Identity Cards Bill

I am always delighted when there is a bit of friction between the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, because it colours proceedings. Whether it illuminates this debate, I am less certain, although I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in his analysis. I want to clarify one or two issues to put this matter finally to bed. I want to make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, understands that simple changes of address in the way that he described will not mean that there has to be a re-charging of the ID card-holder—that he will have to pay a new fee simply for notifying the register of a change of address. I also want to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, because I know that he was not present at some of our earlier discussions when such questions were raised. There will be no open access to information on the register. Private companies will not be able to access or buy National Identity Register entries. However, with the consent of the ID card-holder, banks or other approved businesses will be able to verify identity by checking an ID card against the National Identity Register. This will mainly involve confirming that the card is valid, has not been reported lost or stolen, and that the information shown on the card is correct. It could also allow identity information not shown on the face of the card, such as address, to be provided, but, again, only—I repeat, ““only””—with the consent of the card-holder. The card-holder’s biometric may also, with his consent, be confirmed against the biometric held on the National Identity Register. However, there is an important caveat: Clause 14 specifically prevents fingerprints or other biometric information being provided from the register to a private sector organisation, even with the consent of the individual. The clause also prevents administrative information that is not related to confirming identity, such as an ID card-holder’s record history, being provided to a private sector organisation again, even with the card-holder’s consent. Clause 27 provides that transaction fees may be charged to businesses who verify identity by checking ID cards against a register, with the card-holder’s consent. Information may not be provided without the card-holder’s consent to any private sector organisation. So this is a tightly-constrained scheme. There will be no wholesale selling of information in the way that I think the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, envisaged. As to the broader questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about there being some form of cross-subsidy within the way that the scheme operates through charging, I made it clear that the scheme must pay for itself, but it cannot profit over and above that. I will give some further thought to the points that he made in that discussion, because I believe that we should do so and that he has raised an interesting issue. But I am not sure that anything further can be gained from it. I will reflect on his comments, but I think that they are based on a misapprehension in part. Having heard that further elucidation, the noble Earl may feel slightly better informed and able to withdraw his amendment.