|
Mr. Oaten: On that point, imagining that somebody tries to access a public service, such as an accident and emergency department, and the card goes in, fails and is damaged, there is clearly a responsibility on the individual to report that the card is damaged, but is there any responsibility on the public services to make a note that the card is damaged or that the individual has reported that their card is lost?
Mr. Browne: The regulations that may apply to an individual public service provider will be a matter for discussion at a later stage, in the context of regulation making. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. I cannot imagine that it has not already occurred to officials that if damaged cards were to be presented that would be a good opportunity to feed information back into the scheme. It may only be at that point of presentation, when one looks at the definition, that it becomes apparent that the card is damaged. It would seem sensible that if there is a communication to the scheme at that point, there would be notification of that information. However, that matter would have to be dealt with by regulations. The proposal seems sensible and if it can be done, we should do it.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister told us at the beginning of this Committee that for first-time passport applications people would have to attend the office to prove that they were the person who was entitled to the passport. Will the same be true of ID cards? If not, a lot of ID cards could be sent all over the place and not go to the people who are entitled to them.
Secondly, an underworld industry will grow up to impersonate people with wrong cards. The technology will get to such a pitch that people will be able to tamper with cards. Will the Government constantly review the intelligence about what is happening to cards, and will it be possible to alter very easily the whole nation's ID cards to deal with a fraud as it emerges?
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman raises two good points. On the first, I have already told the Committee that the collection of the biometrics will require that interaction, which we are now putting into first-time passports. He will be reassured that the collection of biometrics will involve a face-to-face relationship, and that that will be an opportunity to make all the necessary checks to ensure the level of integrity and security that he believes should be in the system.
The second question that the hon. Gentleman asked was whether we will ensure that the security of the system is maintained to the very highest standards and that there is an intelligence-based information gathering unit as part of that, to ensure that as people develop attempts to beat the system, we will be able to anticipate them. Of course there will be.
Column Number: 277
This part of the scheme is designed to gather information very quickly about cards that might be damaged, lost or stolen, and to be part of that intelligence gathering system to ensure integrity. There would be no point otherwise. The purpose of the proposal is to give people the reassurance that their identity is being protected. The scheme needs to protect their identity, because that is the place where all information will be collected.
We have understandably moved slightly beyond the amendments into a bit of a clause stand part debate. I should reiterate that the requirements to notify loss will be in regulations that will be subject to a negative resolution procedure. We are planning for the scheme to provide simple mechanisms for reporting lost or stolen cards through a single point of contact accessible via telephone, e-mail, post or web portal.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members for people who might, through no fault of their own, fail to report a loss or be unable to surrender a card. I hope that I have reassured them that the offences under clause 13 are proportionate, necessary and will be applied in a proportionate manner that understands the vagaries of everyday life and people's lifestyle patterns. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Malins: That is a helpful response from the Minister, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 pm
Mr. Oaten: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 11, line 31, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State may, in an urgent case, cancel the card forthwith or otherwise give notice to the individual of an intention to do so.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall send notification of his cancellation or his intention to cancel in writing to the individual who shall have the right to make representations accordingly.
(2C) The Secretary of State shall review his cancellation or his intention in the light of such representations.
(2D) The individual may appeal a cancellation of his ID card to the Commissioner.'.
Again, I do not intend to delay the Committee a great deal. The clause and the amendment deal with the powers of the Secretary of State to cancel a card. I have no problem with that and understand the need for him to have such power. However, I have a concern about the way in which individuals will know if the Secretary of State has cancelled their card. I would not want somebody who was trying to access benefit or health care to turn up, put their card through, and for a red light to flash, telling them that their card had been cancelled. That person would ask the doctor or what used to be the Benefits Agency, ''Why? What have I done wrong?'' and would be told, ''I have no idea at all, but I am sorry—your card is cancelled.'' The person would then phone through and discover that the Government had cancelled their card and, I hope, be given the reasons why. There is a danger that cards could be cancelled without warning,
Column Number: 278
and that that would put individuals into very embarrassing situations or make them unable to access public services.
My second point relates to my first. Obviously, there would be reasons for a cancellation. According to the clause, there could be a cancellation if there had been
''a modification of information recorded in the entry''.
Will the Minister explain how that modification of information could take place? Would the individual always know that the change had taken place? Could that change on the register be made without the individual's knowing about it? If so, I want some reassurance that the system would allow that individual to challenge that change and say, ''You cancelled my card because you made a modification to the information, but that modification is totally wrong.''
Some clarification on those points would be helpful. Taking the card away, particularly given how much the Government want the card to be used, could have a serious impact for individuals. I want to understand the circumstances in which the card would be taken away, who would be told about the reasons and—importantly—when.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman has been very clear about why he tabled the amendment, the effect of which would be to make the process of cancelling cards much longer. That point is probably ancillary to his principal argument, which I shall deal with.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the clause has been drafted to allow the Secretary of State to cancel cards to protect individuals from the misuse of their cards and identities. We are already planning for the processes for replacing or cancelling cards, or for changing entitlement, to include notifying the cardholder after a card has been cancelled. We would not just cancel a card without informing the relevant individual. We are also clear that until there is a specific further parliamentary decision and a move to compulsion, an individual would always have options other than an ID card available for proving their identities.
Both pre- and post-compulsion, we want to ensure that when a card is used to access public services, procedures are in place to help those whose card has been lost or stolen, and therefore cancelled—especially in cases of emergency. We have always said that emergency and necessary treatment would never depend on the production of an ID card. When we develop the processes, we will be mindful that people who are legitimately entitled to have access to public services should have a mechanism to do that when they are acting in good faith.
On the change of information in relation to the card, I should say that if the amendment were agreed to, it could be misused by individuals in cases when the card should be cancelled, but it is advantageous for the individual to prolong their ownership of it. For example, if a person's immigration status changes and they want to continue to use their card as proof of their entitlement to work, they should not have such a prolonged period of ownership. Such an individual
Column Number: 279
would know about the change. They would know that they had an entitlement to work for a particular period and when that would come to an end, and they would have the relevant responsibilities. All changes triggering the cancellation of a card would involve circumstances in which the implication was that those changes were known to the individual. There is no intention that factors outwith an individual's control or responsibility should trigger that sort of action.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hope that I am raising only important points. What will be the position of prisoners? Will their cards be withdrawn, and, if so, how will they access public services such as health services? If the Minister does not have the answer to that to hand, I will be happy for him to write to me about it.
Mr. Browne: I see no reason why prisoners should not continue to hold identity cards. They are sentenced to a term of imprisonment as their penalty; they are not sent there for further punishment. It may be the case that an order of the court and the sentence that they are currently serving means that their ability to do other things is inhibited and they have limited use of the identity card, but there is no reason why they should not hold one. Indeed, my understanding of the Bill suggests to me that they will be required to have one if they are resident in the UK during the trigger period—as many of them will be, of course.
| 
