Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I understood, having read the record of our proceedings, that on Tuesday there was a wider debate on charges generally, and one specifically about charges that might kick-in in respect of modification of entries on the register. The Minister's response did not advance a definitive position, but suggested that there might be a distinction between changes that require the modification of the card itself, and therefore a reissue of the card that might be chargeable, and ones that did not require the card to be reissued. There remains a concern that that would also be permitted under   clause 37(1)(a) and that charges could be made for modifications of the data that is held.

If we are saying to people, ''You are under quite a serious legal obligation to modify the record'' and they do so, it would be inappropriate for them to be hit with a charge. I question whether that would be appropriate, even where a card has to be reissued, given that the driving licence, as I understand it, has a similar provision where one is required to notify a change of address. The address is printed on the driving licence and therefore a card has to be reissued, but I understand that no charge is made.

I am thinking particularly of younger people, about whom we talked at the beginning of our proceedings, who change address regularly. If the address is on the ID card and they are required to change their address—and hit with an additional fee each time—the Government's own figures on charges, which the Minister knows we dispute, which show a one-off payment of 85 quid over 10 years that is not particularly onerous, starts to fall apart.

It is important that when we are talking about fees we understand the totality of the matter and people understand whether they are being asked genuinely to pay 85 quid every 10 years and nothing in between, or whether under clause 37 other charges will be levied against them.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to understand that the clause provides the power that is required to set fees for a wide range of functions associated with the scheme. It is intended that when the scheme is established, overall running costs will be covered by a combination of charges for applications, issue of cards, identity verification services provided by the scheme, and related services, such as accreditation.

The hon. Gentleman concentrated on an issue that we have already debated at some length, but I am reluctant to go into the same detail on that issue as I did previously, because I do not have before me exactly what was said then. I was confident that what I said then was correct; I rest on that and do not wish inadvertently to contradict myself. However, I will say that the clause provides a power to charge, but it is not presently planned to charge for notification where no new card is to be issued, and I do not envisage that that will ever be planned.

The hon. Gentleman postulates a situation in which a card has to be reissued because an address will be on the face of the card. In keeping with current advice, it is not the intention to issue cards with the address printed on them. That is for obvious reasons; people might well not want that information to be on the card, or it might be overlooked in innocent circumstances but used for malign purposes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.