Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 228, in clause 11, page 9, line 26, leave out subsection (1).

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 149, in clause 11, page 9, line 26, after “it”, insert “reasonably”.

No. 229, in clause 11, page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (2).

No. 150, in clause 11, page 9, line 37, after ‘it’, insert ‘reasonably’.

No. 159, in clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert

‘where that requirement is, in all the circumstances, reasonable’.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

Good morning, Mr. Hood. It is nice to see you, as it is all the hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in the Room this morning.

Amendment No. 228 leads on to our amendment No. 229, which is sandwiched neatly between amendments Nos. 149, 150 and 159, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I hope that it is fairly clear, and its intention is to remove subsection (1), which states:

“Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a person on whom a requirement may be imposed under this section may have information in his possession which could be used for verifying”.

It is followed by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and continues

“the Secretary of State may require that person to provide him with the information.”

Amendment No. 229 is similar. It would remove the subsection that, instead of referring to the Secretary of State, refers to a designated documents authority and states that

“a person on whom a requirement may be imposed under this section may have information in his possession which could be used for verifying ... the authority may require that person to provide it with the information.”

Subsections (1) and (2) are remarkably wide and vague. For example, subsection (1) refers to

“something recorded in the Register ... something provided to the Secretary of State or a designated documents authority ... something otherwise available to the Secretary of State”,

while subsection (2) refers to

“something that is recorded in the Register ... something that has been provided to that authority”.

Under clause 43, entitled “General interpretation”, a

“‘designated document’ means a document of a description designated for the purposes of this Act”

and a

“‘designated documents authority’ means a person with the power or duty to issue a designated document”.

What does that mean? Does it mean a police authority, when issuing a shotgun certificate? What else might become involved? Will issuing television licences be covered by the provision? Subsections (1) and (2) provide little that is helpful to us. If we were to strike them out and go straight to subsection (3), which states, under the clause heading

“Power to require information for validating Register”,

that

“It shall be the duty of a person who—

(a)is required to provide information under this section, and

(b)has the information in his possession,

to comply with the requirement within whatever period is specified in the requirement.”

That will be enough.

Subsections (1) and (2) add nothing to the provision. If anything, they obscure it. If we struck them out, we would do ourselves a favour and make the Bill much clearer. It would also be shorter, and if we had more of subsection (3) we would be in a better position to understand it, and phrases such as “something that” would not be in the clause.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

Good morning, Mr. Hood. Welcome back to the Chair of our proceedings.

I wish to speak to amendments No. 149, 150 and 159, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Although we drafted our amendments differently from those of the Conservatives, they are born of the same concern—namely, that the drafting of part of the clause is unnecessarily and undesirably wide.

We have made the modest proposal that the Secretary of State should act “reasonably”. I would not have thought that too onerous a burden on him. We wish to ensure that anything done under subsection (3), which will make the requirement mandatory and subject to a specified timetable, is done in a reasonable way in all circumstances.

The purpose of the clause seems to be to make the necessary provisions—where there is no such existing power—to permit data to be shared with the Secretary of State and designated documents authorities for the purposes of verifying information that is to be placed, or is currently placed, on the national identity register. According to the explanatory notes, that is

“specifically about ensuring the accuracy of the Register and it does not confer the power to share data for wider purposes”.

All our amendments would do—I think the same is broadly true of the Conservative amendments—is hold the Government to their own intent, as expressed in the explanatory notes.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

We have here another example of how the Bill provides the Government, or the Secretary of the State, with powers that have yet to be categorised or tied down. The provisions are extremely vague. Both Ministers have accepted that, and they accept that this is simply an enabling Bill, and that in due course we will find out what they are talking about. But the further I go in the Bill—here at clause 11, we see yet another example of it—the more concerns I have about the creeping way in which the Government are giving not only themselves, but third parties, powers. Subsection (1)(b) refers to

“something provided to the Secretary of State or a designated documents authority for the purpose of being recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register”.

Of course, we do not know who will do the providing—a Government agency, the individual whose data they are or some extra-governmental third party. We need to know quite how wide the ambit of the power is.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

Are there not simple safeguards that can be put in place? The Government, or the Secretary of State, should have a reasonable belief that the information exists in the first place before going on what would otherwise be a fishing expedition, but such a provision does not seem to be in the Bill.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

There are two points to make. One is that the subject of the information should at least be told that someone wants to do something to the register to verify that information. Clearly, there will be exceptions—in the context of terrorism, there is no point telling a terrorist suspect that the intelligence services want to verify a piece of information about him on the register; I am not so naive as to expect that—but, as drafted, the Bill will give a hugely wide power to unspecified people.

My other point is the one made by the hon. Gentleman: clearly, there must be a reasonable basis for believing that there is information out there that will or will not verify the information on the register. I hope that that must follow in the Bill, if not by implication, then expressly.

Another thing that concerns me, in relation to subsections (1) and (2), is that we appear to be exporting the process of coercion to extra-governmental bodies. I am not convinced that that is a proper way to do justice, and we need to be extremely careful. I urge whichever Minister is to respond to this collection of amendments to think carefully about the philosophy behind that aspect of the Bill.

We are talking about something the limits of which we do not know, and we cannot tell from the text of the Bill. So, it is essential that, before consideration on Report, the Government come forward with far greater detail about the categories of document likely to be classed as designated documents—I asked for that during the previous sitting—and the class of people, third parties or institutions likely to be covered by the expression “designated documents authority”. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark   (Patrick Mercer) reminded us during his consideration of clause 43(1) that “designated documents authority” is defined in a way that does not help us much.

I urge the Government not to brush aside these amendments, but to consider them carefully.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

Good morning, Mr. Hood. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that I shall not brush the amendments aside; they ask reasonable questions about the purpose of the clause. I hope to give him and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) as full an answer as I can.

I shall say a word about the clause’s overall purpose because it is important that hon. Members understand it. As they will know, the Cabinet Office reported on identity fraud in 2002 and recommended—not in relation to ID cards, I hasten to add—that a wider biographical check be carried out before passports are issued to prevent people from obtaining multiple documents on the basis of false personal information. Such checks might, for example, confirm that a person has been known by a certain identity and lived at a known address for a number of years.

Such processes are already beginning to be used. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to the personal identity project. When information is supplied to the Passport Service on an application form, a wider range of checks is done to verify it against other Government databases, although private sector information such as credit references are also used. Hon. Members will be able to read about that procedure when the Passport Service annual report is issued to them in the next few days; there will be a report on the success of those procedures. I think hon. Members will see that the service has already succeeded in exposing some applications that needed to be caught and would not otherwise have been caught.

The broad purpose of the clause is to extend to ID cards that general background and biographical check and the ability to cross-reference information supplied in the process of enrolment against, principally, other Government databases. For instance, an address could be cross-checked against the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, or a national insurance number against the Department for Work and Pensions database.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned the ambit of organisations that may do that, and the clause specifies what they may be. It is important to mention the ambit not so much of organisations, but of information that can be verified under this process. That is set out in subsections (1) and (2).

That brings me directly to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newark. Subsections (1) and (2) restrict the purview of those checks to the register and the registrable facts. The Secretary of State will verify only the information already in the register, or information provided to be entered into the register but not yet entered. That provides for both scenarios.

The agency will be able to check existing entries on the register if it believes that there is a false entry and check new applications. That is the purpose of subsections (1) and (2). What can be checked is restricted. I understand the intentions behind the amendments, but they would have the perverse effect of allowing a much broader range of checks on all kinds of information, rather than checks being strictly limited to the registrable facts, and would therefore create the scenario that the hon. Gentleman fears. The purpose of subsections (1) and (2) is to constrain the power to impose such a requirement by limiting it to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or designated documents authority believes that a source may have information that is relevant—the crucial consideration—to verifying information to be included in the register.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I am following the Under-Secretary’s argument carefully, and am convinced—sort of—by his views on amendment No. 228, but I am still perplexed about amendment No. 229, simply because of his last sentence. In clause 43, a designated documents authority is defined as

“a person with the power or duty to issue a designated document”.

I believe that I am completely following the Minister’s logic, but it seems to me that subsection (2) gives much greater breadth to the power, rather than narrowing it as the Minister suggests. Perhaps I am being obtuse; it would not be the first time.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I understand the point, but, as has been made clear, the designated documents authority could be the UK Passport Service, which is designated for the purposes of the Bill, as are passports, and it is sensible to give that body the same powers to request information to verify applications. The designation of further organisations or documents for the purposes of the legislation will have to be approved by order, so there is a check. The number of documents that could be designated is extremely limited. A high standard of identity verification is required for high-value documents such as passports, driving licences and Criminal Records Bureau disclosures. We are talking about the ability to cross-check information received for the purposes of the legislation with that on other databases, including private ones.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

Precisely. I accept everything the Under-Secretary says on clause 11. The measure could be described as eminent common sense. It is sensible that the Department for Work and Pensions should be able to assist the registrar in verifying a national insurance number, but he does not know how limited are the fields of designated documents or of designated document authorisers, initiators or producers. That is our concern. I do not think for a moment that he is sitting there thinking, “I’m going to extend this power to a huge range of strange and dangerous people”, but if we are to deal with this constructively, we need some reassurance either in the Bill or in a written response between now and Report that will alleviate our fears, which are not made up, but genuine concerns about function creep.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I follow the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point. Perhaps it is not for me to say what the limits should be. As he knows, under the Bill it is for Parliament to decide whether a document should be designated. The procedure that we have outlined is that the decision would be subject to the affirmative process. Ultimately, the designation of further documents is not in the grip of the Executive. It is for Parliament to decide whether that power should be exercised in respect of other document-issuing bodies. I hope that I have reassured him that the power cannot be endlessly extended to people whom we would not want to have it.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

Both Ministers know that I have a concern about the working of the Bill in tandem with the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. I cannot remember which Minister it was, but one of them agreed last time to try to explain how the Act and Bill overlap. I do not expect the Under-Secretary to give an answer now, because it would probably be too difficult and detailed, and take him into unknown territory. However, when he is kind enough to provide that written reply, could he include an explanation of what other authorities will be allowed to register a document when the 2004 Act is used in times of emergency?

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I cannot say now, but I will endeavour to write to him on that point, because it is reasonable. I should like to give him further assurance on the “something” that he referred to. He hinted that the “something” was quite widely drawn, but it relates back to information in the register and the registrable facts. “Something” might refer to a piece of data, but might also be a fingerprint—it is not strictly limited to a fact, but could be a biometric impression.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

I am following the Under-Secretary’s argument because the issue is crucial. “Something” might allow limits to be placed, but I am unclear about those limits. Can he give examples of what would not be included? I fully accept that he might have to answer in writing. Presumably the officials preparing the Bill have identified the principal “somethings” they have in mind. Our problem is our inability to judge what is as yet undefined. It would help the Committee if the Under-Secretary gave an indication of his willingness to identify the likely “somethings” that we are discussing.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance, and I welcome him back to the Committee. It is nice that he has paid us a visit this morning and I am happy to answer his question. The direct answer is: I refer him back to the registrable facts. Subsections (1) and (2) are inextricably linked to the registrable facts, which obviously are laid out in the earlier clauses linked to schedule 1. Subsections (1) and (2) constrain the Secretary of State’s power to roam more widely than those facts. The reason the term “something” is used is that it includes not only data—words and facts—but a biometric reading, and is inextricably linked to the registrable facts. That is why   we resist the deletion of subsections (1) and (2). Doing so would broaden the range of information that could be sought and realise the fear that hon. Members have articulated.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

So “something” is identical to the registrable facts? Or are things included in the definition of “something” that would stray beyond the registrable facts already listed?

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

As I said, “something” could not stray beyond the registrable facts. That is the whole point of how the Bill is crafted. Everything emanates from the registration of the registrable facts and the biometric information. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that only those facts can be verified by the procedures—nothing else, just those facts. We could draw “something” more broadly only if schedule 1 were amended. The term “something” must relate to those facts, and it is narrowly drawn in that regard.

On the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, we have been in this territory before. As he knows, the executive powers must, by their very definition, be exercised reasonably to remain within the bounds of lawfulness, and we would say that they always are exercised in that way—certainly by existing Home Office Ministers. It is neither necessary nor desirable to clarify that in the Bill.

Amendment No. 159 goes a little further, as it would add to the duty on individuals to comply

“where that requirement is, in all the circumstances, reasonable”.

The problem with that is that it seems to make the subject of the request the arbiter of whether the request is reasonable, so that the person receiving the request has to decide whether it is reasonable.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I might not have explained my point very well. If there were a failure to comply, that failure would eventually, by one means or another, become justiciable, and it would thereafter be for a judge to decide whether it were

“in all the circumstances, reasonable”

for the information to be provided. That is the significance of the term.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman wants, but there is no need for it to be included. If the subject of a request believed it to be unreasonable, he could refer the matter to the national identity commissioner and, ultimately, test the request in court, on the test of reasonableness. We should not add this statement to the clause, because it would put the subject in the driving seat in respect of whether to accede to a request. It would be unworkable in practice.

The subject could say, “It is not reasonable, so I reject the request.” That people will act reasonably is an assumption on which the Bill is based. We expect the Secretary of State to exercise his powers in a reasonable manner, and it would be a step too far to give the individual the right to decide whether he is acting reasonably. Moreover, that could be tested in court because the subject of a request could take the Secretary of State to court if he believed it was unreasonable.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

Let me give an example of a problem of the sort that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I are concerned about. When a Member asks a written parliamentary question of a Department of State, it might be a long or complicated question or a request for lots of information. Sometimes, the Department’s response states either that the information is not held centrally or that providing the answer would involve the disproportionate use of time and money—that expression is often used.

The respondent to a request might say, “Well, I am very sorry, Secretary of State”—or designated documents authority—“but that would take far too long.” They could have a right to say what a Department apparently has the right to say in the written parliamentary questions system, which is, “It would be far too difficult or complicated or expensive, or involve the disproportionate use of time and money, to adhere to this request.” That might be a highly unusual circumstance, but we ought to look round corners before we pass Bills.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

We do, and that is what we are usefully doing in this debate. However, the facts that we are discussing are straightforward and simple; the registrable facts—name, address, and possibly previous address, date of birth, place of birth—are not complicated. If a parliamentary question asked, for example, for a table listing things to do with every police force in England and Wales for every year since 1997, it might require a detailed and lengthy response. However, it is inconceivable that a comparable request could be made of someone else by the Secretary of State or a designated documents authority. The point is simply to verify data held on the register. The provision is not a matter of asking someone to amass data that are not currently to hand, as a parliamentary question does. It is a matter of verifying constrained, clearly defined and simple data—the basic biographical facts about each and every one of us.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. His concerns can still be tested under our system. Someone who believes that what is proposed is unreasonable can take the Secretary of State to the commissioner or ultimately to court.

Finally, I refer hon. Members to subsection (7), which states:

“The Secretary of State may ... make payments to a person providing information in accordance with this section in respect of the provision of the information.”

That was included after pre-legislative scrutiny so that if the verification proved unduly complicated or burdensome—that is a big if, because really only a simple check should be involved—people could be compensated.

I hope that that reassures hon. Members that their concerns are dealt with in the clause.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

That was a useful exercise in how we might try to improve the beginning of clause 11. As I said, I am partially convinced by what the Under-Secretary said. He convinced me a little further by   suggesting that there might be some further written exposures—one for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and, in the fullness of time, perhaps, something on the overlap between the Bill and the 2004 Act. I hope that I speak as well on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, who, I see, are likely to return to subsection (1) when they move the next amendment. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 11, page 9, line 32, leave out from “Register” to end of line 34.

Again, we are dealing with the scope of the clause. My probing amendment would remove subsection (1)(c). To explain how my mind is working, when I was a young man I was—I suspect possibly like you, Mr. Hood—a great lover of the Radio Clyde phone-in programmes. They were an institution, and they probably still are on the west coast of Scotland. People would phone in and talk to the presenter, and at the end they would say, “Can you play a request for”, and would then list their girlfriend, mother, father, sister, cousins, aunts, uncles, grannies and gramps, dogs, cats and budgies. Finally the rider always came, “and anybody else who knows me.” I suggest that Radio Clyde may have influenced the drafting of the Bill, because clause 11(1)(c) seems to be the legislative equivalent of that great rider, “anybody else who knows me.”

The clause deals with the possibility that

“a person on whom a requirement may be imposed under this section may have information in his possession which could be used for verifying—

(a)something recorded in the Register about an individual,

(b)something provided to the Secretary of State or a designated documents authority for the purpose of being recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register, or

(c)something otherwise available to the Secretary of State for being recorded about an individual in the Register”.

What does the Under-Secretary think paragraph (c) would cover that paragraphs (a) and (b) do not? The amendment is probing because there might be something that I have not thought of, but I cannot see what it would be, and I would be grateful to know what the Under-Secretary thinks it might be.

There is a serious point to be made. We are dealing with legislation that redefines the relationship between citizen and state in many ways. That has been said often enough in our proceedings. If we are to go down that road, it is incumbent on us to ensure that that relationship is redefined in the tightest, clearest and most concise terms possible.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has alighted on another lacuna that might be of the same category as others that we have discussed. In the light of what the Under-Secretary said in our previous discussion, we need to be reassured about the marriage between clauses 3 and 11 and schedule 1, because although we take whatever he   says in good faith, we do not know what is coming or what powers the Secretary of State will present to Parliament for approval.

We do not know the limits of the designated document. We know still less who the persons who may be specified in such an order might be. The Under-Secretary tells us they will be restricted to those set out in subsection (5), but we might discuss in a moment how vague even that list is. Time after time, we come across things that are simply unspecified and left to our hopes. Our fears are unassuaged.

I am concerned that we are building up trouble ahead, so perhaps the Under-Secretary should think a little harder about this over the summer. If he does not do so, we shall pass a well intended Bill that has foreseeable bad consequences.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I was hoping to spend a little time with my children over the summer, but that is looking increasingly unlikely, given the amount of thought that I am going to have to give to the Bill.

I was speculating on what request the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would have made on Radio Clyde. Would it have been for the Bay City Rollers or Lindisfarne? I shall not let such idle speculation carry me away, however. Instead, I shall focus on the purpose of his amendment.

The amendment would not allow information to be validated or checks to be made on information provided unless the information was as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b)—in other words, unless it was already on the register or had been provided for the purpose of being entered in the register. It would restrict the power in that way.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough justifiably asked what the “something” can include, what it will mean and whether it is a lacuna that allows the licence to be drawn too widely. Again, I refer him and the hon. Gentleman to the fact that it refers only to the registrable facts, which is in itself a limitation on what can be required.

Subsection (1) has very particular circumstances in mind. Information might need to be validated that is not on the register and has not been provided for the purposes of registration. A principal example of that is that information might already be known about the person from existing Home Office immigration records.

Subsection (1)(c) is a necessary corollary to the power in clause 2(4) to enter in the register someone who has not applied to be entered in the register. A failed asylum seeker who has been deported is an obvious example. Members of the Committee know that the entry will include biometric information, as well as the name and address of the person and where they have been living in the United Kingdom.

It is in the public interest that information about people in such a position should be recorded in the register to prevent unauthorised re-entry. Obviously, it is important that the information is verified and as accurate as possible, but we cannot achieve that without paragraph (c). The information would be held by the immigration and nationality directorate in the   same way that information about asylum seekers is held. When biometric visas are fully rolled-out, that information could also be included.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows that trials of the collection of biometrics for the purposes of issuing visas have been run in various parts of the world. In Sri Lanka and parts of east Africa, the trials have gone well, and the information is proving useful for ensuring the integrity of the border and of the immigration services. There are circumstances in which it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to be able to check information that neither had been supplied to nor existed on the register. We wish to maintain those circumstances in the Bill, and I assure him that the provision is not a catch-all power to go fishing, as the phrase goes, for all sorts of data sources, nor is it meant to pick up on information that is not strictly limited to the registrable facts. With those reassurances, I hope that he sees fit to withdraw his amendment.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Under-Secretary for that. He answers the questions that I asked, but he does not necessarily assuage my fears, because by tying everything to the registrable facts, we return to our original concern that those facts would be amendable by secondary legislation. The safeguards that I want to see in the Bill have not been provided. However, I said that this was a probing amendment, and I do not intend to press it to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 230, in clause 11, page 10, line 7, leave out “include” and insert “are”.

I hope that the amendment is straightforward. After considering it, I suspect that we are guilty of not making it range widely enough. By removing “include” and instituting “are” before the list of specified persons—

“(a)Ministers of the Crown;

(b)government departments;

(c)a Northern Ireland department;

(d)the National Assembly for Wales;

(e)any other person who carries out functions conferred by or under an enactment that fall to be carried out on behalf of the Crown”—

we specify that the list is merely those registered under paragraphs (a) to (e). The provision would therefore read, “The persons who may be specified in such an order are—”. That is all very well until one reads paragraph (e), which ranges so wide that it deletes the usefulness of our amendment. However, I hope that we can have a sensible discussion about it as I am concerned and should like to know how the Government see the list being extended.

Forgive me, Mr. Hood, if I return to the 2004 Act. It provides that in the event of an area being overcome by a disaster, the local authority may appoint an emergency co-ordinator. Similar to this legislation, they are not specified, but the Act provides a list of people who may be considered. If I read the provision in the Bill correctly, the inclusion of paragraph (e) suddenly allows the self-same lady or gentleman—the   emergency co-ordinator—to become part of the list. I understand that we are in unknown territory, and that we are considering a register and a card, the concept of which is not yet mature—I do not how many times I have used that phrase; I hope that both you and the Under-Secretary will indulge me.

On top of that, I appreciate that this is enabling legislation, and that tighter details will need to be drawn as the Bill turns into an Act—although one hopes that it will not—and as the scheme develops in the fullness of time. I am concerned that a Territorial Army regional brigadier might become one of those who is listed in subsection (5). The sole purpose of the amendment is to raise the issue, and I ask the Under-Secretary to justify subsection (5)(e).

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

This part of the clause is drafted broadly, as the hon. Gentleman says. In addition, I have concerns about subsection (6), which further specifies the terms under which a person might be included, although I do not want to go into that at the moment. His concerns are well focused and I shall be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I preface my remarks with two reassurances. First, I refer the hon. Member for Newark to the registrable facts, because organisations asked to verify would be limited to registrable facts. My second reassurance relates to something that we discussed in an earlier sitting. Strenuous efforts are being made to keep down the cost of introducing the national identity register and the identity cards emanating from it. It would not, therefore, be in anybody’s interests for us to carry out unnecessary checks. The checks mentioned in the clause will be modest and generally limited to other Government databases, for example those of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions.

Having said that, it is important for the power to widen that check to remain in the Bill in case it were to become apparent over time that people were slipping through the verification net. As I said, the UK Passport Service has begun to use credit reference agency data as part of its broader passport check. I hope that it will become clear that that is proving useful in preventing passports from being issued on presentation of fraudulent data.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to require private organisations to verify information held on their databases in appropriate circumstances. That is why subsection (5) is conceived as it is. There could be circumstances in which we would want to use a credit reference agency to perform a verification check on the biographical footprint of an individual. It is possible that other private organisations might hold databases against which it would be useful to check data for verification. That is why the provision is crafted in that way. I assure hon. Members that the check is modest, and verifies specified, limited information. We do not intend to check if there is no need. Unnecessary checks could add many costs to the enrolment process, so it is in our interests to limit them.

Any order introduced by the clause would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses, so the scrutiny that hon. Members seek is in place. The check is inbuilt. Some private sector organisations hold pretty wide databases with up-to-date biographic information, and it would be sensible to be able to verify information against those databases. We would reimburse people for any costs incurred. Ordinarily, and given the way that the scheme is conceived, that would extend only to the main Government databases. We have the flexibility to go further, but it would still require approval by both Houses.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I have one brief question. Scottish Ministers are not mentioned in this part of the Bill, although they could be included. Is there a reason for not giving them express inclusion now?

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that the scheme is UK-wide. However, I take his point. The clause specifies Northern Ireland and Wales. I shall reflect on whether it is necessary to be more clear, but it is a UK scheme and “government departments” is a pretty broad definition. I do not dismiss the point, and if it needs clarification we will clarify it.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

Does not the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland demonstrate the difficulty that faces us with subsection (5)(e)? A Scottish Executive Department could be “any other person”. It is a wide and unspecified category of potential respondent. The Under-Secretary said that he will look at the subsection, but it is important that he looks at every aspect of it, to see precisely where we are leading ourselves.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I have been passed a reassuring note that says that Scottish Ministers are “persons”—that is some reassurance!—and ought to be included. They are not Ministers of the Crown for the purposes of the Bill, so the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right on that point. As currently drafted, Scottish Ministers could be included under subsection (5)(e), but I will check and let him know. I hope that I have given Opposition Members enough reassurance.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for trotting us around the subject so clearly. In the light of what he said, and given the reassuring statements that he made to the Liberal Democrats and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, it is clear that he accepts the need for a little more thought. I am grateful for his explanation of subsection (5)(e). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 231, in clause 11, page 10, line 10, at end insert

‘for residents of Northern Ireland’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 232, in clause 11, page 10, line 11, at end insert “for residents of Wales”.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

Again, I promise to be brief. The amendments refer to paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (5) and take us back to the previous debate and the intervention of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We merely probe why the Northern Ireland departments and the National Assembly for Wales are specified, and if they are to be specified whether there should be a codicil to say that their jurisdiction extends only over the residents of Ulster and Wales. They are simple, probing amendments and I hope that the Under-Secretary will do me the courtesy of explaining the implications.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I wish to probe a little further. Unless there is a stand part debate—there may not be—we will not have an opportunity to see how subsections (5) and (6) marry up. It appears that the Secretary of State will have the power to take court action against any of the persons in subsection (5)—any Minister of the Crown, Department or Northern Ireland Department, the National Assembly for Wales or any other person—if they do not provide him with the information that he can require under the clause.

Subsection (6) states that the duty to supply the information

“is enforceable in civil proceedings ... for an injunction ... for specific performance ... or ... any other appropriate remedy or relief.”

That suggests that the Home Secretary, in order to enforce the obligation, will sue a fellow Cabinet member or another Department. That will place the Attorney-General in some difficulty because his loyalties will be divided and his advice will have to be split. I appreciate that each Department of State has its own legal department and will advise the political head of that Department on how to respond to the request from the Secretary of State made under subsection (1). However, there is a built-in problem, which the Under-Secretary may be able quickly to resolve for me. I do not want to see a situation in which one part of the Government sues another part of the Government to recover a piece of information.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I hope that I can deal reasonably quickly with the amendments. They would have the effect of restricting the information that could be supplied by a Northern Ireland Department or the National Assembly for Wales solely to that related to residents of their respective countries. That is unnecessarily restrictive. For example, a person could recently have moved from Cardiff to Bristol. It would be unnecessarily restrictive to say that the Secretary of State could not check data held by the National Assembly or bodies in Wales to verify information relating to a person who had recently moved out of the country.

Paragraph 1(g) of schedule 1 refers to

“the address of every other place in the United Kingdom where he has a place of residence.”

That information could be usefully verified with those organisations, given that they would know. It is simple common sense to allow one part of the Government to verify information with another. The main example would be when somebody had recently moved out of Wales or Northern Ireland into England or Scotland.

I do not believe that the scenarios described by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will happen. Of course, members of the Cabinet are all entirely reasonable and would never be in such a situation. This is simply a measure that allows common-sense sharing of data to verify information about individuals, particularly when they have just moved from one country to another. To accept the amendments would be to restrict the ability of the people in charge of the register to make those checks, which could affect the integrity and quality of the register. I do not believe that Opposition Members—and certainly Labour Members—would want to see that. The measure is simply intended to ensure that the register is correct and as accurate as possible.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, as always, brings his trained legal eye to see over a much broader perspective than the one that most of us would have been able to manage in the first place. The prospect of members of the Cabinet suing each other, or suing other Departments, is not one that I would wish to see. It might provide a little entertainment in the process, but let us hope that it will not happen.

As a result of the Under-Secretary’s explanation and the probing questions from my hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 233, in clause 11, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (7).

The amendment would strike out subsection (7), which states:

“The Secretary of State may, in such cases (if any) as he thinks fit, make payments to a person providing information in accordance with this section in respect of the provision of the information.”

This is a probing amendment to find out what that means. Clearly it relates, as has been explained, to matters of finance; thus the italics.

In certain parts of America, civil agencies—in other words, bounty hunters—are used to track down individuals who have managed to obscure their identities or evade the long arm of the law. It worries me considerably that if we allow the provision to go through, we will end up with the advent of identity bounty hunters in this country. Who knows? If, after serving on two Bills of this nature, I decide not to go on in the profession of politics, I might find that it is extraordinarily well paid and quite attractive to be an identity bounty hunter. Perhaps I could hire myself out for such purposes; it might prove rather more diverting than some of the things that we have been doing over the past few days.

In any event, I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary explained the purpose of the subsection and reassure me and my colleagues that there is no question of opening the gates to the new brand of identity bounty hunters and all the evils that will go with them.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I am grateful for the explanation of the amendment. Given the at times pointed and caustic remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, he might not be surprised if we take out a price on his head as soon as the Bill is passed. He looks to be on a sure path to be an ID card refusenik.

It is highly inconceivable that we would go down the path envisaged by the hon. Member for Newark. The subsection relates back to points that I have mentioned earlier in relation to the clause. The Cabinet Office, in its study of identity fraud, recommended that the quality and believability of Government-issued documents could be enhanced by broadening the check that Departments perform on those documents. I am referring in particular to passports. The personal identification project has been run by the UK Passport Service and has used private credit rating databases to cross-verify information supplied on the application form. We think that that is a sensible thing to do, if circumstances mean that an application gives cause for concern. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our full intention to keep the costs of the scheme down.

We have the London School of Economics report in mind not elaborate checks. We certainly do not have bounty hunters in mind, although if my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality were to come after me, I would certainly give in straight away. I simply say that it is not our intention to take a power to chase people down. It is a simple measure that will allow a sensible check on the extensive private sector databases that exist. Again, it concerns nothing more than the quality and the veracity of the national identity register, and the integrity of that register. We think it reasonable that if requests are being made, payment should be made to the organisations that hold those databases.

To return to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, it would be unreasonable to require extensive information or time-consuming checks without compensating the organisations involved. It is more reasonable to say that in the limited circumstances in which we require a further check, we will compensate people for the inconvenience caused. It is important to keep the clause: removal of it would mean that we could demand such checks without compensating people. I do not believe that Opposition Members want that.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

It is highly unlikely that we shall have a stand part debate and I want to suggest something to the Under-Secretary in relation to the amendment. We have discussed widely, and entirely reasonably, several issues concerning the amendment. Would it be possible for the Department to give us not just the guidance notes for the Bill that are available in the Vote Office but policy guidance notes of the sort one often sees in relation to criminal justice or other   Home Office legislation? Such guidance guides the police on what the policy of the Home Office is regarding this, that and the other. Would it be possible for the Under-Secretary to come up with some sort of guidance or policy note during the summer? Very few people will know about our discussions in Committee and publicity containing the sort of information that he has given us would be very reassuring.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

Perhaps I shall draft such guidance while I sit beside the swimming pool in France.

I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying but I do not believe that there is a need. If he examines the UK Passport Service’s report—I shall ensure that it is sent to him as soon as it is published—he will see exactly the sort of checks that we have in mind. They are already part of policy recommended by the Cabinet Office. It is not an entirely new concern; we have simply extended to the identity card agency the same powers that have already been introduced in relation to passports. I understand what he is after, but it is already a matter of public policy. I shall give him more information on it with respect to the Passport Service, but it is not necessary to produce a note. Given what I have said about the amendment, I hope that the hon. Member for Newark will withdraw it.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

Again, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his lucid explanation of what is going on. I am particularly grateful to him for reassuring us that the Government will try to keep the cost of the scheme as low as they possibly can. I underline his suggestions made during the last sitting that a card will cost us in the region of £30.

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to put words in my mouth on that point. I do not believe that I did say that, and the record of the last sitting will probably reveal that I did not. It was simply a calculation made involving the cost of the biometric passport taken against the unit cost of £93 for both. I did not say that the ID card would cost £30.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

Forgive me. In that case, I must have misunderstood the Under-Secretary. I thought that he had encouraged us to do the maths in relation to the cost of £65 for the biometric passport and the overall cost of £98 for the overall package. Therefore, I deduced that the cost of the card would be about £38, but I shall not make a big point about that. As long as the matter is on the record, I will be delighted.

In view of the explanation that the Under-Secretary gave about the lack of bounty hunters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

Without hesitation, deviation or repetition, I want to point out that under subsection (5)(e) Scottish Ministers would be covered only to a limited extent because it refers to functions carried out on behalf of the Crown. Not all the functions of Scottish Ministers are carried out on behalf of the Crown, although some of them would be. Will the Under-Secretary explain why subsection (6) does not cover interdiction? It seems to me that subsection (6)(b)(ii) would cover—