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

I beg to move amendment No. 171, in clause 14, page 12, line 31, after “a”, insert “prescribed”.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 160, in clause 14, page 12, line 31, after “with”, insert “all of the”.

No. 161, in clause 14, page 12, line 37, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

No. 54, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out subsection (4).

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

Amendments Nos. 171 and 160 would have the combined effect of making subsection (1) read: “The Secretary of State may provide a prescribed person with all of the information recorded in an individual’s entry in the Register if—”, and the conditions are laid out in subsection (1)(a) and (b). All the amendments are probing amendments, but they raise matters worthy of consideration. The clause allows others to obtain information held on the database for the purposes of verification. A number of issues arise from the amendments.

Amendment No. 171 would require the Government to introduce regulations on those people for whom information can be provided. That was considered by the Committee when it debated the last Bill. My reason for bringing it to the Committee for consideration again is that there is some merit not necessarily in excluding people from the provision of information under the clause—I can see that that would be problematic—but in providing regulations that would put in safeguards for the sake of people with learning difficulties, for example. There could be provisions for their consent to be given. That is one example, coming almost from the top of my head, of the sort of provision that I would expect such regulations to contain. Prescription would be a useful tool for the Government and would contribute to transparency, which is not evident at the moment.

What would be required by way of consent? My concern is that consent would end up being given almost unwittingly. I think of the situation every time I hire a car, as I do from time to time. I initial the form in three places and sign at the bottom. One of these days I shall leave myself sufficient time to read the form so that I know what I am signing. I very rarely do that. If consent is to be given, I am concerned that that should be done in an express and unambiguous way.

Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

We have returned to something that was discussed when we debated other clauses. During our discussions on clause 3, the Committee decided, against the hon. Gentleman’s advice, to allow some voluntary information, such as the name of the next of kin or blood group, on to the register. Given that decision, does he consider it appropriate for people to be allowed to authorise someone to look at the register by the equivalent of a donor card, along the lines of, “I authorise you in an emergency to look at the register”?

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

Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but such a provision is not quite relevant to my line of argument. However, it is a fair point, especially if it relates to information that has been provided voluntarily. We are dealing with the manner in which that information can be accessed, and by whom, and what must be done to ensure that the privilege of access is not undermined or abused.

The proposed deletion of subsections (2), (3) and (4) allows the Minister to place on record the effect of such provisions. I am aware that there are implications for the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, which   will come into play under the clause. It will be sufficient for him to give us a brief outline of the Government’s intention.

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

Amendment No. 54 revolves around the concept of consent, which is important in respect of the idea of the register and the card. The hon. Gentleman made much of the going on that, so I shall waste the Committee’s time no further.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I take issue with the last point of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). He has not wasted our time on every occasion. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) to his place. However, it appears that we will not be enjoying the delights of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). Perhaps he has flashed and gone, with the flash-and-go ID card system.

I appreciate the brevity of the hon. Members for Newark and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but we are deliberating serious points, a few of which I shall deal with in passing before dealing with the substance of the provision. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about learning difficulties and vulnerable groups. We have clearly said that elements will be put in place to deal with initial applications, the processes that must be gone through to be on the register, and consent. Of course, the amendments touch on the notion of consent, but we will be better served if we have a fuller debate on then when discussing the next set of amendments, because they go to the heart of the matter more readily than this group does.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, amendment No. 171 would mean that the Secretary of State could provide information only to prescribed persons. That is a fair matter to raise and it would mean that anyone who uses the verification service to check the validity of an ID card produced as proof of identity would have to be prescribed in regulations. That is an unnecessary bureaucratic step.

The basis of the clause is to provide individuals with the choice of when and where to provide their ID as proof of identity and for the individual to be in a position to consent to, or not consent to, the provision of an ID card for a bank, building society or another organisation for verification against the national identity register including, by the by, car hire. When the hon. Gentleman said that, I whispered to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that perhaps hiring a helicopter would be a more likely scenario than hiring a car in his constituency.

The scheme contains substantial safeguards about those to whom information may be provided. As the hon. Gentleman will know, subsection (5) provides for regulations to be introduced on how an application can be made for information confirming the validity of   an ID card, or for other pertinent information, such as the address of the cardholder. Subsection (6) already contains the power to require businesses or other organisations to which information is provided to register prescribed particulars and to be approved by the Secretary of State. Thus we will be able to set up a system of accreditation, to ensure that only approved organisations can check ID cards against the register. That is a far more efficient way of readily, and rightly, limiting who is given authority to use the verification service than prescribing such matters in the Bill.

The Bill provides for a power to ensure that information to verify an ID card will be provided to approved organisations only. Also, clause 41(6) makes it clear that the regulations can put conditions on the grant and approval of that accreditation. Approval can be suspended or withdrawn if, for example, there is reason to suppose that a business has been making checks on ID cards without the holder’s consent. I do not think it necessary to go further and require each and every organisation to be prescribed. That would be unduly bureaucratic and overweeningly centralist—as we would expect from the Liberal Democrats. I am only joking; the hon. Gentleman should ignore that.

Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would allow the Secretary of State to provide all the information on the register, with the consent of the individual, and would remove the restrictions on provision of information under subsections (2) and (3). That is quite strange and goes too far. The hon. Gentleman himself alluded to the provision allowing an individual, under the Data Protection Act 1998, to secure the information held about him at any stage. That goes to the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newark, too.

Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 would remove an important safeguard that was explicitly included following comments made about the draft Bill by a range of organisations and individuals. They wanted to ensure that organisations would be provided only with information that was relevant to verifying the identity of the individual or customer. Under the building blocks of the Bill, the verification service is pertinent only to the front end of the data—that is, those pieces of data necessary to verify someone’s ID. We do not want organisations climbing all over an individual’s entire set of data, or going fishing in the database. Thus subsection (2), which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to amend, excludes the provision of all the information held under the scheme. That is much more about ensuring the integrity of the register than it is about the individual’s identity. We are talking about recorded history, registration and ID card history, and the validating information provided by the individual.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

It was remiss of me not to have said earlier that we also note the continuing absence of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I did not want him to feel left out. I hope that between now and the end of the debate he may pop back in to see us, for which we will be grateful.

I was saying that it is right to limit those data that organisations—suitably accredited, rather than being prescribed in the Bill—can have verified. Records and information about the security dimensions of the entry and so on are not germane to verifying someone’s identity.

The Bill also provides that an individual’s fingerprints and other biometric information cannot be provided in a verification check under the clause. That is important. Subsection (2)(a) specifically talks about the information necessary for verification. The verification process can be used only to confirm or refuse confirmation that the biometric details provided by the person match those on the register. Contrary to what the amendments would have us do, clause 14 rightly limits the information that can be provided when a business checks someone’s ID with their consent. That, however, does not limit what information individuals can check on their own account.

The amendment proffered by the hon. Member for Newark is far too prescriptive, and provision under the Data Protection Act 1998 already exists, as I said before. That allows the subject access rights under the Act. Clause 14(8) makes it clear that those existing rights are not affected by the power in clause 14. That extant, very permissive power for an individual to seek the data held on the register at any time is far better than the prescriptive suggestion offered in the amendment.

We have had an interesting discussion, and germane rather than trivial points have been raised, which is why I have spent some time on them and taken them seriously on their merits. However, for the reasons I have suggested, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

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

I shall ensure that the Minister’s good wishes are conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. He is a new Member of the House and, to use a good Scots term, I do not like to see new Members scunnered too quickly, so I think he deserves a small measure of protection. However, he will rejoin our deliberations when he returns from the north-west of England. Hon. Members will know that he represents a seat there. [Interruption.] Indeed, it used to be represented by a Conservative Member, I seem to recall.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. This is absolutely fascinating, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Identity Cards Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get on with it.

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

Perhaps it is fascinating because it has nothing to do with the Identity Cards Bill.

The Minister has afforded us a full and thorough explanation of the Government’s thinking. I said initially that the amendment is probing: the point has been made and the Minister has given an explanation, so I do not wish to trouble the Committee any further. Accordingly, 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. 51, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “written”.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 172, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “informed”.

No. 227, in clause 14, page 12, line 34, after “the”, insert “express”.

No. 52, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, after “otherwise”, insert “in writing”.

No. 173, in clause 14, page 12, line 35, after “otherwise”, insert “explicitly”.

No. 53, in clause 14, page 12, line 36, at end insert

‘and

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

No. 117, in clause 43, page 36, line 29, 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 identity card or the access to, or provision of, information contained in his entry in the Register;’.

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

I shall speak principally to amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53 and 117. No doubt the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will wish to add to that. The amendments are designed to probe the Government further on consent. The clause talks about setting up a service for information verification with the individual’s consent—he or she who is involved initially in the register and later with the extraordinarily cheap card that was referred to earlier.

Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are simple. To reinforce the concept of consent, we ask that the word “written” and the phrase “in writing” be inserted in lines 34 and 35. I hope that is straightforward; I will say no more about it.

Amendment No. 53 would include an additional phrase, so that the

“authority or consent”

of the individual

“may extend to part only of information.”

Amendment No. 117 refers to clause 43(1) and would insert a new provision.

I hope that this is straightforward. If our purpose is to ensure that individuals involved in the scheme consent to what is going on, these amendments would add a check and a balance to the Government’s proposals by ensuring that we accept that consent is   present only when the individual has signed off a form, signed a certificate or physically ensured that he knows what is going on.

I fear that I am labouring the point a little, but it is necessary to do so because we have heard in several debates about individuals who are disadvantaged, disabled or not in full control of their faculties. It is important that the Government understand that consent needs to be given in writing. Without that, there is room for error and for a lack of proper understanding. Only with the imposition of a requirement for a written document can we be certain. I know the Minister will say that going down this route would involve added expense, but, as the question of consent is at the heart of the clause, I think it would be justified.

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

Amendments Nos. 172, 227 and 173 stand in my name. The effect of amendments Nos. 172 and 227 would be largely the same. The history is that I had already tabled the former when I received a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland on the point, which suggested using “express” rather than “informed”. Always having one eye to the future, and to the possibility that I might again have to rely on the good will of the Law Society of Scotland to earn my living, I thought I might as well take on its amendment. Dare I say it, the Law Society’s form of words is preferable, as “express” is more workable than “informed”, but both make the same point—namely, that we should not allow access to be given in a tick-box manner.

It is already fairly well established that, in relation to some aspects of access to such information, an explanation must be given to the person giving consent in express terms—he is given a form and told what will be the effect of signing it. Most people go on to sign it none the less. However, the process highlights the importance of the information held on the database and the restriction of access to it, and serves to eliminate the possibility that giving consent to access to such information will be allowed to become routine. The strictest possible rules should be put in place to ensure that access is given only with express consent.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

Again, we are considering important amendments that go to the heart of the issues at play in the clause. As hon. Gentlemen have suggested, the amendments would, in their various ways, make it a requirement for an individual to give particular types of consent before the Secretary of State provided information to organisations wanting to verify their identity. We take on board the issues at the heart of the amendments, but they are dealt with in other ways.

Amendments Nos. 173 and 117 define consent as something that is explicit and informed. On balance, we do not consider the amendments to be necessary. We think that it is self-explanatory that consent for a check to be made on the register must be freely given by a person who understands that his card or, as the case may be, his biometric information, is being used to verify his identity. We do not consider the term “consent” when used in this context to be ambiguous   and thus to require a statutory definition, especially in the context of strong limitations on the data available for that verification process and some of the other elements in the Bill, which I will discuss in a moment.

It is incumbent on the Government, as and when this process is introduced, albeit on a voluntary basis in the first instance, to make clear to people how it will work; its benefits, both in the voluntary capacity and subsequently in terms of the compulsory registration elements; how those elements are to be enforced; their rights concerning who can have access to the verification process, not the data; and—to hark back to the previous group of amendments—how an individual can access the data that are stored about them under the Data Protection Act 1998. I agree that that education and awareness process should be gone through as a scheme of such importance is undertaken, but we do not need to define “consent” in the Bill.

Amendment No. 172, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would make it a requirement that an application for the provision of information is with the “informed” authority of the individual. Amendment No. 227 would require the authority to be “express”. Again, in the context of what I just said about consent, it should be taken as read that authority means a freely given and informed authority. I should also mention that under clause 14(5)(a) there is a power to make provision by regulations as to

“how an authority for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) is to be given”.

In that provision, and elsewhere, we can be explicit about what things mean for more vulnerable groups, such as those with learning disabilities and others. That is a fair and serious point.

Amendment No. 53 would mean that an individual could choose to consent to the provision of any part of the information falling in subsections (2) and (3). We resist that, because, as I have said, the clause already sets out a limited list of information that may be provided in response to a verification application. We are not talking about all 51 assorted items, many of them internal to the machine and the process, being readily available, as well as the biometrics for the verification process. There is a power to make regulations to impose further restrictions if necessary. As I have said, it is our intention that by virtue of the accreditation process provided for in clause 14(6) organisations will be provided only with information that supports their business need—that is to say, a limited part of the individual’s entry as permitted under clause 14(1).

Those safeguards, limitations and definitions of which data will and will not be available are in place, all wrapped round the notion of consent in the clause. To suggest putting in the Bill one of the various elements of consent is unnecessary and, dare I say it, otiose. As and when we return to these matters, perhaps at a later stage of the parliamentary process but as early as permissible, I will try to give the Committee sight of at least the headline and framework of the regulations under clause 14(5) that will define authority. That, rather than unnecessary   amendments to the Bill, may be the way to allay fears about consent and authority. I take the same stance on amendments Nos. 51 and 52 and the notion of written consent. For all those reasons and because of the assurances that I have given, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

I hope that the Minister will forgive me—my mind wandered for a moment. [Interruption.] No, the Minister was not being otiose; it is simply that I was distracted by something else.

I believe that the Minister gave an assurance that those aspects of consent will become clearer as we proceed through the rest of the Bill and to other amendments. If I am wrong, I shall be grateful if the Minister will correct me.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I was saying that, as and when I could during the course of the Bill’s parliamentary process, I would try to give the Committee at least our first thoughts—an outline—of what the regulations about the nature of, and relationship between, authority and consent would entail, and that that might allay the fears that prompted the amendments in the first place.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. On the basis of that assurance and after having considerably delved into the matter, 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. 176, in clause 14, page 13, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 177, in clause 14, page 13, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

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

It had to happen eventually that we would seek to delete “may” and insert “shall”. We have reached our eighth sitting, so we did well to resist the temptation thus far. This is a classic probing amendment that seeks to tease out information from the Minister, although it would have made sense to put in “shall” rather than “may” in the first place.

Amendment No. 176 is about the power in subsection (5) to make regulations—the Minister just referred to them—that are subject to the negative resolution procedure. They will describe how an authority is to be given, the persons who can make an application and in what circumstances, and how the application may be made. The Bill should make it a requirement that the regulations be in place before such access is allowed. In theory, regardless of the practical situation, the Bill would allow that not to be the case.

Amendment No. 177 would make the same change for subsection (6), which is a more serious provision. It enables an accreditation scheme to be established so that only those organisations that have been approved can make checks on the ID cards of individuals who have consented to verification checks against the register. Subsection (6) states that the regulations may include the requirement that, to be provided with   information, the person must first have registered certain details with the Secretary of State, that that person and the applicant for the information are approved in the prescribed manner and that the equipment that is used is accredited. Again, the regulations should be made before any such scheme is put in place, and there should be no room for doubt about that. I know that the Minister will tell us that that will be done in practice. The amendment would simply put it beyond doubt. It gives the Minister an opportunity to tell us whether he has yet applied his mind to how subsection (6) will operate on an ongoing basis. What checks will be made to ensure that those who have been accredited continue to act in a way that is consistent with the undertakings that they have given, and that they are not abusing or seeking to abuse the system?

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

Passing rapidly over the desire or otherwise to dwell on “must” or “may” versus “shall”, some fair points have emerged. We fully intend to make regulations under subsections (5) and (6), but we would like the flexibility of “may” rather than “shall”, which to all intents and purposes in law equals “must”.

During the design and procurement phase, other ways may have been found to secure the accreditation of organisations, equipment and other elements. As a result, even though there would be no need to accredit some elements, we would have to produce regulations if the amendments were accepted, despite the fact that what they sought to achieve had been achieved by other means. That is the only reason why we want the flexibility of “shall” rather than “may”.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is entirely normal not to be that prescriptive. I assure him that we intend to make regulations under subsections (5) and (6), ensuring in all cases that we have the consent of the individual and that the organisations making checks on the register are suitably accredited. The form of that accreditation may be achieved by other means than regulation, and the provisions would leave the door open—but no more than that.

We may secure what is needed other than by regulation—perhaps through contract compliance, monitoring or other elements. It is nothing sinister. People may say that the hairs on the back of their neck stand up when Ministers say that there is nothing sinister, but there is not. That flexibility is perfectly normal, and we would prefer to retain it, at least during the parliamentary process. If we are lucky when we come to the tail end of the process, we may be able to say that we do not need those subsections because that which we sought through regulation has been achieved through other means.

The provision is in the interests of good, flexible, responsive law, but from our current perspective, we fully intend to go down the route of regulation, which is why the provision is included in the Bill. In that context and given the generous spirit in which I have responded, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

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

You must know by now, Mr. Gale, that there are not many things in life of which I am particularly proud. Pride can be a burden. However, I am proud to say that I have never yet divided a Committee on a question of “may” against “shall”. 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. 55, in clause 14, page 14, line 2, 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.’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 222, in clause 37, page 31, line 28, at end insert

‘apart from applications from the individual to whom the information relates’.

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

Simply put, amendment No. 55 would add another subsection to the end of clause 14; I hope that it will underline the concept of consent and make the clause a little easier to understand.

Amendment No. 222 would add to clause 37, which is headed “Fees in respect of functions carried out under Act”. Clause 37(1)(d) states that

“applications for the provision of information contained in entries in the Register”.

The amendment would add the words

“apart from applications from the individual to whom the information relates”.

I hope that that is clear.

We hope that the amendments will require the Secretary of State to supply to the individual any information on the register that the individual requires about him or herself. On top of that, the individual could not be charged for asking for that information.

On consent, we believe that, if the amendments were made, the Secretary of State would be hard pushed to fly in the face of the consensual nature of the measure by saying, “No”. If anyone requires information, other than the individual, it will be specified, but if the individual himself wants that information, he must have it. On top of that, it must be provided free of charge.

I understand that there will, of course, be a cost provision. However, given the nature of the rest of the clause, which is an important one, if consent is to be strengthened and underlined, amendments Nos. 55 and 222 would make things clearer. If they are put in the Bill, the nature of consent will be underscored.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

The Bill covers many of the points that the hon. Gentleman seeks to address in the amendments. As I said, clause 14(8) is about reinforcing the protection of an individual’s rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It says clearly that how we limit information in clause 14 for the verification process does not impinge on an individual’s right to have access to that data under Data Protection Act provision.

The hon. Gentleman seeks to go beyond DPA provision, especially in amendment No. 55. For reasons that I will come to, we think that that goes too far. If the amendments are about securing an individual’s rights under the DPA, they are secured in the Bill by clause 14(8). The amendment goes further, by suggesting that anyone should have a right to all the information on them. That is explicitly stated in the amendment.

That would go beyond what is provided for in the DPA. It would, for example, include information that was provided to the police as part of an ongoing investigation into a serious crime. Under the terms of the amendment, that information needs to be available to an individual, because that would be recorded in paragraph 9 of schedule 1 as part of the information held on that individual. It would not be appropriate, or in the public interest, to reveal that fact to the individual under investigation.

We are, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I said, considering giving individuals secure internet access to their record. I take the point that, the quicker we can get an individual to have sight of data held on him on request, the better for all concerned under the terms of the DPA.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I take the Minister’s point on the disclosure of paragraph 9 information to the individual. It would not be appropriate for an individual who is or who has recently been under investigation to see that the serious crime body or one of the security services had requested information about him or her.

However, does the Minister think that, at some stage, the information should be allowed to the individual? Some of the Minister’s colleagues have had access to their files from the 60s or 70s, when they were under consideration by the services. Someone might ask, “Why did they ask for that information from 20 or 30 years ago?” Will the Minister consider that option?

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I was 10 in 1968, so I hope that MI5 and MI6 do not have too much on me from the glory days of the 60s, although I have not asked. That might be worth looking into.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is not for the Bill to make such provision and, even if it were, it would not be secured by the amendment. However, it is appropriate to consider how the historical elements in paragraph 9, rather than ongoing, live discussions, can be revealed. I happily take the point on those terms, but I would rather consult the assorted authorities on how to frame such a provision than accept the amendment, which is wide open and goes too far.

I concede that there should not be an absolute bar on ever releasing some of the paragraph 9 information, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has given. I take that point, but the amendment suggests that anything covered by paragraph 9 should be released whenever anyone makes an application. That cannot be right   and, to be fair to the hon. Member for Newark, it cannot be what he sought to achieve with the amendment.

As the hon. Gentleman suggested, amendment No. 222 relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to set a fee for applications for the provision of information. The hon. Gentleman wishes to limit the Secretary of State’s ability to make a charge. We have already rehearsed those arguments—on Tuesday I think, but we are having such fun that all the sittings are rolling together, so I am not sure. We intend that that an individual will be able to check the details of his entry on the register, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, and information regarding verification requests made against the entry in the previous six to 12 months—hopefully via a secure web portal, free of charge. A full subject access request, in accordance with the 1998 Act, would be subject, as other database searches are, to a reasonable fee allowed for by that legislation, which is currently £10.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Durham, City of, Labour)

I rise to check that clause 14(8) gives a safeguard to individuals enabling them to see and correct what is on the register.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Such questions have come up before—again, I cannot remember precisely when—and we gave a similar assurance then, but I am more than happy to repeat it now.

Our intention is to let an individual look at his database entry on a website for free. Access to the entire database is more appropriately done through the DPA, however, the charge for which is currently set at £10. There will be provision to amend and discuss elements in the data record, which is entirely appropriate. We think, however, that even when the web portal is established the Secretary of the State will need provision on the face of the Bill to charge a fee for access, as per the DPA. The amendment goes far beyond the DPA and, for those reasons and despite the good intentions of the hon. Member for Newark, I ask that it be withdrawn.

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

Yet again it seems that we will have to throw ourselves on the mercy of the Data Protection Act to ensure that there is access to the information required. I am delighted that the Minister has assured me that individuals will not be charged and I recognise that the fee that he mentioned for larger inquiries seems reasonably modest. Despite that, I would be much happier if the amendment were accepted. I understand what the Minister said about the juxtaposition of the amendment and the Data Protection Act, so in the spirit of trying not to impede the Government any further than we might have done already by even suggesting the amendment, albeit with some reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.