Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that, in view of what the noble Baroness said, maybe it would be best if I respond in writing. I think that we can satisfy the point fairly easily.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am happy then to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 5, line 23, after "information " insert "within Schedule 1"

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 114, 116, 156, 173 and 173A are all mine. They seek to set the limit, in Clauses 5, 9 and 12, on what regulations the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1050
 
Secretary of State may make vis-à-vis information that may be required of individuals with ID cards. I take Amendment No. 116 as a specific example in order to try to explain this to the Committee. It affects Clause 5(6). Subsection (6) currently says:

"Regulations under this section must not require an individual to provide information to another person unless it is information required by the Secretary of State for the statutory purposes".

My amendment would strike out the words "for the statutory purposes" and replace them with "within Schedule 1". We have had a lot of discussion over the days around Clause 1 and Schedule 1. I think it is fair to say that the House as a whole—indeed, the Government are included—is anxious to ensure that the facts that may be placed on the register under the Bill are to be constrained within Clause 1, in particular in subsections (5), (6) and (7).

The problem with Clause 5(6) is that it entitles the Secretary of State to require information from anybody applying for an ID card, or with an ID card, where that information is required by him for the statutory purposes. That is a much wider category of information than the "registrable facts" defined in Clause 1. The statutory purposes, defined in Clause 1(3) are—I do not want to read the whole of Clause 1(3)—extremely wide and talk about the facilitation of the provision of a method of ascertaining and verifying registrable facts.

I felt, and I hope that the Government will agree, that it would make life easier for people trying to construe the clauses to which this set of amendments relates if we kept to the formula which otherwise seems to prevail in the Bill—that of describing the right to information on the part of the Secretary of State, or the registrar, to information within Schedule 1. Then we know exactly where we are. It is possible under the Bill for the contents of Schedule 1 to be varied. We have our arguments about that. None the less, that is the way the Bill is structured. I feel very strongly that we should stick to Schedule 1, and not find ourselves in an uncertain position where the Secretary of State might argue that a whole range of facts outside Clause 1(5), (6) and (7) and outside Schedule 1 is his or her entitlement to require, by dint of his interpretation of the statutory purposes.

I hope that that is a sufficient explanation of why this set of amendments has been proposed and I shall of course be interested to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: I speak in support of those amendments to which we have put our names. They are intended to close down the wide definition of "registrable"—I always find difficulty with that word—facts specified by subsections (5), (7) and (8). By confining the meaning of registrable facts to that specified in Schedule 1, they create a finite list of information that must be provided for the register. It is vital that a clearly defined limit on what information is to be included in the register and the powers of the Home Secretary to alter those requirements is set down at the start of this misconceived and unpredictable venture toward the proposed scheme.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1051
 

The amendments take into account the remarks made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee at paragraph 8 of its 5th report. It drew the attention of this House to the fact that the power in Clause 3(5) was not confined to information needed to prove identity and extended to other matters, such as previous addresses and terms of residence in different parts of the UK. Therefore, it is still up to the Committee to consider whether the content of the power and its extent is acceptable. I support this attempt to confine the list of the information to be registered to matters related only to identity.

The amendments are not just a clearer way to show what may be included in the register in the Bill; they also remove the information under Clause 1(5)(c), covering previous addresses, and under Clause 1(5)(f), covering previous residential status. They therefore make a substantive difference to the power of the Home Secretary to demand that such information be registered. Will the Minister please explain why such information is required under the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, and I hope that I will be able to put both their minds at rest by carefully going through what would be the effects of the amendments and how we see this part of the Bill working.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 114, 173 and 156 would be that, when an individual applies to be entered on the register, makes changes to their entry or is subject to compulsory registration, the Secretary of State would be restricted to requesting from the individual only information listed in Schedule 1. Amendments Nos. 116 and 173A would prevent the Secretary of State requiring in regulations that the individual provide information outside that listed in Schedule 1.

The ability of the Secretary of State to ask the individual for other information not listed in Schedule 1 is important for the prevention of fraud. That is why it is there. For example, if the details contained on the application form have raised questions about the identity of the applicant, the interviewer may want to ask questions about the place of birth of the applicant's mother. The genuine applicant would easily be able to satisfy the interviewer by answering questions such as that. The fact that the Secretary of State is able to ask such questions will make it more difficult for a would-be fraudster to obtain an ID card in an identity that is not their own.

However, the detection of fraud, important although it is, is not the only reason for the Secretary of State to be able to ask questions about the individual. Some individuals will have complicated and unusual circumstances that require clarification at the enrolment stage. The ability to ask for information other than that listed in Schedule 1 is also important to ensure that the information contained on the register is as accurate as possible. I am sure that Members of
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1052
 
the Committee will appreciate the importance of that. Therefore, it is essential that the Secretary of State is not constrained to requesting information listed in Schedule 1.

8.45 pm

The words,

"otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary",

do not give the Secretary of State an unfettered power to request any information, relevant or not to the maintenance of the register. Requirements to provide information can be made only for the purposes set out in Clause 5(4); that is, for the purpose of,

"verifying information that may be entered in the Register about that individual",

or,

"otherwise ensuring that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry about that individual in the Register".

Amendments Nos. 116 and 173A are similar in effect to the amendments already discussed in this section, so I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made about the necessity of asking the individual for information outside Schedule 1. However, Clauses 5(6) and 12(5), to which these amendments relate, already contain safeguards against the requirement to provide irrelevant information. Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section requiring the provision of information must be in accordance with the statutory purposes, which are themselves confined by reference to the "registrable facts". The safeguard ensures that questions asked of the individual will be proper and intent only on preventing fraud and promoting the accuracy of the data on the register. I realise that it has taken a little while to go through that, but I hope that that clarification helps the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which I find convincing. I will obviously look at it in Hansard but, as far as I am concerned, that is an end of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.