---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 18:"Page 3, leave out line 30 and insert–" ““(   )   Information– (a)   may be entered in the Register, and (b)   once entered, may continue to be recorded there, only if and for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes for it to be recorded in the Register. (   )   Information may not be recorded in the Register unless it is–”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. With the leave of the House, I will speak to the other amendments in the group, the consequential government amendments Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 and Amendments Nos. 19 and 42 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. First, Amendment No. 18 is intended to respond to a concern raised from the Opposition Benches in Committee; namely, that it was not clear in the Bill that anything held on the national identity register and, thus, the detailed list set out in Schedule 1 must be in accordance with the statutory purposes of the scheme. The statutory purposes, as we have already discussed at length, are twofold: first, to provide a convenient method for individuals to prove their identity—registrable facts about themselves to others who reasonably require them—and, secondly, the provision of a secure and reliable method for registrable facts to be ascertained or verified where that is in the public interest. Amendment No. 18 amends Clause 3 to make it absolutely clear that the information that may be held on the register, including, of course, the information listed in Schedule 1, must be consistent with the statutory purposes of the scheme. The amendment makes it clear that no information may be entered in the register unless it is consistent with the statutory purposes, and, once entered, it may continue to be recorded there,"““only if and for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes””." Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are purely consequential. They remove subsections (4) and (6), which prevent information being added or continuing to be held on the register if it is inconsistent with the statutory purposes. Those subsections now become redundant because they are encompassed in Amendment No. 18. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has tabled an alternative, Amendment No. 19. That would link what is held on the register by virtue of Schedule 1 to the ““registrable facts”” listed at Clause 1(5). In effect, the noble Lord’s amendment conflates the registrable facts with Schedule 1. We are afraid that it would place an unnecessary and unworkable limitation on that schedule. Before I explain why that limitation would be unworkable, I will remind noble Lords of the distinction between the registrable facts and Schedule 1. As noble Lords are aware, the purpose of the scheme is to create means by which people can identify themselves and can be identified. The process of identification is tied down—defined, as it were—in the Bill by the registrable facts. The scheme revolves around that list of key pieces of identification information. The list of registrable facts at Clause 1(5) is therefore an absolutely crucial component of the statutory purposes, but it should be kept in mind that, however crucial, it is just a component. The registrable facts must be seen in light of the statutory purposes as a whole. Those statutory purposes provide the overriding principle that determines and limits the information that may, by virtue of Clause 3 and Schedule 1, be held on the register. For that reason, Amendment No. 18 focuses on the statutory purposes, in contrast to Amendment No. 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, which focuses on one component of the statutory purposes, namely the registrable facts. I hope that, from that explanation, it is apparent why the key concept for limiting the contents of the register is the statutory purposes as a whole and not just the registrable facts. However, by way of illustration, I will briefly explain why it will be necessary to hold information on the register in support of the registrable facts, and thus the statutory purposes as a whole, even though that information is not itself contained in the list of registrable facts. I hope that, if that sounds like a contradiction, the following examples will shed some light. First, under Clause 1(5)(e), a person’s current residential status is a registrable fact, and that includes nationality as specified at Clause 1(8)(a). Thus in confirming someone’s identity it will be possible for their nationality to be confirmed—for example, by being printed visibly on the face of the identity card. However, in order to establish a person’s nationality, it will be necessary for the agency issuing identity cards to see supporting evidence—for example, a birth certificate and evidence of the person’s parents’ nationality—exactly the sort of evidence that the United Kingdom Passport Service needs to see now when considering an application for a passport. Details of that evidence—for example, the number and date and place of issue of the birth certificate—would be held on the register in accordance with paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 as validation information. That evidence will continue to be held as it may need to be referred to in future if ever there was any concern about the person’s entitlement to the nationality claimed. The person’s nationality would be a registrable fact but not the supporting evidence. Both would need to be held on the register for the scheme to meet its statutory purposes. If only registrable facts could be held on the register then the supporting evidence could not itself be held unless it were made registrable facts. We would not want all of the supporting evidence to be classed as registrable facts, otherwise it could in theory be made available when someone sought to prove their identity, and we do not believe that that would be right. Another example would be security information such as a password that someone might be asked to provide to allow for authentication in the absence of a biometric check. Let us say that someone is asked for their favourite colour as a security password and that that colour is purple. The fact that purple is that person’s favourite colour would be held on the register as part of the security information in accordance with paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 1. However, that person’s favourite colour would not itself be a registrable fact. Also, if on renewing the identity card a different password was chosen—let us say mother’s maiden name—it is likely that the first one would simply be deleted as it would no longer be in accordance with the statutory purposes to hold information about that person’s favourite colour on the register. The other amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, Amendment No. 42, would add a pointer in Clause 5(5)(d) to the information held in the register under Clause 3. Thus it would only be information that could be recorded in the register that might be requested when someone made an application to be entered in the register and issued with an identity card. Again, we think that that would be an unnecessary limitation as it is possible that someone applying for an identity card might be asked to provide information to confirm the information to be recorded on the register that would not itself be information that would, or indeed could, be held. Again, the key safeguard here is set out in Clause 5(6). The purpose of asking for information to verify an application for an identity card must of necessity be in order to comply with the statutory purposes of the national identity register and the identity card scheme itself. In view of that explanation and the government amendments that have been tabled, I hope that it is now much clearer that only information that supports the statutory purposes of the scheme can be held on the register and that any information on the register must be as provided for in Clause 3 and Schedule 1. I hope that the clarification that I have provided to the noble Lord will enable him to withdraw Amendments Nos. 19 and 42. I beg to move.