---

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon explained, the aim of the amendment is not only to ensure, quite sensibly, that only one ID card may be held by any individual at any one time—an aspect I hope to develop in the next amendment—but also that the individual about whom there is an entry on the register is effectively provided with a hard copy, in writing, of all the information held on it relating to him. The question is whether the Government intend to issue an individual with more than one card. At the same time, it highlights a situation that could aid and abet criminals hoping to use the cards or to create additional ones, so stealing an individual's identity.

It seems eminently sensible that one should have a written copy of the information stored about one, where any mistakes can be picked up quickly and efficiently by the individual concerned and the national identity register then alerted to the changes that need to be made. More importantly, this could happen before the individual is charged for having incorrect information on his or her record. Not only will it help maintain a check on the accuracy of data and be a preventive measure against fines, but it will also show willing in terms of allowing people access to their own data as per the Data Protection Act and privacy laws. I await with interest a reply from the Minister.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I personally thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for clarifying that I had misunderstood him in relation to the free passports. I had thought that, in answering the other amendment, the noble Lord was suggesting that all stand-alone cards would be free. I now understand what he was saying.

I hope that the noble Lord will remember that, when we were debating this before, I tried to make clear that it would be possible, in due course, for us to look at whether there may be a category of persons who would not need to register, because of either their age or level of infirmity. However, I very much took on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who asserted that many people, notwithstanding their age, might wish to have this right and/or other provisions reducing the amount of money that we may seek to levy on them.

I am sure that the noble Lord would not like the apostrophe either to be after the "s" or between the "d" and the "s", because, as he knows, that would be appallingly bad grammar. It would suggest that the Bill belonged to either one or to many identity cards. I know that the noble Lord, with his normal attention to detail, would not wish that.

Perhaps it is not therefore surprising that the Public Bill Office was reluctant to agree to that, but I know that the noble Lord has a serious point about how many cards we are contemplating. I assure him that it is not our intention that individuals could normally hold more than one card. Indeed, while a person may
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1007
 
record in his register entry details of another name he is known by, it will not be possible to have a card in each name.

However, there are a few exceptions: a person under a witness protection scheme who needs to be provided with a second identity, or a very small number of transgender individuals who are in the transition stage of living in their birth and acquired identities. It is planned, subject to certain checks, to provide such individuals with an opportunity to have two cards in order to take account of their needs and to comply with the spirit of recent gender-recognition legislation. Of course, where two cards are issued in such a circumstance, that fact will be recorded in the technical data for the entry. While this is not to be revealed during a normal day-to-day transaction, the information will be available to prevent misuse. Only one card would ever be valid for travel.

Looking at the number of cards possible, just so that we have it absolutely clear, there will be: an identity card for British citizens, issued alongside the British passport and also valid as a travel document; a stand-alone identity card, issued to British citizens who do not hold a passport, and valid for travel in Europe; a plain ID card, not valid for travel and available to British or Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom; and ID cards linked to residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals. Those are the cards that we anticipate being made available.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister said something rather interesting then. She talked of, I think, a plain identity card which does not give you the right to travel in Europe. This is news to some of us. In what circumstances will that be issued and will that ID card carry all the full shenanigans—all the Schedule 1 stuff—in terms of register entries?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: 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
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1008
 
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
 
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1009
 
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.

---