Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 92:


 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 990
 

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 92 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93 to 96. It may be appropriate for me to make a brief reference to the 30-page letter that the Minister was kind enough to send to noble Lords.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I need to clarify something I said earlier. I had asked for the letter to be e-mailed and sent. I understand that it was sent but, through an oversight, it was not e-mailed. I am very sorry about that because my instructions were very clear. I know that noble Lords find that an easy way to receive information, particularly the noble Baroness. That is why I was disappointed that all noble Lords had not received it. I apologise because I would not like to mislead the Committee. I asked for it to be done that way, but I have discovered that it was not. I add my additional apology as a result.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: All noble Lords present would say that we never expect the noble Baroness to mislead the House because she does not do so: she always treats us with great courtesy. She has given an apology that I did not seek. I was going to say that I have now had the opportunity to speed-read that letter. I note that there is a substantial section on costs, which I think will appropriately be dealt with when we reach Amendment No. 259A, so we will have time in the next two days properly to consider that information. I notice that there are issues in the letter regarding the biometrics. Of course I appreciate that we will return to those specific issues on Report. I cannot at first sight see issues raised in the letter that need to be dealt with today by way of an adjournment. But having done only a speed read, I could be proved completely wrong. I hope not.

Amendments Nos. 92 to 95A refer to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which gives the Government the power to require that personal reference numbers should be entered into the national identity register. Amendment No. 96 is grouped with them because it also covers the question of numbers. This is a continuation of our quest to find out what will be behind this skeleton Bill. Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 95 and 96 were tabled in another place and were called to be debated in Committee on 12 July. It is not my normal practice to retable amendments from the Commons when I feel that they have been debated and answered, but unfortunately, not only did the Minister, Mr McNulty, decide not to respond to them, he made it absolutely clear that he would not. He said:

That is a red rag to a bull; I had to table the amendments to ask the Government for the answer.

Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 make it clear that the ID card number should be the same as the national identity registration number. Why should they be different? Amendment No. 94 is an odd one out; it is new to this House. It would remove the subsection that records the number of any document that can be used instead of a passport. Which documents do the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 991
 
Government mean? Are they documents to use for travel purposes? Would that be within the UK? I am aware that some budget airlines are now imposing restrictions on customers and requiring the production of identity for domestic travel. As I understand it, that is not so much for security reasons as for a simple commercial reason. They want to prevent their customers passing on their tickets for others' use, thus avoiding the payment of an administration fee to the airline for a change of name. I do not say whether they are right or wrong; I just noticed that that is the practice that they are adopting.

Are the documents in subsection (g) those that may only be used when a passport is required or are they documents that we may choose to use, such as a utility bill, when we are not required to produce a passport but find it convenient to show the bill as proof of the reason for inquiry? Amendment No. 95 returns to the unanswered amendments in another place and would delete paragraph 4(1)(l), which deals with personal reference numbers. It refers to,

I am not exactly clear, but I assume that that implies that we will end up with dozens upon dozens of numbers recorded against our name. What kind of numbers do the Government have in mind to be covered by the sub-paragraph?

Amendment No. 96 is another unanswered amendment. It removes sub-paragraph (g) from paragraph 6, which covers one's history of making applications and the changes that are made to one's national identity register information. Sub-paragraph (g) requires a record to be kept of everyone who has ever countersigned one's application for an ID card or an application for a designated document. Does a designated document at present mean only a passport? Does it mean a driving licence and what could it mean in future?

The more that one reads Schedule 1, the more that one's mind begins to boggle at the sheer size of the database that we seem to be constructing. We need to be convinced that in the Government's rush to record every aspect of our lives, we allow them to record only what is strictly necessary and convenient to us. The overall imperative must be to follow what the Government said on Clause 1. This must be a system convenient to the individual, not merely to the Government.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 94A and 95A simply remove references to driving licences from Schedule 1. They are probing amendments only to ask the Government to put on record their reasons why they should be included on the national identity register. I beg to move.

Lord Selsdon: This business of the numbers game worries me, particularly as it took so long for the Minister to reply to a letter that I wrote some time ago. It will be noted that the Department for Work and Pensions has issued guidance to help people to prove
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 992
 
their identity for social security purposes, and it lists 22 papers. I suddenly thought that if I really wanted to wreck this Bill, I would have introduced the schedule almost in its exact form. Very few people have the ability to remember more than a seven-figure number. I am not sure, but I think that Sloane 1234 was Harrods' telephone number in the old days.

It also struck me that it might be quite nice for us to know our numbers. If you occasionally want to consult a government department to ask the reference number that you should put in order to prove, for example, a winter fuel allowance, you are asked to type one of two or three or four or five numbers, and it may take half an hour. If all that information is to go on an identity card, which should really be for the benefit of the citizen rather than for the Government, is there a machine that I could get these numbers off? It would be extremely helpful. In addition, will there be a signature? The Government might like to move a little further into biometrics. As secretary of the Parliamentary Space Committee, I can tell the Government that in a very short space of time there will be newer methods of identification. All my life, I have held on to the desired wish that my location should be my Ordnance Survey number—my latitude and longitude. That would be a very short way to solve all the problems. There are complications with postcodes—when a delivery company gets one letter wrong and a bill goes to someone else. All those numbers are a nightmare.

May we also have the opportunity of a PIN? If someone asks us to insert our card, in order to make sure that it is not forged, may we have a three-figure number or a combination that we can voluntarily put in? There has to be a change in attitude. At the moment, some people believe that an identity card could be helpful. I believe that. We should have the right to prove our identity. But the boot is on the other foot. The Government are trying to say, "We have the right to prove your identity". Here there is a conflict of interest, but, of course, it is not with the noble Baroness.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that I shall be able to answer all the noble Lord's questions, but I hope that I can respond fully to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I quite understand her concern about the moving of the amendments in another place. I shall try to fill in some of the gaps left by Mr McNulty; it is unfortunate that longer responses were not given. These amendments relate to the inclusion in Schedule 1 of the numbers of various documents and counter-signatory details.

The noble Baroness has explained the amendments. Amendment No. 92 would require the national identity registration number to be the same as the number on the ID card. Consequently, Amendment No. 93 would remove the ability to hold a separate ID card number on the register. The national identity registration number is the number allocated to the person for the lifetime of the scheme. The ID card number is the issue number for that specific card and is likely to change for every card issued. One could
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 993
 
compare that to the issue number on a cheque card. It would operate in a similar way. As with banks, that is needed to help with the tracking of card delivery and revocation of cards. It makes sense that there should be two separate numbers, which should both be held on an individual's entry on the register.

Amendment No. 94 would prevent the Secretary of State holding the number of any document that can be used instead of a passport. This is not a spurious addition—there are certain documents which allow stateless people to travel, but which are not, strictly speaking, either a passport or an identity card. We would want to be able to record the reference numbers of those documents in the same way as we can capture the number of passports and ID cards issued by authorities outside the United Kingdom. Of course, that would assist us in tracking the movement of individuals for immigration purposes.

4.30 pm

Amendments Nos. 94A and 95A are consequential amendments precluding UK driving licence numbers being held on the national identity register. The driver number from a driving licence is to be specifically held for a number of reasons. Should driving licences ever become designated documents, it is only right that we can hold driver numbers on the register. When individuals apply for registration on to the identity cards scheme it would form a useful part of the biographical footprint check if the entry on the register could be cross-referenced with the DVLA database. Finally, holding the driver number in Schedule 1 would allow the police or, for example, car hire companies to cross check whether an individual holds a valid driving licence if that individual has proffered their ID card and consented to a verification check as proof of their identity.

Amendment No. 95 removes the ability to hold the number of any other designated document which does not fall elsewhere in the paragraph. Documents already considered for designation have their numbers in the list in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1; for example, a passport or residence permit. It is possible that in the future we will want to designate a document that is not covered in this list. In that case, it is important to be able to hold the number of any such document on the national identity register.

Amendment No. 96 would preclude the register from holding details of counter-signatories. As part of our work to counter potentially fraudulent applications, it will be important to be able to check back and consider all the circumstances surrounding the original application. This would include the counter-signatory to ascertain whether they were complicit in the false application. This is nothing new. Counter-signatories for passport applications already have their information held. We believe that retention of the counter-signatory's details will assist with an effective enrolment process. When first-time adult applicants are interviewed, their knowledge, or lack thereof, of the person who has countersigned their application may indicate whether or not the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 994
 
application is genuine. Additionally, retention of these counter-signatory details will enable the agency to build up a log of devious or suspect counter-signatories that might require further investigation. I am sure noble Lords would agree that any measure which throws light on possible incidences of fraud is one well worth having.

Finally, I should say that the validation information under paragraph 7 of the register cannot be provided to organisations which request a verification check on the register with the consent of the person concerned under Clause 14. It is excluded by Clause 14(2). We think it is important to retain details of counter-signatories in order to maintain the integrity of the register and as a further check against fraud, much as is the case with passport applications.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page