may pop back in to see us, for which we will be grateful.
I was saying that it is right to limit those data that organisations—suitably accredited, rather than being prescribed in the Bill—can have verified. Records and information about the security dimensions of the entry and so on are not germane to verifying someone’s identity.
The Bill also provides that an individual’s fingerprints and other biometric information cannot be provided in a verification check under the clause. That is important. Subsection (2)(a) specifically talks about the information necessary for verification. The verification process can be used only to confirm or refuse confirmation that the biometric details provided by the person match those on the register. Contrary to what the amendments would have us do, clause 14 rightly limits the information that can be provided when a business checks someone’s ID with their consent. That, however, does not limit what information individuals can check on their own account.
The amendment proffered by the hon. Member for Newark is far too prescriptive, and provision under the Data Protection Act 1998 already exists, as I said before. That allows the subject access rights under the Act. Clause 14(8) makes it clear that those existing rights are not affected by the power in clause 14. That extant, very permissive power for an individual to seek the data held on the register at any time is far better than the prescriptive suggestion offered in the amendment.
We have had an interesting discussion, and germane rather than trivial points have been raised, which is why I have spent some time on them and taken them seriously on their merits. However, for the reasons I have suggested, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Mr. Carmichael: I shall ensure that the Minister’s good wishes are conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He is a new Member of the House and, to use a good Scots term, I do not like to see new Members scunnered too quickly, so I think he deserves a small measure of protection. However, he will rejoin our deliberations when he returns from the north-west of England. Hon. Members will know that he represents a seat there. [Interruption.] Indeed, it used to be represented by a Conservative Member, I seem to recall.
The Chairman: Order. This is absolutely fascinating, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Identity Cards Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get on with it.
Column Number: 295
Mr. Carmichael: Perhaps it is fascinating because it has nothing to do with the Identity Cards Bill.
The Minister has afforded us a full and thorough explanation of the Government’s thinking. I said initially that the amendment is probing: the point has been made and the Minister has given an explanation, so I do not wish to trouble the Committee any further. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “written”.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 172, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “informed”.
No. 227, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “express”.
No. 52, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, after “otherwise”, insert “in writing”.
No. 173, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, after “otherwise”, insert “explicitly”.
No. 53, in clause 14, page 12, line 36, at end insert
(c) authority or consent may extend to part only of information.’.
No. 117, in clause 43, page 36, line 29, at end insert—
‘“consent”, in relation to a particular individual, shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of that individual’s wishes by which he signifies his agreement to the use of his identity card or the access to, or provision of, information contained in his entry in the Register;’.
Patrick Mercer: I shall speak principally to amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53 and 117. No doubt the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will wish to add to that. The amendments are designed to probe the Government further on consent. The clause talks about setting up a service for information verification with the individual’s consent—he or she who is involved initially in the register and later with the extraordinarily cheap card that was referred to earlier.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are simple. To reinforce the concept of consent, we ask that the word “written” and the phrase “in writing” be inserted in lines 34 and 35. I hope that is straightforward; I will say no more about it.
Amendment No. 53 would include an additional phrase, so that the
of the individual
“may extend to part only of information.”
Amendment No. 117 refers to clause 43(1) and would insert a new provision.
I hope that this is straightforward. If our purpose is to ensure that individuals involved in the scheme consent to what is going on, these amendments would add a check and a balance to the Government’s proposals by ensuring that we accept that consent is
Column Number: 296
present only when the individual has signed off a form, signed a certificate or physically ensured that he knows what is going on.
I fear that I am labouring the point a little, but it is necessary to do so because we have heard in several debates about individuals who are disadvantaged, disabled or not in full control of their faculties. It is important that the Government understand that consent needs to be given in writing. Without that, there is room for error and for a lack of proper understanding. Only with the imposition of a requirement for a written document can we be certain. I know the Minister will say that going down this route would involve added expense, but, as the question of consent is at the heart of the clause, I think it would be justified.
Mr. Carmichael: Amendments Nos. 172, 227 and 173 stand in my name. The effect of amendments Nos. 172 and 227 would be largely the same. The history is that I had already tabled the former when I received a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland on the point, which suggested using “express” rather than “informed”. Always having one eye to the future, and to the possibility that I might again have to rely on the good will of the Law Society of Scotland to earn my living, I thought I might as well take on its amendment. Dare I say it, the Law Society’s form of words is preferable, as “express” is more workable than “informed”, but both make the same point—namely, that we should not allow access to be given in a tick-box manner.
It is already fairly well established that, in relation to some aspects of access to such information, an explanation must be given to the person giving consent in express terms—he is given a form and told what will be the effect of signing it. Most people go on to sign it none the less. However, the process highlights the importance of the information held on the database and the restriction of access to it, and serves to eliminate the possibility that giving consent to access to such information will be allowed to become routine. The strictest possible rules should be put in place to ensure that access is given only with express consent.
Mr. McNulty: Again, we are considering important amendments that go to the heart of the issues at play in the clause. As hon. Gentlemen have suggested, the amendments would, in their various ways, make it a requirement for an individual to give particular types of consent before the Secretary of State provided information to organisations wanting to verify their identity. We take on board the issues at the heart of the amendments, but they are dealt with in other ways.
1.45 pm
Amendments Nos. 173 and 117 define consent as something that is explicit and informed. On balance, we do not consider the amendments to be necessary. We think that it is self-explanatory that consent for a check to be made on the register must be freely given by a person who understands that his card or, as the case may be, his biometric information, is being used to verify his identity. We do not consider the term “consent” when used in this context to be ambiguous
Column Number: 297
and thus to require a statutory definition, especially in the context of strong limitations on the data available for that verification process and some of the other elements in the Bill, which I will discuss in a moment.
It is incumbent on the Government, as and when this process is introduced, albeit on a voluntary basis in the first instance, to make clear to people how it will work; its benefits, both in the voluntary capacity and subsequently in terms of the compulsory registration elements; how those elements are to be enforced; their rights concerning who can have access to the verification process, not the data; and—to hark back to the previous group of amendments—how an individual can access the data that are stored about them under the Data Protection Act 1998. I agree that that education and awareness process should be gone through as a scheme of such importance is undertaken, but we do not need to define “consent” in the Bill.
Amendment No. 172, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would make it a requirement that an application for the provision of information is with the “informed” authority of the individual. Amendment No. 227 would require the authority to be “express”. Again, in the context of what I just said about consent, it should be taken as read that authority means a freely given and informed authority. I should also mention that under clause 14(5)(a) there is a power to make provision by regulations as to
“how an authority for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) is to be given”.
In that provision, and elsewhere, we can be explicit about what things mean for more vulnerable groups, such as those with learning disabilities and others. That is a fair and serious point.
Amendment No. 53 would mean that an individual could choose to consent to the provision of any part of the information falling in subsections (2) and (3). We resist that, because, as I have said, the clause already sets out a limited list of information that may be provided in response to a verification application. We are not talking about all 51 assorted items, many of them internal to the machine and the process, being readily available, as well as the biometrics for the verification process. There is a power to make regulations to impose further restrictions if necessary. As I have said, it is our intention that by virtue of the accreditation process provided for in clause 14(6) organisations will be provided only with information that supports their business need—that is to say, a limited part of the individual’s entry as permitted under clause 14(1).
Those safeguards, limitations and definitions of which data will and will not be available are in place, all wrapped round the notion of consent in the clause. To suggest putting in the Bill one of the various elements of consent is unnecessary and, dare I say it, otiose. As and when we return to these matters, perhaps at a later stage of the parliamentary process but as early as permissible, I will try to give the Committee sight of at least the headline and framework of the regulations under clause 14(5) that will define authority. That, rather than unnecessary
Column Number: 298
amendments to the Bill, may be the way to allay fears about consent and authority. I take the same stance on amendments Nos. 51 and 52 and the notion of written consent. For all those reasons and because of the assurances that I have given, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
| 
