Identity Cards Bill

First, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for his remarkable memory. He had no difficulty in going back to 1953. I confess that I do not have the opportunity to do so. I shall not comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, while seated. I understand the importance of the issues raised by all noble Lords. I also understand that it is a probing amendment. These are important issues. I shall seek to answer as many as I can. I hope that the explanation will assist noble Lords to realise that we understand that the practicalities are important and that we have to ensure that we do not put a disproportionately large burden on people which would make it difficult for them to comply. So, with the leave of the Committee, I shall go slowly through the issues and attempt to answer the different species of concern raised by noble Lords. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 relate to the provision for allowing addresses to be held on the national register as one of the registered facts. They are concerned with the boundaries we are seeking. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for acknowledging the starting point that there is no objection to having an address registered on the national identity register, that there is utility in doing so and, indeed, that it could be helpful to card holders in many ways. Furthermore, the detail and information contained in these amendments are exactly the kind of detailed arrangements that should be set out in regulations rather than on the face of primary legislation. However, it may be helpful if I explain how we currently intend this issue to be considered. Applicants for identity cards will be asked for information about their current principal address, together with current alternative addresses and previous addresses. They will not be asked about every address at which they have ever lived. However, once an identity card has been issued, historic data and information previously recorded will continue to be held on the register, but not as part of the current record of information provided with the consent of the identity card holder under Clause 14. The current address will be required not only to enable the new agency to contact individuals but also to clearly record on the register where someone lives if they need subsequently to provide evidence of address—for example, when seeking access to a service that applies only to people living in a particular catchment area. We will use the order-making power in Clause 43(10) to specify in detail exactly what will be regarded as a place where a person resides or as his principal place of residence. We will also use the order-making power under Clause 12 to set out clearly which particular changes of address need to be notified and the period within which this must be done. I can reassure the Committee that there will not be a requirement to update addresses every time someone changes their address for a short period of time or when, for example, they go on holiday. Our current thinking is that a person would be required to notify the agency of a change of address for any place where he or she has lived continuously for a period of three months or more. However, we will consider making exemptions in the case of students or others who have continuing permanent addresses. I understand the point about students made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. For students with a term-time address, or for people with second homes, it would be possible, although not a requirement—I emphasise it is not a requirement—for them to update their entry as frequently as they move from one place to another if they found it of personal benefit. After moving into a new residence, there will be a reasonable time limit for notifying the agency of the new address. There will be no requirement for changes to be notified immediately. We intend that updates of addresses will be both easy and secure. There will be a variety of methods to update an address on the national identity register, including over the Internet, by telephone or in writing. But in each case, in order to protect individuals from bogus attempts to change their address details, there would need to be a validation of identity. The identity card scheme is currently investigating the most secure method of conducting such remote transactions, including the use of methods involving one-time passwords, which would provide much greater assurance than traditional passwords. Previous addresses will be required from an identity card applicant for two reasons. First, if there has been a recent change of address, it will help the individual to ensure that the register has both addresses available. It might create problems if the register held only the latest address and a service checking identity had the person living at their last address. Secondly, previous addresses are needed to enable background checks to be carried out, to ensure a gold standard of identity is entered onto the register. For example, this check could be against DVLA records to confirm that the person really has lived at the addresses they claim. As I stated in Committee, it is sometimes much harder for a fraudster to create historic records than it is to create current ones. We will prescribe the period for which we will ask for information on previous addresses as provided at paragraph 1(h) of Schedule 1. Our current thinking is that we will ask all applicants for details of their addresses for the past six years, and only in the most exceptional cases would any earlier details be required. Clearly we would not require an applicant to provide us with details of every place where they have spent a single night in the last six years. Currently we think that a place of residence would be any place where you have lived continuously for three months or more. However, we think it would be wrong for this sort of detail to be set out on the face of the Bill. We have amended the Bill from the version that was previously introduced, so that previous addresses are no longer held in the information recorded in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. I should make clear that the historic information will also be held, but will not be available on the current record. Thus, if someone has held an identity card for, say, the last 30 years, information about their early addresses will have been moved into the record history part of the register. The power to hold record history is provided by paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. It is important to note that the powers for verification with consent provided by Clause 14 do not cover paragraph 5, so it would not be possible for a commercial organisation to seek provision of an individual’s complete address history on the national identity register, even with that person’s consent. The individual could himself seek provision of that information under a Data Protection Act data subject access request. That is the way it would have to be done. In addition, it would be possible for historic information to be provided to the police, for example, under Clause 19 in connection with the prevention or detection of crime. I assure the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have raised the issue of those with no fixed abode and Travellers that we will look carefully at how we deal with that situation. It is clear that we need to deal with homeless people and with Travellers. We have yet to confirm fully how we will handle address details for groups such as the homeless, those with no fixed abode and Travellers, but, in Clause 43(10), we have the power to make regulations as to a place that is to be regarded as their place of residence. It is probable that a contact address will be sufficient. I assure the Committee, however, that we are committed to developing a scheme that will not exclude these groups from registering for their identity card. For the purposes of a biographical footprint check, an applicant’s inability to provide an address or address history will make it more difficult to validate his or her details. However, the biographical footprint check will be based on a range of information provided by an applicant and will use a number of databases and other sources in order to build evidence of identity relating to an applicant’s details. Therefore, it will be possible to develop satisfactory evidence of identity, for example, through a personal meeting with an applicant without requiring address details where there are clearly good reasons why that person has no address history. In a small minority of cases there may be a need to collect further information from an applicant about earlier addresses in order to validate his identity, for example, in the case of a British citizen who has just returned to the United Kingdom having lived six years abroad. Collecting information on past addresses in the United Kingdom from such an applicant could be an important extra piece of information to enable their identity to be validated. However, for the vast majority of identity card applicants we expect to ask for no more than details of addresses over the past six years. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about elderly people who might be unable to give all the necessary details. I have dealt in part with the length of time issue. Elderly people may be exempted from the requirement to register or the requirement to obtain an ID card. Not all the information will be required from every applicant. We shall have to consider those issues very sensitively. Your Lordships will know that many other forms contain an age distinction regarding people over 85 or whatever. We shall have to consider the regulations very carefully in that regard. Not all the information will be required from every single person. The application process will be discussed in more detail when we discuss amendments to Clause 5. However, I assure the Committee that the process will be sensitively handled because we want to ensure that we properly record the details of all those who wish to participate in the scheme while it is voluntary. It will be absolutely crucial to have sensible arrangements when the scheme becomes compulsory. The noble Baroness asked why we need to have the power to hold addresses abroad on the national identity register. First, any applicant for an ID card may have lived abroad recently. In order to confirm their identity it would not be unreasonable to know where they have lived to enable us to get that certainty. Secondly, we must not overlook the fact that foreign nationals resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to registration may still have an address overseas that they would wish to have registered also. The noble Baroness asked about the steps that we would take to verify overseas addresses. We would not need to do so unless there was uncertainty about that person’s address. Finally, in relation to Amendment No. 33 the noble Baroness asked what was the difference between the phrases ““has resided”” and ““was resident””. The simple answer is, ““None””. I hope that I have been able to reassure—