|
Mr. Allan: The Minister has just made the case when an applicant asks for additional information about historical addresses. Is it the intention that that would go on the database to be recorded henceforth? Is it possible under the scheme envisaged that data, such as old addresses, then fall off the system, so they are no longer relevant after a certain period?
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman understands the scheme very well, and he will understand that everything must refer to the purposes and be intra vires of the scheme. We will examine this matter and I will come back to the Committee about it, but there is an argument that holding addresses in perpetuity for everybody may in certain circumstances be in contravention of the purposes of the scheme.
Although the design of the card and the precise information to be shown visibly on the card is still to be decided, it seems increasingly likely that the address will be held on the register but not shown on the card. It would not only make it easier to update changes of address without requiring a new card to be issued each time, but would mean that people who would prefer their addresses not to be shown for whatever reason would not have to have it printed on the card.
We know that much more detailed guidance in deciding where someone resides and their principal place of residence is needed, so we have included a specific provision—clause 43(10)—enabling regulations to be made that will allow much greater clarity and guidance on how they should be determined. I think that provision answers some of the questions that have been raised.
Much more work is required on the processes for issuing ID cards before we will be able to draft the regulations, but they will be designed to clarify exactly what is needed as well as to ensure that we can help those people who have a genuine difficulty giving a permanent address. I reiterate my undertaking to the Committee that as thinking progresses, I will come back to the Committee or the House.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 to schedule 1 are consequential and also refer to holding addresses on the national identity register, so I do not propose to repeat the arguments in relation to them.
As the hon. Member for Woking said, amendments Nos. 42 and 43 insert into clause 8 a similar set of provisions for identity cards as were included in his amendment No. 1, which we considered in the previous group of amendments. For the same reasons, I disagree with the wording of these amendments. It is not necessary to specify again in clause 8 the statutory
Column Number: 75
purposes of the scheme, as an ID card links to an entry in the register, which is already governed by the statutory purposes set out in clause 1.
Amendment No. 8 would remove the ability to hold the numbers of identity documents and their details in the list of registrable facts. They are listed in detail in paragraph (4) of schedule 1, and include not only the number of an ID card issued to an individual and his or her national identity register number, but other relevant numbers, such as national insurance, driving licence or passport numbers. For foreign nationals, it would include work permit or immigration reference numbers, together with any foreign ID or passport number. That may look like a long list of numbers, but it would help to identify an individual.
Holding them on the register would also make it easier to derive from the scheme some benefits of joined-up government. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions will be able to check somebody's national insurance number against an ID card, and that could be useful to a benefit or pension application. For the DVLA, checking someone's ID card details could speed up the identification of a driving licence applicant.
Amendment No. 126 would limit identification numbers to those contained in the list under paragraph 4 of schedule 1. I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that we have no plans to vary the list but, as under the rest of schedule 1, there should remain a power to add to the list by order subject to an affirmative resolution procedure as provided for under clause 3(7). He asked specifically if the provision could be amended to include NHS numbers and criminal record numbers. Other identity numbers could be added under the Bill by affirmative resolution, although there are no plans to do so. That could include an NHS number, but it would not mean that medical records could be held. In theory, it could be possible, but I do not see any reason why a future Government would make a case for adding the criminal record number. However, he has identified correctly that such action would be possible.
5 pm
Amendment No. 9 would make it clear that medical records, criminal convictions and cautions are not included in the list of registrable facts under clause 1. Medical and criminal records are not included under paragraphs (a) to (h) of subsection (5) and, to that extent, the amendment is redundant. The information could be added to the list of registrable facts only with further primary legislation. I confirm unequivocally that the Government have no intention of holding medical or criminal records on the national identity register and the Bill, as drafted, specifically does not allow for that. The omission of such an explanation from the explanatory notes was unhelpful, and I apologise for that, but it has never been our intention for such action to take place and that was made clear from the outset when the Bill was drafted for consultation.
Column Number: 76
The list of registrable facts includes under subsection (5)(i) voluntary information held at the individual's own request, to which I referred earlier. That might include some sort of medical data, such as organ donor status. No decisions have yet been taken about that and the categories of information that might be covered would need to be set out in regulations under clause 3(2)(b). The amendment seems to preclude that information being included in the register, even if the individual concerned had specifically requested that it should be included. I hope that hon. Members accept my reassurance that such action cannot be taken because of how the Bill is constructed, but that there is a useful opportunity for people voluntarily to include certain information that would be precluded under the amendment to give clarity to the policy that we share.
The information that may be held on the register and listed under schedule 1 may also be amended by affirmative order under clause 3(5), but only when it is consistent with the statutory purposes of the scheme. The statutory purposes are tied explicitly to the registrable facts. Thus, the power to amend schedule 1 could not be used to add information such as medical or criminal records. I do not need to give the Committee more assurance than that, as matters should be clear.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that his amendment is not necessary to the extent that it would prevent people from using the register to record medical information at their request, which is undesirable. It really is essential to be able to request and to hold information about various identification numbers. For most people, only one or two numbers will be relevant, but we need such a facility.
I trust that I have reassured the Committee that it is essential to be able to request and to hold information about previous or alternative addresses in the United Kingdom and abroad. It could be damaging to the scheme were that not possible. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is now in Committee, so I repeat my undertaking that I shall come back with more detail about addresses, because I accept that it is an important issue. I shall demand more flesh on the bones from the Government and endeavour to provide it before our deliberations are concluded. In such circumstances, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to a Division.
Mr. Allan: The Minister has given a helpful response, perhaps more helpful than I had anticipated. He has made it clear that the address data that will be sought will be tied in more specifically to proof of identity than collected for its own sake. That is certainly how I read the Bill initially, but the hon. Gentleman has now given an undertaking to clarify further the precise terms under which address data will be collected and stored for future reference. It would make no sense to press for clarification of such matters until we have received the appropriate information from the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 77
Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'birth' to third 'and'.
I will be extremely brief. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that, as will you, Mr. Conway. I am a man of my word.
Amendment No. 10 is simple. Clause 1(6) states:
''In this section references to an individual's identity are references to . . . (c) his date and place of birth and, if he has died, the date of his death''.
I must be being extraordinarily obtuse, which is nothing new, but I do not understand who is responsible for notifying the authorities about the death. If he who has died is required to notify them about his own death, clearly there are practical difficulties. Perhaps the Minister can help me on that point. It could be that the Minister is talking about the next of kin, the executor of a will or the registrar, or perhaps initial responsibility will fall on the hospital. I do not know. Will the Minister be kind enough to clarify? I suspect that the dead hand of the drafter slipped on that point.
Mr. Browne: The amendment would remove the date of an individual's death from the list of registrable facts. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment because, on Second Reading on 20 December, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested that the Bill placed a duty on the people who had died to notify the register of their own death. Normally we can rely 100 per cent. on the interpretation of legislation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
| 
