| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 55A:
"(b) verifying information required for the re-issue of a card after it has been cancelled in accordance with section 13(2)(a) to (d)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55A, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 56A and 59E. Clause 9 provides for the renewal
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1019
of cards for those individuals who are required by Clause 6 to be entered into the register. The Bill now has no Clause 6 but the Government may not be persuaded that we are right: they may seek to reinsert the clause. Therefore, in the remote possibility that Clause 6 appears again, this amendment asks questions about the interaction.
The Explanatory Notes tell us that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State the power to require an individual applying for an ID card under this clause to do certain things so that the Secretary of State can verify the information provided and ensure that the register is up-to-date and accurate. Will the Minister explain why subsection (3)(b) is necessary? What is lost which will be of value to the holder of the card if the paragraph were removed from the Bill? Surely paragraph (a) verification should be sufficient to ensure that the information entered is correct and up-to-date. If something is out of date, one should say so. Is not that the act of verification?
Subsection (3)(b) may be not only otiose but could confer an undesirably wide power on the Secretary of State. My amendment therefore limits the power in paragraph (b) to one of requiring an individual to verify information held in circumstances where the card has been cancelled or recalled in accordance with the provisions set out in Clause 13(2)(a) to (d). Those provisions cover four sets of circumstances: that the card was issued on the basis of incorrect information; the card has been lost, damaged or destroyed; the information held on the register has changed, or there has been a change of circumstance which means that the information has to be modified.
Amendment No. 56A probes what information it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to require an individual to provide in order to verify the register. Can the noble Baroness indicate what limitation should be put on the range of information that may be required? Amendment No. 59E refers to Clause 12, which sets out how changes in circumstances should be notified to the Secretary of State in order to maintain the accuracy of the register. The Secretary of State is given the wide power of being able to require an individual to do whatever he "thinks fit" for the purposes of verifying information and making sure that the entry is up to date. My amendment would restrict the power of the Secretary of State. He would be able to require the person to give information only if he thinks what he is requiring from that person is essential for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b).
What of value would be lost by this sensible restriction which protects the individual from too wide a power of the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, as noble Lords may have guessed, I have missed a few sessions of this Bill and so lost the cadence of the House a little. Coming back, I have to say that not much has changed. I feel as though I am in a small corner of Britain which is somehow disconnected from what is happening in the rest of the country. It has been my view from the start that while of course it is true that
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1020
there are issues of liberty as well as security in this, the real point is that the proposed Bill is about identity and about people strengthening their identity. In that context, the state and the Secretary of State are not enemies of the people, but helpers or enablers of the people. This complete failure to understand where the public is on the issue is beyond me.
My noble friend at the Dispatch Box has reminded us that the Labour Party fought an election on ID cards. This is not just a public opinion thing. Members of the public want them, profoundly. They want them because they want to be able to assert their identity and they do not see the Secretary of State as some kind of villain in this, but as a friend in this new world.
Of course noble Lords may feel that they have won the odd vote, and so they have. But I can tell them this: in the end, while they may have won the odd battle, the war will be won over here. In the end, the public will not be denied. This is a fundamental issue. It is not just of public concern; it addresses the forces and changes of the new politics that will happen. Over time, noble Lords will come to understand that it is right that this is done. It is not the case that the state is the enemy of the people. The people have many enemies. This Bill will help to protect them from the real enemies they face.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if the noble Lord who has just spoken thinks that the people of Somerset want ID cards, I advise him to go and consult them. In other areas, the public are not yet aware of the kind of ugly beast with its compulsory powers that is creeping up on them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gould, may continue in his blissful belief that this is a corner of Britain which is completely out of touch with what is going on anywhere else. Since the Bill began its passage through this House and the noble Lord made his speeches, it is my experience that the people where I live are extremely grateful that Members of the House of Lords are asking a lot of questions. They may or may not be happy about identity cards; I think their view has changed a bit while we have been examining the Bill, but that will be revealed as time goes on. However, I repeat that they are extremely grateful that we are asking questions.
The question just asked by my noble friend—whether it is right that Clause 9(4)(d) should provide that the Secretary of State may ask for any information he likes for the purpose of the Bill—is a good question. My noble friend suggests that he should seek any information that is "reasonably required". If a citizen were to take the Government to court over what was being asked of him, the test would be whether the question was reasonable. That is a perfectly good point.
I am sorry that the noble Lord still resents everything that noble Lords on this side of the Chamber are seeking to do.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gould, is wonderfully provocative. He did not
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1021
refer to these Report stage amendments, rather he made a good Second Reading speech. I am not going to rise to the bait, but I am blowed if I know which of the amendments he was speaking to. The noble Baroness who has just spoken made some eminently commonsense points. To insert the word "reasonably", as proposed in Amendment No. 56A, is entirely sensible, while to insert the word proposed in Amendment No. 59E, so that reference is made to "essential" in Clause 12(3) is again absolute common sense.
This is not a case of the paranoia of the state, but of producing sensible legislation that achieves its purpose. I wholly support the amendments.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not yet, I am afraid.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We hope to reach a short adjournment fairly soon.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister will be delayed a little, but I am afraid her noble friend Lord Gould has made it essential for me to say a few words. If he believes that the British people are profoundly in favour of the Bill, then he is sadly out of touch. I confess that so far I have not received one letter in favour of the Bill, but I have had many opposed to it. Indeed, I have had a letter from a number of my former constituents, who earlier this month conducted a straw poll in Swindon. They found that of the 400 people they contacted, eight were in favour of ID cards, and of those eight, six were uninformed about the national identity register. When they found out about it, they changed their minds. The poll suggested 398 to two against ID cards in my former constituency. So it is by no means certain that the people of this country are profoundly in favour of ID cards and a national identity register as proposed by this Bill.
I thought I would put forward those points because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gould, likes to listen to debates, even though he does not take part in them too often. I hope that my remarks are helpful to him.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to provide the clarification sought by the noble Baroness. I understand the frustration felt by my noble friend Lord Gould on these matters, and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that, having made the speeches he has made in relation to this Bill, it is a brave man indeed who would make criticisms on the nature of Second Reading speeches. Perhaps I should say no more on the subject.
The words inserted by the amendment are not needed for the effective operation or security of the scheme. I know that the amendments are probing in nature and have been tabled in order to ensure that we amplify why we think Clause 9(3)(b) is important. If a card is cancelled under Clause 13(2)(a) to (d), the holder will no longer have a valid card. If he is subject
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1022
to compulsory registration, he will be obliged by Clause 9(2) to apply for another. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 9 will already apply to him, as they do to those who are applying for the first time or because their cards have expired, and there is no reason to make separate provision for those whose cards have been cancelled. Under the present Clause 9(3)(b), the Secretary of State would be able to request, if it should be necessary, that a person whose card had been cancelled should attend, provide information and so on in a way that was proper. That would not be necessary if, for example, which we do not anticipate, there happened to be a simple technical fault with a batch of cards that required their reissue. He would be under no obligation to do so, and would not do so. It would be in no-one's interest to inconvenience people and burden the registration centres unnecessarily. I imagine that is why the noble Baroness has omitted Clause 13(2)(e) from her amendment. I see her nodding.
7.30 pm
This amendment, however, would have other effects that I am confident the noble Baroness would not wish. The words in Clause 9(3)(b) are the same as those in Clauses 5(4)(b) and 12(3)(b). If the present provision in Clause 9(3)(b) were removed, we could only verify information provided in an initial application or application for renewal. If a person omitted to include certain pieces of information, the Secretary of State would be unable to require that he provide that information as he would otherwise do under paragraph (d) or Clause 9(4). We would also be unable, for example, to take an up-to-date photograph of the applicant, even if the one on the register was many years old, as photographs would be taken by the agency, not provided by the applicant. It is vital that the register is kept up to date and accurate, although there are some who would far prefer their photograph aged 21 than at any subsequent time. Many of the amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite have been designed to ensure that it is, and I know that is a matter of importance to the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 56A seeks to ensure that individuals would only have to provide such information as may be reasonably required by the Secretary of State. The power to require information in Clause 9(4)(d) is already restricted by subsection (3) to requiring information for the purposes of verifying information provided by the person concerned or necessary to confirm his register entry. In any case, however, it is not necessary to provide that the Secretary of State must act reasonably. He is under a public duty to do so, and will be subject to judicial review if he does not. Prescribing that he must act reasonably would imply that all the Secretary of State's other powers could be exercised unreasonably. I am sure that is not what the noble Baroness would like. The Secretary of State is bound to act reasonably in ensuring that a person has a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry. We believe he must have the power to do so.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1023
Amendment No. 59E provides that the Secretary of State may only require an individual to attend an interview or provide information if he considers it essential, rather than thinks fit. The power in Clause 12(3) only arises where the holder of an ID card has notified the Secretary of State that there has been a relevant change of circumstances or that there is an error on the register. On receiving that notification, the Secretary of State can require the person concerned to attend for interview, provide biometrics, be photographed or provide other information, but these powers can only be used for the purposes of verifying information relating to changes or otherwise ensuring there is a complete, up-to-date entry. In many cases, no further information will be required. For example, if someone were to notify of a change of name on marriage and send their marriage certificate, there would obviously be no need to require an interview or biometrics before amending the register.
After that full and comprehensive response, I hope the noble Baroness will feel that her diverse amendments are unnecessary, and will be content, not only to withdraw them, but also to ensure that we never have the pleasure of seeing them again.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |