Identity Cards Bill

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 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. 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.