Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 12, page 10, line 32, at end insert

'(1A) For the purposes of ensuring that an individual is able to comply with his duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must at least once every two years send in a prescribed manner to each individual to whom an ID card has been issued at his prescribed address a copy of the information recorded as at a prescribed date about that individual in the Register.'.

I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Anderson. Having glided effortlessly through clauses 9, 10 and 11 prior to our break, we now come to clause 12. It deals with maintaining the accuracy of the register, which will be achieved mainly through obligations on individuals to notify changes in relevant information. However, it does not create an obligation to audit the information contained on the register. The Government's record on the accuracy of information that is held on databases is mixed. That was made clear recently by the Criminal Records Bureau, which was shown to hold numerous inaccurate details of convictions.

While inaccurate information in the Criminal Records Bureau can be discovered through the issuing of a criminal conviction certificate, inaccuracies on the national identity register can remain undetected indefinitely. As well as there being obligations on individuals, which is understood and accepted, is it not arguable that we should try everything possible to ensure that entries are accurate and, furthermore, that such a stipulation should be written into the Bill? One way in which to achieve that would be to require details of the entry to be sent biannually to those on the register, so that such details can be checked.

The register should be as accurate as possible. Self-verification is the best way in which to ensure that. The Government may argue that such a procedure would cost a lot of money. However, much money will be spent on setting up the register, and it must be worth incurring a little extra expense to ensure that the information contained in it is accurate. Everything that we can do to help towards that end should be done, hence probing amendment No. 132.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Ms Anderson. The addition that we would make to the Bill is simple. I hark back to an earlier debate in which the Minister seemed interested. The Australians have changed their identity card regulations by introducing a system of self-regulation whereby every so often—I am not sure about the time   limit—the details of what is contained on their national register and identity cards are sent to the individuals for them to say that they are correct or that changes have occurred.

An Army identity card follows that precise pattern. Whatever qualifications or circumstances have changed for the individuals, their personal records—some of which are on the identity card—are sent to them every two years for them to update. Only by so doing are the records and cards kept straight. The two parallels are useful: first, that the Australians have thought it worth while to introduce such a requirement and, secondly, that other identity card schemes—albeit not national identity cards—have parallels. Such a requirement would be useful and cost-effective.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

I add my support to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) for amendment No. 132. I wish to draw a little homespun analogy with which all Members of Parliament will be familiar: once each year, we are sent copies of our entries in the Register of Members' Interests and asked to check and satisfy ourselves that they are still correct and then return them to the registrar.

The amendment is a commendable proposal. It lends itself to continuing accuracy in the record, and, in an indirect but perfectly healthy way, to keeping the registered and the registrar in dialogue with each other. That would be helpful.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

May I add my welcome to those of other hon. Members to you, Ms Anderson? I am grateful for this opportunity to concentrate briefly on the issue of the accuracy of the register, which is at the heart of the whole scheme.

The Government are mindful that all practicable steps ought to be taken to ensure that data are entirely accurate, and that those to whom they relate are notified of information in that regard, where it is practical to do so. That would do nothing more than make us conform with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, which was partly enacted for this very purpose. I want to say where the basis of that accuracy will lie, and how it will be achieved.

In passing, I point out to the hon. Member for Newark that the Australians do not have an identity scheme; he is probably aware of that. For all I know, he may be right about the practices he mentioned to the Committee, but they might relate to the social security card scheme that the Australians have, rather than any identity card. However, that does not detract from his point.

If this scheme is to provide the standard of identification that we need, it is vital that the applicant's identity is verified in the first instance, before an entry is made in the register. Clause 11 enables us to do that, by virtue of checks and other sources of information. A Cabinet Office study on identity fraud published in July 2002 recommended greater use of biographical checks on applicants to prevent identity fraud; that is why the clause has been drafted in this way.  

The national identity register will be a new database, and applications will require checks to be made against other databases, such as Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency driver information, Department for Work and Pensions information on national insurance, and birth, marriage and death records, in order to establish a biographical footprint, and to protect against fraudulent applications, among other things. That information will give us a basis from which the register can go forward. It will be verified at that early point, and it will reach the highest possible standards.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to send to each individual to whom an identity card has been issued a copy of the details recorded in his entry on the register every two years. Some countries—the Netherlands, for example—do that in their identity card scheme; a statement is delivered to the individual's recorded home address. We considered doing that, but we have rejected it for security reasons and to ensure that personal information is available only to the person to whom that information relates. We do not consider that it would be an appropriate way of ensuring that an individual is aware of the information recorded in his entry.

However, that does not mean that an individual will not be aware of his or her entry. All applicants will have data subject access rights under the 1998 Act, and we are looking at ways of ensuring that an individual will be able to read his or her card and the register entry as easily as possible. For example, we might be able to offer a service whereby an individual could read the information held on his or her entry securely via the internet or public service kiosks.

I hope that what I have said reassures hon. Members that we will be able to maintain security from the base of having the highest security standards from the outset, and that they will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

We are all grateful to the Minister for his response. We are united in wishing that the register remains accurate. We thought that this amendment might be a useful addition, but we do not feel strongly enough to press it to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 117, in clause 12, page 11, line 10, after 'who', insert 'intentionally'.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 100, in clause 12, page 11, line 11, leave out '£1000' and add '£50'.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

It is well to observe that we are dealing with the duties on individuals to notify the Secretary of State about changes of circumstances. Failure to do so involves a civil penalty of up to £1,000. The Minister will be the first to recognise that other clauses mention a number of actions, or failures to act, that could be very serious in terms of moral culpability. For example, in due course we will move on to clauses relating to having in one's possession apparatus for the purposes of forgery. That is serious and, in the minds   of all normal people, seriously criminal. However, under this clause we are dealing with a slightly different position; we are dealing with the individual who is forgetful.

Many of us can be forgetful, hence amendment No. 117, which would make the provision read: ''An individual who intentionally contravenes a requirement . . . under this section shall be liable to a civil penalty''; that would replace the strict liability that exists at the moment.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

If my hon. Friend is successful in persuading the Committee of the merits of amendment No. 117, and the offence becomes one of intentionally contravening, that would be a tougher test, but a more serious offence. If he succeeds, therefore, with amendment No. 117, will he desist with amendment No. 100? Having made the offence more serious, might he not wish to leave in place the higher penalty for committing the more serious offence of contravening of the requirement of the statute?

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

My hon. Friend asks me for my views on amendment No. 100, but I would like to hear the arguments put forward on it before I give my opinion. However, I am grateful to him for his intervention.

The problem is the person who is rather negligent; I am a bit worried that such people will be punished quite heavily. I will tell the Minister of an interesting little parallel that I was thinking about, relating to the duty on each of us to supply the DVLA with details of changes of address and so on. The Minister cannot answer my next point, and nor can those advising him, because it is very much a matter for the Department for Transport, but it is a fair parallel. It would be interesting to know how many names and addresses of vehicle-keepers and licence holders appear on the DVLA database and—here is the rub—I wonder whether any of us could estimate how many of those addresses are not up-to-date. I venture to suggest from my own experience that the answer must be millions. Also, it would be interesting to find out how many people have been prosecuted for failure to keep their addresses up-to-date in the past few years. I say that to illustrate the difficulty that we could be in.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman and I are like-minded on this subject. I had inquiries made because I was aware—as is he, from his experience on the bench—of the requirement to update one's address for the DVLA under pain of committing a criminal offence. That is for obvious reasons; it is because of the consequences for other road users if people drive around with incorrect information on their driving licence. Unfortunately, the statistical evidence on that is collected under a database field, as it is known, that includes information on a number of comparatively minor road traffic offences, and it was not possible to disaggregate the information. It is axiomatic that there is no way that I, or anyone, would know how many wrong addresses were on the database.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

That is a fair point. However, it would be interesting if each Committee member who had moved in the past year or two—I have not—could ask themselves whether their particulars with the DVLA   are accurate. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is an issue here and in all probability—although who can say?—the accuracy of the DVLA database in terms of constant changes of address is open to question. If that is right, we will have a problem, which is why I ask whether clause 12(6) should say ''intentionally''. It would be helpful if the Minister commented on the Secretary of State's likely approach when he comes to impose a civil penalty in relation to this sort of thing, compared with the other, much more serious, matters in the Bill relating to criminal offences.

That is the spirit in which I speak to the amendment.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

This is an echo of our debate on civil penalties in clause 6, although on that occasion we were discussing an amendment that endeavoured to introduce the phrase, ''without reasonable excuse'', rather than one using the word ''intentionally''. However, amendment No. 117 essentially opens up the same debate—if I am not doing a disservice to it.

I concede, as I did in that debate, that there is an issue here and I understand that hon. Members wish to make liability to a civil penalty under the clause dependant on intention. Intention, however, may be difficult to prove and may generate a burdensome administrative process in the context of a scheme like this. Indeed, the Government take that view because the civil penalties under the clause may be serious in relation to certain individuals and there could be serious consequences relating to a failure to keep details in the register up to date. Consequently, I appreciate why hon. Members wish to write a fault element into the clause. However, for the reasons I gave last week in the debate on clause 6, that is not necessary.

I reiterate that because the Secretary of State is not under an obligation to impose a penalty when a requirement is contravened he intends to exercise his discretion to consider reasonable excuses, and explanations that a contravention was unintentional, if he is aware of them at the time of imposing the penalty. I think that I will be able to give hon. Members further reassurance.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

I defer to the Minister, whom I have always admired, not least as a lawyer; he is rather a good one and there are no penalties on me for admiring his skill as a lawyer. However, I hope that he takes note of this point in passing that the concept of intention is not unknown to English law. I cannot comment on Scottish law. Intention is at the core of stealing, for example, where there has to be an intention to deprive the rightful owner of whatever is stolen. The English courts have managed to get their mind round that concept for many years. I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that intention as a concept is a barrier to proceeding with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I accept with good grace the hon. Gentleman's view of my abilities as a lawyer, although I have not practised for some years. If I ever go back   and practise, I will look for instructions—if the hon. Gentleman needs a lawyer and if he can afford me.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Intention is not unknown to Scots law either. There is a great commonality between Scots and English law and we have learned and borrowed from each other ever since 1707, and before then, to our mutual benefit. However, my substantive response to that point will have to wait until we debate clause 34, which provides for people being able to object to civil penalties.

Government amendments Nos. 189 to 193, which have now been tabled, provide that one of the grounds on which a person may challenge a penalty is that the circumstances of the contravention in respect of which he is liable makes the imposition of the penalty unreasonable. Under that provision, a person who has unintentionally contravened could object to a penalty. The Government amendments have been drafted in response to the undertakings that I gave following the debate that we had on clause 6.

From a practical point of view, it would simply not be feasible for the Secretary of State to have to satisfy himself that each contravention was intentional before imposing a civil penalty. Last week, the hon. Member for Woking raised the issue of article 6. I recognise that it applies to the penalty regime but, as I pointed out then and repeat today, if a decision determined to involve a person's civil obligations is taken by the Executive, there will be no violation of article 6, provided that there is a right to challenge the decision before a judicial body with full jurisdiction providing the guarantees of article 6. That has been provided for in turn in clause 35.

I put forward that argument in relation to amendment No. 117 and I hope that it is persuasive, as it was in relation to the issue of ''without reasonable excuse'' and clause 6.

I will quickly turn to the maximum penalty that might be imposed under clause 12. Amendment No. 100 seeks to reduce that to £50. I do not want to get into the debate that was developing in the exchange between Opposition Members. However, the maximum penalty of £1,000 reflects the importance of the register being kept up to date. There will be discretion about the amount of the penalty to be imposed. Clause 36 provides for a code of practice setting out the matters to be considered when determining the amount to be imposed in any case. I have already reassured the Committee that part of the determination of that figure will include an inquiry as to the financial circumstances of the individual, so that the penalty is proportionate to the person's circumstances.

A maximum penalty of £50 would send out entirely the wrong message. It would encourage people not to register and we should view the penalties as a warning to individuals. I hope that they will never need to be imposed, but the intention is that they will encourage conformity. I hope that the Committee agrees that the penalty has been set at the right maximum level and that in the light of the Government's amendments Nos. 189 to 193, which are now published, it is not   necessary to make liability to those penalties subject to intention.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister and I think he responded very reasonably.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) quite rightly flagged up the issue of the relevance of intent in law and he referred to theft. That got my mind moving to a debate that we nearly had this morning. Under clause 8, the ID card remains the property of the person issuing it, which I take to mean the Secretary of State. Therefore, I imagine every indictment of theft of a card in the Crown Court would name the Secretary of State as the owner. Defendants who pleaded not guilty—and I imagine everyone would, just for a good joke—would require the attendance of the Secretary of State to give evidence that it actually was his. That is a debate for an earlier moment and I do not expect the Minister to say a single word about it.

The Minister is sympathetic and in later clauses we will come to concessions from the Government. When he says, as he has done, that a code of practice and an issue of discretion is involved, we feel more comforted. He knows what we want to avoid and he has gone part way to reassuring us. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in clause 12, page 11, line 11, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State shall make no charge for changes to the Register required by this section.'.

It is a pleasure to be a member of the Committee and to be serving under your chairmanship, Ms Anderson. I do not intend to detain the Committee for long.

The purpose of tabling the amendment is to establish a couple of issues about the clause and the way in which the notification of any changes affecting the accuracy of the register would take place. I have some simple questions for the Minister. Will there be any impact on the costs involved for individuals who comply? In other words, are any charges planned as part of a notification where someone has to submit a change of address or name? However, would any charge be incurred for notifying the register of changes?

Secondly, I should like to get a sense of the Minister's estimate of how many annual changes are likely to be required under the clause. What are we looking at? What kind of roll change will there be, and how many individuals will have to notify the register of changes? I am assuming that we are dealing in this clause with people who change their names or move house and that an individual would have to notify for those two main reasons.

I have looked at the electoral roll, as many Members are suddenly doing with greater interest at the moment, and I noticed a churn in my constituency. In parts of London, that churn can involve up to a quarter of the population. Many people move or get married each year. It would be interesting to know the   Government's estimate of how many individuals will need to make a change to the register. How do the Government think that number can be managed and coped with on top of those individuals coming on stream—on to the register and having ID cards—day to day anyway?

Those are my questions: will there be any costs and charges involved for individuals and what will the churn effect be? How many notifications and changes will have to take place? I hope that the Minister can answer that latter point, which is significant for the ability of the system to operate effectively.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

I ought to offer an apology to the hon. Gentleman for my unintentional inadvertence. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Woking whether he would comment on the interaction between amendments Nos. 117 and 100. At that moment, I had not realised the authorship of amendment No. 100. Perhaps it would have been more courteous for me to have addressed my comments to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).

I content myself by saying the following, as a modest contribution to the very real concept of churn. Every year in this country, we issue 1 million new driving licences that did not exist before. The numerical changes can be very substantial indeed.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I am grateful for the brevity with which the hon. Member for Winchester introduced his amendment. I shall try to reflect that same brevity in my response. I understand the wishes behind this amendment, which would provide that no charges would be levied for modifications to the register.

Our intention is that when details are changed in the register and no new card is issued, there should be no charge to the individual. However, it is right that the maintenance processes should ensure that payment could be collected, in particular in cases when a new card needs to be issued. Any charging scheme is still to be finalised, and the actual charges will depend on the circumstances in which any notification relevant to an individual's entry needs to be made.

It is not uncommon for charges to be made in such circumstances. For example, the DVLA levy a charge for the replacement of a lost driving licence and the Passport Service does the same for lost or stolen passports, except in exceptional circumstances. I reassure Committee members, for the sake of their constituents and others, that we agreed with great alacrity not to levy any charge on those who lost their passports in that tragic event, the tsunami. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Winchester raises his eyebrows from a sedentary position.

Mr Chris Mole (Ipswich, Labour)

That is quite a trick.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

Perhaps the Official Report should put, ''From his sedentary position, he raises his eyebrows.'' I personally assure the hon. Member for Winchester—I am sure that he will take this from me—that immediately that the issue was brought to my attention, I decided that no charges should be levied and issued an instruction to that effect. If I was remiss   at all, it was in not anticipating for a couple of days that that would be an issue.

Some official who took a phone call from a distressed relative or individual may have been unable to develop the policy at that point. That is no criticism of the official. Once brought to my attention—by one of my hon. Friends, in a short conversation—I immediately took the decision that we would not be allowing a charge. The decision was not a difficult one and I am not looking for credit, but it was made as quickly as it could have been. Members will understand that a number of decisions had to be made around Government very quickly about that time. If there was any inconvenience to any constituents, I apologise to them for those few days in which perhaps the decision had not been made.

This is quite common. The hon. Member for Winchester seeks a specific answer to another question. I deeply regret that I am unable to answer that question. At this stage of the development of the scheme, we have not yet decided exactly what changes will be notifiable or how notifications are to be made. As that decision has not been made, I cannot tell him how many notifications we estimate will need to be made. He can rest assured that there will be a substantial number of them. From our own experience of constituents moving, as reflected in the voters register, he is quite right that there are significant changes. I recollect from my period of responsibility for that area of policy in Northern Ireland, in some places up to a quarter of people can change their address in an electoral registration area in a Parliament.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

It is quite common that when professional ladies get married they maintain their maiden name for the purposes of continuing work, but adopt their married name in a more social environment. When somebody is quite legitimately operating under two surnames, what would be the position on identity cards?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

This is off the top of my head and, if I am inaccurate, I will communicate with the Committee as I have done over the past 24 hours, but my understanding of the scheme is that people will be able to register under any particular identity. If for legitimate, not fraudulent, reasons they wish to use another name, then that fact could be registered and recorded on the register. We will not be issuing two cards to anyone. People will have to decide for the card. That is my immediate response. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] As I stand here, inspiration arrives—in my head. Interestingly, what I have been given is what I just told the Committee. Both names will have to be registered, but individuals can choose which of the names goes on the card. It will be a matter of choice for the individual.

I do not think that I have anything to add. I have made myself clear to the hon. Member for Winchester.   He will express a degree of dissatisfaction—I expect that—probably merited given his view of the scheme.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I am extremely grateful for the Minister's comments on passports for those involved in the tsunami tragedy. Someone did contact me and I raised those concerns with the Home Office, which responded in that way, for which the whole Committee will be grateful.

I take some comfort from the response of the Minister on the charges that could not be imposed on an individual who has to notify a change on the register. However, the Committee will note that he did not rule out the possibility that there could be some admin charges involved in that process. He has not categorically said that there would be no charges.

If we take the figure from this morning—a family of two adults and two teenage children—we are looking at an initial cost of about £500 to put the scheme in place. If, after they have registered and got their cards, six months later they choose to move house, they will be interested to know whether there will be charges involved as a consequence. That could be a considerable figure, particularly on that scale—four individuals in an adult household.

We may want to revisit that point. I am useless at false outrage, but having got this far into the Bill, I am outraged that the Minister does not yet know the churn effect. The Government are working on how the scheme will operate, so they should know how many additional individuals will need to make changes during the year, because that will be significant. That strikes me as odd, and I am mildly flabbergasted that they do not have the figures.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman may be flabbergasted, but I may have misinterpreted his question. I thought that he was asking for specific figures. If he wanted to know the rate, I can tell him that we are operating on a churn rate of addresses of 14 per cent. per annum and a churn rate of names of 0.5 per cent. per annum.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

No, I wanted to know whether the Government have made an estimate of the impact. I am surprised that the name change figure is as low as it is, but obviously the Home Office has carried out research on that. I am also slightly surprised that the churn rate of individuals moving addresses is only 14 per cent. That does not ring true compared with the electoral roll. However, at least it was helpful to receive the figures. I hope that we will have the reassurance that, when the Government are examining the implementation of the provision, they will have factored all that into account.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he press the Minister on whether the figure of 5 per cent. for name changes includes divorcees? I imagine that, during a year, quite a number of divorcees will want to change their names.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

It would be helpful for the Minister to drop us a useful note about that setting out exactly what percentage of people and how many individuals it is thought will be involved in house change,   including the impact on the figures of those individuals who change their name through marriage or who have gone through divorce process.

While I am on my feet, we want to know about the cost of having to notify debts. How will the system cope with such issues? We need a note that explains the churn plus effect. Subject to having that information on the record and to the reassurance that we have received that it is not the Government's intention to charge automatically for changes to the register, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.