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

I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 12, line 35, after 'a,' insert 'prescribed'.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 171, in page 12, line 35, after 'with', insert 'all of the'.

No. 172, in page 12, line 41, leave out subsection (2).

No. 50, in page 13, line 26, leave out subsection (4).

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

These are probing amendments. I do not intend to take long.

I have a number of questions about the provision for the Secretary of State, in essence, to tell other organisations and people about information recorded on the register. In this clause, that can be done with the permission of the individual on whom information is being released. That makes sense. I understand circumstances under which an individual might want to convince a bank or similar body about their status or address. They may want information held on the register to be released to a bank. Under such circumstances, these days I would have to go in to the branch with gas bills and things. A quick way to register would be useful.

The first question to the Minister is whether he could explain the types of organisation that he envisages approaching the Government for information about an individual.

Secondly, if there were concerns about passing some information on—even if the individual had given permission—are there no-go areas for the Government? Could the Government say that it was inappropriate for certain organisations to have the information; that they were uneasy about their having material held on the register?

The third and final point is how the Secretary of State will define what consent means. In other words, what proof will the Government need that someone has agreed that the information should be passed on? Organisations or groups may have said, ''Tick the box if we can approach the Secretary of State for information.''

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

Order. We will be considering the form of consent later in our deliberations. If the hon. Gentleman could restrict his remarks to the amendments, I would be grateful.

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

I shall abide by the ruling. I was referring to the kinds of organisation that would be asking for information under clause 14. I am not sure where the later reference is. Perhaps I could have some guidance from the Chair. Is that in a later clause or a later amendment?

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

We are discussing the group of amendments led by amendment No. 47 to clause 14, in the name of Mr. Mercer and others.

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

In which case, I will restrict my remarks at this stage to the organisations and how the   Government will treat the information that goes to those organisations. I hope that the Minister will reassure me. With the later group of amendments, I will deal with the issue of how to prove that someone has allowed that organisation to have the information.

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

Amendment No. 103 would mean that the Secretary of State could provide information only to prescribed persons rather than to a person. That would mean that anybody using the verification service would have to be prescribed in regulation.

Importantly, under clause 14 the individual is consenting to the provision of his information to the organisations that he chooses. Prescribing certain organisations would not be helpful at this stage. Part of the selling point of the scheme, as it were, is that we are offering individuals an opportunity to prove their identity against a gold standard. What we want is extensive use of this scheme, with people's confidence and consent.

The scheme does, however, contain substantial safeguards as to whom the information may be provided. There is a power in subsection (5) to make regulations as to

''the persons by whom, and the circumstances in which, an application''

for information can made. There is already a power in subsection (6) to require that

''the person to whom''

information

''is provided has registered prescribed particulars about himself''.

That would apply to an organisation and would be approved in the prescribed manner.

Subsection (6) makes it clear that the regulations can put conditions on the grant of approval and provides for approval to be suspended or withdrawn. Those regulations will be subject to a negative resolution procedure in the House. There will be an opportunity to look in detail at how that aspect can be policed.

We will deal shortly with how consent can be communicated and verified, but it is not necessary to go further and require each applicant or organisation to be prescribed. For example, if an individual wanted an organisation to be able to verify their identity using the scheme, there would be a lengthy period before it could do so if we had to go back to Parliament.

Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 would allow the Secretary of State to provide all the information from the register with the consent of the individual and remove the restrictions and provisions of information under subsections (2) and (3). The amendment is not necessary. As I have said before, the Data Protection Act 1998 will apply to the identity card scheme, including the national identity register, and the existing subject access rights under the Act will apply.

Subsection (8) makes it clear that existing rights are not affected by the power in clause 14 and the 1998 Act includes exemptions that ensure that information that it might not be in the public interest to disclose would not have to be provided. That is the right approach. We are also considering ways of ensuring   that an individual will be able easily to read his card and register entry.

Removing subsection (2), as suggested in amendment No. 172, would also remove a safeguard to individuals, which was explicitly included following the comments on the draft Bill from organisations and individuals who wanted to ensure that organisations could be provided only with information that was relevant to them for verifying the identity of their customer.

To provide part of the reassurance that the hon. Member for Winchester seeks, subsection (2) excludes information that is provided and held by the scheme to ensure the integrity of the register—such as the record history, registration and ID card history, validation information provided by the individual, security information about entry and the records of provision of information—but which is not required by organisations checking to verify the identity of their customer. It also provides that fingerprint and other biometric information cannot be provided on a verification check under the clause; it can be used only to confirm or refuse confirmation that details provided by the person concerned match those on the register.

The amendment would mean that organisations could be provided with information that is not relevant to them and which the individual might not want revealed for obvious reasons. For example, the registration and ID card history relating to the reason why any omission from the information was recorded in his entry could include a medical reason why a biometric could not be given, which is not relevant to proving identity. That would also harm the security of the scheme, because we could then be asked to provide security information held about an individual, including their PIN or security code, which, as the clause is drafted, could only be confirmed as correct or incorrect if it was provided to us.

I seek your guidance, Ms Anderson, on whether it is relevant for me to deal with amendment No. 50, which has not been spoken to so far. Perhaps I should just ignore it, and if it is not referred to we need not trouble with it further.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment in the light of the reassurance that I have sought to provide. If he requires further details, I will try to provide them.

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

The Minister has given me some reassurance. In essence, he is saying that the only information that any individual could ask to be passed on to another organisation is not a great deal more than confirmation of their address. The provision does not seem to add much more information beyond confirming the address. The Minister ruled out quite a lot of other things that could be on the list. If the process is similar to providing a gas or telephone bill, I am reassured to some extent.

I remain cautious and nervous, however, about the number of organisations that could ask for the information and would feel a lot happier if there were a prescribed set of organisations to which it could be passed. However, it is difficult to disentangle this,   despite the Chair's ruling on consent, because if I feel comfortable about the issue of consent, I may feel a lot more comfortable about all sorts of organisations having that information. If I do not feel comfortable about the issue, I will move to the conclusion that we should have a prescribed list of organisations. Your ruling, Ms Anderson, makes it difficult for me to conclude on the issue, because the two matters are closely connected. However, I will reserve my remarks until we get to the issue of consent. 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. 47, in page 12, line 38, after 'the', insert 'written'.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 104, in page 12, line 38, after 'the,' insert 'informed'.

No. 48, in page 12, line 39, after 'otherwise', insert 'in writing'.

No. 105, in page 12, line 39, after 'otherwise' insert 'explicitly'.

No. 49, in page 12, line 40, at end insert

'and

(c) authority or consent may extend to part only of information.'.

No. 124, in clause 43, page 35, line 40, at end insert—

'''consent'', in relation to a particular individual, shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of that individual's wishes by which he signifies his agreement to the use of his ID card or the access to, or provision of, information contained in his entry in the Register;'.

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

I shall be brief. We are talking about a clause that enables the provision of an identity verification service, operating with the individual's consent. As the Minister will see, my amendments are all alike. Each one refers to whether it might be sensible to ensure that the individual's authority and consent is given in writing. There is a further reference to the definition of ''consent'' in amendment No. 124. The issue is really a question of whether written consent would be more beneficial than consent given orally.

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

This gets to the heart of the consent issue. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made; there needs to be a system that makes sure that we really know that an individual has given their consent, and a submission, whether or not it is written, is one way of securing that consent.

My concern is that some organisations might produce tick boxes that people are asked to tick, and the small print might say, ''To give us consent to access information about you on the register.'' We want to clamp down on that practice, which we know is used so often in marketing drives and by all sorts of insurance and bank companies. We tear a slip off, and somewhere we have ticked a box saying, ''I am happy for information about me on the register to be shared.'' It is that point that troubles me, and I want reassurances from the Minister that safeguards can be   put in place. If safeguards cannot be put in place to ensure correct interpretation of the actions of individuals who have been in a sense tricked into giving their consent, I would be concerned that we would not have a prescribed list on this issue.

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

I am sorry that my response will be longer than the question, but it was understood that it necessarily would be.

As the hon. Member for Woking said in his short introduction, the amendments set out specific limits on how consent or authority can be transmitted for the purposes of security, and are designed to tease out the Government's thinking on the subject. It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that we do not consider the amendment defining ''consent'' to be necessary. We consider it self-explanatory that consent for a check to be made in the register must be freely given by a person who understands that his card, or, as the case may be, his biometrics, have been used to verify his identity. We do not consider the term ''consent'' to be ambiguous, and thus to require statutory definition, in this context.

Amendment No. 104 would make it a requirement for an application for the provision of information to be with the ''informed'' authority of that individual, rather than just the ''authority''. For reasons similar to those that I gave in relation to ''consent'', we believe that it should be taken as read that ''authority'' means a freely given and informed authority. I should also mention that under subsection (5)(a) there is power to make provision in regulations on how an ''authority'' for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) is to be given.

Amendment No. 49 would allow an individual to choose to consent to provide only part of the information falling within subsections (2) and (3). The clause already sets out a limited list of information that may be provided in response to a verification application. There is a power under subsection (4)(b) to make regulations to impose further restrictions if necessary. In addition, it is our intention that, by virtue of the accreditation process provided for in subsection (6), organisations will be provided only with information that supports their business needs—that is, with a limited part of the individual's entry, as permitted under subsection (1).

There are a number of limitations on the information that could be provided in response to an application by an organisation for verification. Beyond that, it would be up to an individual to choose not to give their consent at all and to take their business elsewhere, but it would not be feasible to provide for that individual to place further limitations on the information that could be provided in any given transaction. However, we take the view that the clause as drafted already allows for sufficient limitations to ensure that the information provided in response is necessary and not excessive.

The requirement to give written consent would limit the potential benefits of the scheme in providing a convenient method for individuals to prove their identity and for organisations to be able to prove to the highest standard that a person is who they say they are. If written consent were required, rather than   having organisations build on their current consent processes or those that best fit with their user requirements—for example, each time I hand over my credit card I am not required to give written consent—organisations would incur a significant cost and overhead, which may lead them to decide not to use the scheme.

We are examining how to verify that the individual has consented to their information being provided. The clause provides that regulations may be made prescribing how the individual's authority will be given. They would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament. There will be a number of options, depending on the circumstances, and various consent mechanisms are being reviewed. They include the use of PINs and biometrics where a card holder is present.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

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

I was in the process of addressing the issue that was of most interest to the hon. Member for Winchester: the options that we are devising for recording and communicating consent depending on the circumstances. Of course, they will be of interest to other hon. Members. I advised the Committee that they include the use of PINs, which are becoming well known in the context of credit cards and other financial cards, and biometrics where the card holder is present.

For situations in which the card holder is not present, options include signed consent forms as well as contractual agreements between the user and information requestor. Those areas most concerned the hon. Gentleman. He can have my reassurance that we will seek the highest level of propriety, to satisfy ourselves that consent to the circumstances of a contract is informed consent and not incidental consent.

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

Will the Minister be clear about marketing tools, which involve tick boxes and small print? It would be reassuring if he were to say that he is not seeking that kind of consent but something of a higher standard.

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

I am on record as being critical of the way individuals have agreed the collection of a significant amount of their information with private organisations, in the context of loyalty cards and other cards, without the necessary level of informed consent. I am far from satisfied that people realise when they sign up exactly how much information about themselves they are allowing private commercial organisations to have. I will certainly not be responsible for regulations or consent forms that replicate that in this area of public policy.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I want to inform the Minister about one small exception. I have just been refused a card at Waitrose on the grounds that it could not find any record of any other transactions, merely because I do not build up debts on my credit card. Not having accumulated debts, I was refused a card.  

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us about the disgraceful and scandalous way in which he has been treated by an institution in this country. Waitrose does not know what it is missing, and it will live to regret its decision.

We will demand the highest standards of security for this scheme, but requiring written consent each time without regard to the circumstances would be impractical and would negate many of the scheme's benefits. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw the amendment.

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

We have had a most helpful response, and on that basis 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. 51, in clause 14, page 14, line 6, at end add—

'(9) If an individual applies to the Secretary of State for the provision to himself of all or any information recorded in his entry in the Register, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to supply to the individual all such information requested.'.

This has crept up on me rather more quickly than I had hoped. The amendment is another example of openness and frankness. As the Bill is currently phrased, what are the circumstances under which I can go to the Home Secretary and ask what is on the register about me as I would like it for my memoirs?

Alternatively, would the introduction of the amendment add anything that would be to my benefit? This is a probing amendment. I move it in that spirit.

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

The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide all or any details requested by an individual included in the register if those details related to his own entry. It is substantially unnecessaryemdash not totally unnecessary, because there are some exemptions that I shall deal with.

As I have already told the Committee on a number of occasions, the Data Protection Act 1998 will apply to the identity card scheme. The national identity register and existing subject access rights under that Act will apply. Broadly speaking, individuals will be able to access information on the register about themselves at their own request.

The Data Protection Act includes exemptions that ensure that information that might not be in the public interest to disclose would not have to be provided. That is already accounted for and well understood in the context of the clause.. This is the right approach. I recollect that the draft Bill contained a clause that cast some doubt on this matter.

One of the further benefits of consultation in pre-legislative scrutiny is that that provision has now been removed from the Bill to clarify it. In addition, we are looking at ways of ensuring that an individual will be able to read his or her card and register entry as easily as possible. For example, we may be able to offer a service whereby an individual could read the information held in his or her entry securely through the internet or public service kiosks. I may have said that three or four times to the Committee and I apologise for repeating myself. Hon. Members may be   reassured that the spirit of the amendment is already covered in the scheme. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

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

The Minister's reply has helped us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.