---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, in Committee we ran through the different stages. The noble Lord will know that there will be those who already have an identity card or document from another country, who are here and wish to have a card for the purposes of identity, but who do not have a British citizen’s right to travel; therefore, they would have a plain ID card. They would be linked to residence permits. A plain ID card would not be valid for travel, but would be available for British or Irish citizens resident in the UK—so, for those who have not complied with the travel arrangements. That is how it would work. An issue was raised in relation to the taking of the photograph for the card. I hope that many noble Lords had the advantage of seeing the trial we had here in the House, and would know that it is very easy to change the photograph until it is something that one admires a little more than one sometimes does the average photograph available. That can be dealt with and done easily indeed. If there is a dispute about the accuracy of the information on the register—the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe—the normal procedure would be for the individual concerned to inform the Secretary of State of the error. If the matter cannot be resolved by agreement, the data subject has the right to apply for rectification through the civil courts under Section 14 of the Data Protection Act. Inaccuracies or refusal to correct information would also of course be matters that the national identity scheme commissioner would want to investigate and could report to the Secretary of State. All the commissioner’s reports must be laid before Parliament. Finally, the powers of the Information Commissioner, including, should it be necessary, the power to issue enforcement notices, will apply to this database just as they do to the government databases. To recap, the first part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, would prevent us issuing two cards where it is in the interests of national security or the protection of vulnerable minorities. I know that that is not what the noble Lord wanted—he wanted me to put on the record how many one would normally have. I hope that I have done that. Although I emphasise that two cards would be held only in very special circumstances, they are important circumstances, thus the provision, although well intended, would perhaps be undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The second part of the amendment provides that any identity card should be accompanied by a written statement regarding what is held on the register. I understand the reason the noble Lord invites us to comment on that. I can assure him that the Government have no plans to place on the card’s chip any information that the person will not be aware of. The contents of the card and the chip are being designed to comply with relevant international standards. It is intended that it will simply contain the information on the face of the card, technical information regarding the functioning of the card itself, a facial image and two fingerprints. That will be clear. The noble Lord is quite right that, just as we prepare documentation for the current passport, we will make available to those applicants information explaining the nature of the application, the consequences of it and how it works. The same sort of approach will be taken in relation to preparation of these matters. Indeed, we will have the interviews so that people will be able to get a very clear explanation there as well. It is our full intention, therefore, to make cardholders aware of the kind of information that will be held on the chip and the card through the usual type of information that I have just indicated. Furthermore, I hope noble Lords will recall that the information that may be held on the card will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So we will be able to have a look at those and make sure that they are as full as we would like. The third part of the amendment seeks to provide that each individual in respect of whom an entry has been made should be sent a written copy of the information relating to him. We respectfully suggest that it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to add specific provisions to the Bill in this way. It is important to appreciate that even verification of information on the register would be caught by this amendment, as technically any verification would count as an entry on the register, upon which notification provided to the individual would need to be present. I know that the noble Lord wanted the amendment to apply only to the first registration, so I hope I have explained that. I hope I have been able to provide some assurance. In many cases, an entry will have been made at an individual’s own request, so they will be aware of the contents. The Data Protection Act already lays down general rules that I have tried to explain. We intend that an individual should be able to check current information about himself free of charge via a web portal. That would include information regarding verification requests made in the previous six or 12 months. A full subject access request will be subject to a reasonable fee as provided for in the Data Protection Act, which is currently £10. Thus, those wishing extra clarification are catered for. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with these clarifications. I thank him for his usual care. The debate has enabled us to give some fairly important reassurances as regards the arguments on the Bill, which I think may be very helpful for those who construe this Bill subsequently.