Identity Cards Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2005.

Standing Committee B

Clause 4 - Designation of documents for purposes of registration etc.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 26, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I welcome you back to the Chair for yet another day of delight, Mr. Conway.

The amendment will, I hope, be a relatively simple matter to explain, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will see the sense of what we are saying and will help us with the amendment, which I think is important. Clause 4 deals with the designation of documents for the purposes of registration and the like. The clause says that

''The Secretary of State may by order designate a description of documents for the purposes of this Act.''

What are those documents? Does the provision mean that when one applies for a passport, one has to have an identity card? That would make eminently good sense as the Bill stands. But what other documents are we talking about? Would they include a driving licence, or a shotgun certificate? What documents will require us to register and to have access to an identity card?

Let us take the idea of the shotgun certificate. A fee is required for such a certificate. Would we therefore be required, under the clause, to pay two fees—one for the shotgun certificate and one for the identity card? I should be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly where the provision starts and stops, and deal in detail with the

''documents which a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department is authorised or required to issue otherwise than by virtue of provision so made.''

To clarify, we are suggesting a simple amendment that would add a subsection (3) saying that the Secretary of State must not make an order unless a draft of it is laid before Parliament and is approved by both Houses. That strikes me as being eminently sensible. It will provide a check and will ensure that there is no mission creep—a ghastly phrase—in relation to identity cards. It will ensure that we know precisely how the cards are delineated and that we understand any financial implications of applying for other documents. It will also mean that, in every case, the Secretary of State will be required to explain, first to the Commons and then to the Lords, exactly what each document means.

Without the amendment, the number of documents designated may begin to proliferate. Each of the documents could mean the start of a Big Brother mentality. If that is not controlled by the Houses of Parliament, we could be allowing a degree of freedom that, in the wrong hands, may be abused and lead us into what most of us would agree are wholly undesirable areas.

To that end, I earnestly suggest that the Minister considers the amendment, which provides a useful safety net in this part of the Bill. It is straightforward common sense that we should have some control over those Ministers or Secretaries of State who are involved in issuing cards and permitting other documents.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that as the amendment is very broad, and as the clause is short, this may be treated as a stand part debate.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Conway.

We are very unhappy with the clause. The amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) would improve it to the extent that Parliament would get the opportunity through the affirmative resolution procedure to debate more fully the orders that the Secretary of State presumably intends to bring in. We are talking about a regular affirmative procedure rather than the super-affirmative procedure, which we were discussing the other day, so I am sure that the Minister could straightforwardly agree to the measure.

The clause is difficult. The documents could be described as Trojan horse documents rather than as designated documents. They are a way of trying to introduce ID cards in a way that is sold to the public as being less painful and that disguises their true costs. The Government have come up with a cunning wheeze that means, ''We know that if we went out there today and said that everyone must get ID cards, that would be a problem, so we will designate classes of documents.'' They originally talked about passports and driving licences and now they seem to be saying that passports only will be involved. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified that.

The Government seem to be saying, ''If we designate these documents and say that everyone who applies for them must get an ID card, somehow it will have gone so far through the population that when we come along with a big stick later on and say that everyone must have them it will be a less painful exercise.'' That opens up a lot of scope for fudge, particularly over the costings. The Government have said that the cost of a biometric passport and ID card package is £85. They will designate the document and say to all of us, ''You have to pay £85 if you want a new passport, part of the cost being for the ID card.'' My fear is that there will be no clarity over which is which. Until ID cards are compulsory, I do not see why I should not have the option to say, ''No, I will just take the biometric passport.'' I accept that if I come along later and have to get the ID card separately, because the scheme has been brought in on a compulsory basis, that will cost more than if those documents had been issued together, but I do not see why I, as the citizen, should not have that choice.

The designated documents route is a sneaky way of trying to make compulsory what is being described as voluntary. The scheme is neither fish nor fowl, neither voluntary nor compulsory with the clause included. If the clause is to be included and the legislation passed, it would be far more appropriate not to designate any documents and to accept that the Passport and Records Agency could offer the ID card as an option to people who are applying for a passport. It could be a genuinely voluntary scheme with the warning that if people come along later and want to get an ID card separately, it may cost them more than having got the package together. Let us leave the package as a voluntary option and not fudge things.

As we have said throughout, from a good governance and good order point of view there are some huge dangers of cost creep—if not mission creep. The Minister has said with a slightly nervous smile that the scheme is the largest of its kind ever to be attempted. We believe that it will prove to be extremely challenging. The people who did the assessment of the technology for the Government said that the use of three biometrics is potentially hugely expensive and, again, has not been trialled anywhere.

We think that the costs will grow out of all proportion. It will not lead to a good governance situation if they then get wrapped up and disguised in Passport and Records Agency costs. It would be far better to keep matters separate. In a sense, the designated documents route is a way of conning the public into accepting something that they might not accept if it were presented as a separate package.

I caution against allowing the clause to stand part of the Bill, but if that is to happen, I hope that the slight improvement that has been offered by the hon. Gentleman will be agreed to. When we discuss whether or not to designate a passport, I hope we will have the opportunity to do that through the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. I support the amendment.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

It is as well to understand exactly what the clause says and what we are expected to approve this morning. It quite plainly says that the Secretary of State can by order—that is not parliamentary scrutiny—designate a document. Anyone who applies for such a document has to apply for an ID card at the same time. The restriction in the clause is that the document that the Secretary of State can designate has to be one that

''a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of provision made by or under an enactment''.

Those are interesting words.

The amendment, which we feel strongly about, has two purposes. First, it aims to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to consider the Home Secretary's proposals by way of designation. Secondly, it aims to tease from the Government exactly what documents they not only have in mind, but may have in mind as time goes by.

That brings me to the first essential question. Does the Minister have any idea exactly how many documents there are in our society that fall within the description of

''a document that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of a provision made by or under an enactment''?

I am sure that the list of such documents is endless. We obviously have the passport, which we understand about, but the references made so far to function creep are very relevant under this clause. What about the driving licence? Can the Minister say something about that as well? But there are many other documents, which, in my judgment, are issued by an authority pursuant to an enactment, and which could, strictly speaking, come within the ambit of this clause. For example, what about a birth or marriage certificate?

I assume, by the way, that we are talking about copy documents as well as original documents. There is no reference here whatever to the documents being limited to original documents. The clause relates simply to anyone applying for a document, which brings me on to my next point. Under this clause, the person may be applying for such a document on behalf of someone else.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman explains the case well and brings my mind to national insurance number cards, which are issued to all 16-year-olds. The Bill as it is leaves a gaping hole, whereby ID cards could effectively be made compulsory under this clause simply by making the NI number card a designated document, which would be issued to 16-year-olds, the people to whom the Government intend to issue ID cards.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We must pause to refer to the explanatory notes, which plainly say:

''If a document is designated, anyone applying for one.''

There is no reference anywhere to applying for a passport in one's own name, which brings me to a few questions. I assume that a death certificate is, for example,

''a document that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of a provision made by or under an enactment.''

It plainly is such a document, and so is a copy of a death certificate. The purpose of the Committee is to put forward perhaps extreme examples and ask the Minister whether they could be covered by this clause or not. If they are not to be covered, where does it say that they are not covered? If, for example, I apply for a copy of a death certificate as a lawyer, on behalf of a deceased client, I am an individual applying for a document. Is it impossible for the death certificate or copy to be designated? I might be applying for such as an individual executor or a family member. I might not have a card. Could I be trapped by this clause?

Clearly only official-type documents will be designated—documents

''that a person has a power or duty to issue.''

Let us look at one or two other areas to reinforce the same point. There are a number of official documents that have to be issued by a court upon request or it has a power to issue them if it so chooses. I will not go through them in detail, but I suggest that documents such as county court judgments, or charge sheets issued by the police upon application by the defendant or by his lawyer, could fall within the clause. The list could be endless.

The purpose of our amendment is twofold. First, could the Minister be explicit on the issue of the volume and scope of documents that might be designated? Would they include or could they include officially certified copies of such documents? Could anyone applying—not for his or her own benefit but in the course of a professional duty—be caught under this wording? The Minister has much to say about that.

The second and perhaps more important purpose is because of the very wide-ranging nature of the clause itself. Will proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses be required before any designation takes place?

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

Having discovered that I was on this Committee rather late, I have not been able to attend all its sittings so far, and I apologise for that. Being opposed in principle to identity cards, I find the Committee quite difficult anyway. It is just tinkering—making slight amendments that in no way change the fundamental issue. I have yet to be convinced of the need for identity cards, though admittedly I have not been here all the time.

However, I support the amendment. If we are going to go down this road, the more parliamentary scrutiny the better. The Minister said that people who were against identity cards made sweeping statements, yet we have heard a lot of sweeping statements from those in favour of them. The issue is about making sure that, as a country, we harmonise more with the rest of Europe, so that in the long term we can find different ways of integrating our justice systems. I do not want to go down that road, but, where we have the opportunity to do so, we must ensure that Parliament has a detailed look at any aspect that goes further in making citizens, or subjects, of this country end up in the longer term with a compulsory document. That is why I support the amendment.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

This is the first time I have served on a Home Office Bill, so I apologise if I am not immediately familiar with the culture of such occasions. I am a simple journalist, not a lawyer. I always thought that an advantage, but I realise that view may not be in vogue.

I want clarification, having thought about the documents in my wallet. I have my passport, my international driving licence, a vaccination certificate to go with my passport, my senior citizen's rail pass, a bus pass issued by the Harrogate and district bus service and my freedom pass, which I have just acquired. I am proud to have achieved the age to receive that. I had thought the age had no advantages but now discover it is financially advantageous. In future, how many of those documents could be issued to me without registration for an identity card?

Secondly, what will happen if I am resident abroad and need to renew or obtain a passport—for example, if I were resident in Mogadishu or Ulan Bator and the passport was for a child? Both countries have British embassies, if the Government have not closed them down yet. If I must also go through a procedure to get an identity card or register, how long will it take? What will the procedures be at a remote British overseas post that can issue passports to fulfil also the requirements for registration? Will there be an interminable delay?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I rise to make my point now, lest I forget it when I respond to this short debate. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and all Committee members that although it is the Government's intention to designate passports, it will not be all passports. For example, the measure will not apply to passports for children under 16, nor to passports issued abroad.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

That is an important point, which I was about to raise. One of my granddaughters was born on 16 June. She went to France at the beginning of July and was required to have a passport and a passport photo. I never figured out the purpose of the rather incoherent blob on the page, nor what sort of identification it provided. I am glad that she did not also have to apply for her documents at that stage, as remembering where she lived might have provided some difficulty—even for somebody as outstandingly clever and well endowed with a good genetic inheritance as she.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

On the subject of genetic inheritance, I call Mr. Clifton-Brown.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I do not know what that is supposed to mean, Mr. Conway, but there we are. I am sure it has the right, rather than the wrong, connotations.

I make one brief point to the Minister. Citizens are supposed to know—although how I am not entirely sure—about far too many enactments of bits of legislation. The other day, I came across an example involving the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that someone was supposed to know about just because information about their land was posted on the internet. To my mind, that is not adequate notification by Departments that somebody is subject to particular legislation. My point to the Minister is very simple: it is very important that this proposal be debated in Parliament, so that whenever there is a change it is given publicity and citizens know about it. How could they otherwise?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

You invited Committee members to treat this as a clause stand part debate, Mr. Conway, and encouraged them to be wide-ranging in their comments. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) took you at your word and appears to have moved us on to debating his amendments to clause 5. I could deal with clause 5 in more depth in the context of whether being put on the register ought to be optional, which is one point he made. However, he has tabled a specific amendment to clause 5 to deal with that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) also took you at your word, Mr. Conway, and made very general comments. Interestingly, in her preamble she referred to the number of general statements made on both sides of the argument; she then made the most generalised criticism of ID cards that I have heard. She is to be congratulated on taking us into another realm. Nothing could be further from my mind, or those of other Ministers with whom I have spoken, than bringing us into line with the rest of the European Union in this context. That has not been my thinking, nor would I deploy such an argument. I would be proud to deploy it if it were part of my thinking—I would be happy to debate it with her and would not run away from it—but it is not.

Let me make some general observations on the clause so that Committee members get a clearer understanding of the Government's approach to the issue. Clause 4 will provide a mechanism for individuals to apply for an ID card when they apply for a designated document. That will be compulsory, and we shall deal with that issue in more depth. Since I became responsible for this area of public policy, I have been clear in my public statements and during debates that the ID card scheme is compulsory.

The first criticisms that I came across were that we would need primary legislation for an ID card scheme, that the mechanism for moving to full compulsion was inappropriate and that there would be no debate in the context of primary legislation about compulsion. My response was that there would be such a debate during discussions on the Bill. If we did not have that debate during those discussions, we would not have had it at the appropriate time. Nobody should vote for the ID card scheme unless they understand that it is compulsory. Let us put the debate out in the open and discuss the matter to make it easier for hon. Members to understand why it is progressing in such a way.

It is logical and sensible to progress in such a fashion because of the scale of the challenge to put the compulsory ID scheme into operation. That should be done incrementally and at a point at which the operation of the scheme has the confidence of the public so that we can return to Parliament and move to full compulsion. Let us be under no illusion that the Government intend to bring in a compulsory ID scheme; there is no stealth, no dishonesty and no masking of such a proposal.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he was in the middle of developing his argument. Before he completely passes on from his response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, I want him to reassure the Committee now that the exercise has nothing to do with European convergence, that it is not minded in that way and that it is not set in that form. If the Bill has merit—on which my jury is still out, by the way—it is the proper supervision of the sovereignty of the nation and its good and efficient governance. If it brings good order to my country, I shall continue to take an interest in it. If it is part of European convergence, I may go a different way.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before the Minister replies, the remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall in the European context were made almost as a throwaway rather than a long-standing contribution to the debate, so I urge Members not to be tempted down the road of European convergence, which is not specific to this measure. This is a point that the Minister will want to deal with at some stage, but I would rather that he did not do so while we are debating the clause.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Thank you, Mr. Conway, for your helpful advice. I wish to respond to the intervention by saying that the hon. Gentleman can have the reassurance he seeks.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister said, significantly, that it is the Government's intention to make identity cards compulsory. Is it also their intention to make it compulsory to carry identity cards?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

As the hon. Gentleman should know, there is a measure that provides for the opposite by saying that it cannot be made compulsory to carry the cards. It has never been the Government's intention to make that compulsory. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam explained to some degree why that is not necessary and why we do not need to go down that route, with all the civil liberty implications of the compulsion to carry. In any event, people carry their biometrics. If people are in such a position that the police or the authorities are entitled under other legislation to establish their identity, they will have their biometrics with them and the register will allow their proper identification, if necessary.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Following on from that last point, the Minister has been frank in saying that the scheme will be compulsory. Does he not recognise the sheer logic of saying that if it is compulsory to have a card it must follow, as night follows day, that it should be compulsory to carry it and to produce it on request, or the compulsion in having a card will be utterly watered down?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I fundamentally disagree. For the scheme to be effective, it is unnecessary to require people to carry the cards or, worse, to have to produce them on request. That would be an invasion of civil liberties and is the way to create an environment in which all the worst excesses that people attribute to the scheme, which it is deliberately designed to preclude, could creep into the society in which we live. It is unnecessary.

As I constantly repeat in these debates, if we must have a discussion on the powers that the police should have, it should be held in the context of police powers, not in the context of an ID card scheme that is designed to provide a method of giving a gold standard of identification to individuals, protecting their identity and protecting us in relation to the purposes set out in the Bill.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

That refers to production on request, but the Minister said earlier that part of the purpose of registration is to ensure that people do not seek employment if they are not entitled to be employed. Presumably, therefore, a would-be employer is entitled to ask for evidence that somebody is employable, which will be carried on the identity card or will be registered. Equally, there is a long clause about the delivery of public services. Presumably, somebody who is delivering public services is entitled to ask whether there is proof of entitlement to them.

If I am stopped by the police and they ask to see my driving licence, I think I am right in saying that I can produce it at a police station of my choice within two weeks.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. I do not like to be a restrictive Chairman, but we are going far from the nature and definition of the clause. Perhaps hon. Members will have this discussion when we get to clause 8, and I am sure it will be in order to do so. However, we are pre-empting later debates that the Committee will want to explore.

I realise that these are important matters—I do not deny that—but they do not relate specifically to the clause, so I must insist that the Committee return to the concept of the clause. The compulsion aspects will be relevant when we get to clause 8 or another part of the Bill.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. That is most helpful.

My question is this: if people do not have to carry a document, do they have to give an assurance that they possess it? If they possess it, can they say, ''I invite someone to call next Thursday at 3.30 pm and I will show it''? That sounds absurd, but we are in a curious Catch-22 situation in which people might be required to have a document, but are not required to demonstrate that they have it, even though certain services can be obtained only if they have it. I am confused.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The purpose of this Committee is to try to reduce confusion and give explanations on behalf of the Government, which is my job as a Minister. I am happy to do that to the extent that I am able. I will endeavour to assist Committee members within the confines of the relevance of the debate. I shall quickly reply to the right hon. Gentleman's helpful remarks, as that will allow me to reiterate something that I have said in public on a number of occasions. Then I shall deal with the amendment and make some comments on the clause.

The current position is that in all the activities that the right hon. Gentleman identified, those people who provide the activities, or opportunities for employment, are required to establish the identity of the person to whom they are provided. Indeed, one Government—I think he was a Minister at the time—enacted legislation requiring employers to do just what he suggests employers will be required to under the Bill. That Government willed the way by saying that employers had to establish who people were and whether they were entitled to work, because there was concern about illegal working, but they did not give employers the means to do that.

The scheme will give us—due to technological developments and the coincidence of the fact that we will be collecting biometrics in relation to a substantial proportion of the population for international travel documents and passports—the opportunity to make that step towards a system for proving people's identity to a proper, secure standard. For the first time ever, there will be a gold-plated means for people to prove who they are in all relevant circumstances.

The scheme will create that opportunity and then create opportunities for those who provide public services appropriately to designate through regulation the incremental use of that scheme and of the cards in other areas. That does not seem to be so difficult. In fact, we operate on the basis that we are not giving the police extra powers, subject to one or two minor qualifications that we discussed when we last debated these issues. We are not creating extra powers for anybody; we are just creating additional opportunities. However, this scheme will regulate the exercise of existing powers through regulation. We will address that matter later.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Will a penalty be entailed in terms of not being able to access a service if I choose not to demonstrate the existence of an identity card or similar document?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

That will be a matter for consideration in the context of any future regulations that might be made on the use of cards for proof of identity in order to access services, rather than in this context.

Clause 4 is the key to the delivery of the ID card scheme because it provides a mechanism by which individuals can be brought into the scheme. An application for a designated document will, in effect, trigger an application for an ID card. The issuing procedures are set out in detail in clause 8, but the designation of a document must precede any of the procedures where the ID card is issued together with, or as part of, a designated document. A stand-alone card could be issued by the Secretary of State under clause 8 without any documents being designated.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggests that the advantage of proceeding in this way is that it provides a stealthy means of compulsion. That is not the case; I am absolutely open about the position in relation to compulsion. The advantage is that there are already established processes with high levels of security for issuing certain designated documents such as passports and residence permits, and those processes will form the basis of the work of the ID cards delivery agency; for passports, there will shortly be the collection of biometrics in any case. Roll-out will be incremental as people come to apply for, or renew, documents—or, in the case of foreign nationals, arrive to stay in the UK for more than three months. In that way, the problems associated with a ''big bang'' approach can be minimised. We can do a number of things. We can incrementally build the register and the database, and the confidence of the people of the UK in the system, before finally moving to full compulsion by a process that we will debate in due course.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister said something very important when he referred to anyone who is in the UK for over three months. Does that apply to people from all European Union countries, including southern Ireland?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It applies to everyone who is resident in the UK.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I thought that we established in earlier debates that people who are covered by the common travel area scheme because they are from the Republic of Ireland would not need an identity card if they were frequent visitors to the UK. If they then decide to stay in the UK for an extended period, will there be a trigger of some kind after three months which means that they suddenly have to get one?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With respect, the hon. Gentleman indicated that he did not think that I was giving the right answer to the question that had been asked, then he intervened and asked a different question.

There is a difference with regard to people who move regularly within the common travel area; we have an agreed relationship with Irish citizens. On Second Reading, a contribution was made that identified that. This scheme applies to everybody who is resident in the UK for three months or more. It is as simple as that; there are no qualifications. The hon. Gentleman implied that he understood that, but then he asked about other people.

On clause 4, it is important to bear in mind that the Bill does not designate any documents. It gives the power to designate documents by order. In the way in which the Bill is currently framed that is a process that Parliament will be involved in, although it will be done by the negative resolution procedure. I know that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) thinks that that is no parliamentary scrutiny at all. It is parliamentary scrutiny; it is just not parliamentary scrutiny to the standard that he wants.

It is important to note that the only documents that can be designated are those that are issued with statutory authority, or those

''which a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department is authorised or required to issue''.

The hon. Gentlemen who contributed to the debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall by implication, although she did not say this—rightly pointed out that that covers a very wide range of documents.

The clause is drafted in that way to make the distinction between documents issued by private organisations and those issued by governmental organisations. The Government have always made it clear that we intend to designate British passports issued to people who are aged 16 or over and resident in the UK and residence permits issued to foreign nationals. We also considered designating driving licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Great Britain and driving licences issued in Northern Ireland. However, for reasons to do with the regulations, and particularly the EU regulations, that relate to the nature of those documents, we concluded that it would not be appropriate at this stage to designate them, although we will keep open that possibility, and look at how the documents develop.

We have no plans to designate other official documents such as the national insurance number card, although the clause as it is currently framed makes that possible. Although the hon. Member for Woking was to a degree caricaturing the situation with regard to that power, the way in which the clause is drafted would allow the designation of a significant number of documents, including some of those that he mentioned. However, there is no intention to designate any of them.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

May I probe the Minister slightly further on the Republic of Ireland question, as I do not know whether it would be more appropriate to do so in the context of any other part of the Bill? Will we have two classes of people? Will Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and the UK be fine? As the Minister knows, there is a problem with regard to Irish citizens' special relationship with the UK. How will things work in practice for people who live one side of the border and move around on the other side, or for people who live in Northern Ireland with an Irish passport?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I cannot make it any clearer than I have done; if a person is resident in the UK for three months or more, they will be required to register under this scheme. That is how the scheme works, so let us put this matter to bed.

On Second Reading, it was noted that people could live on the other side of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and travel backward and forward. That was described as a loophole, and I understand why it might be thought to be a cause of concern given the recent history of Northern Ireland. It is the case that some people travel back and forth across that border; people live their lives in that way in all border areas. However, there is a special relationship between us and Ireland. We describe this part of the world as a common travel area and we allow people to travel freely within it; we have allowed that for a long time. This scheme does not affect the position of Irish citizens in any way. If there are concerns about this matter, they must be dealt with not now, but in another context.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

The Minister has dealt with the Irish citizens question. Can he give an assurance that the legislation will be applied in an identical way north and south of the border between England and Scotland, or might different circumstances and conditions apply to people living in Scotland under the devolved Administration? In the Queen's Speech debate, in a reply to the leader of the Scottish National party, the Prime Minister suggested that the legislation was capable of different applications.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. The Minister may be tempted to reply to that, but I will not let him do so because we are miles away from the clause. We will talk about the documents mentioned in the clause, not the geographical scope of the scheme, which is not covered in what we are discussing.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for us to deal with the other issue shortly.

The designation order anticipated in clause 4 would specify exactly which documents were covered. The order would be limited to tying in those documents with the entitlement to registration for those over 16 who have been resident in the UK for the prescribed period. It is obvious that the provision is not intended to designate any documents other than those to which I referred. However, having listened to the debate and considered the matter in anticipation of this discussion, I have come to the view that there is some merit in the argument behind the amendment.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to concede the amendment at this stage, but there is some merit in Opposition Members' argument that we are discussing an event of such importance that it should be considered by Parliament, albeit in the context of the Bill. The affirmative procedure would allow discussion and explanation. It would give the public the opportunity to be aware that such an important step was being taken, and let them know that there would be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I undertake to think about that.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am most grateful; what the Minister says is terribly helpful. I think that he implied earlier that he was not entirely happy with the drafting of the clause, in terms of the scope of documents and the use of the word ''anyone'' in the explanatory notes. Can he undertake to look into that, to see whether any improvement can be made before Report?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not make that point—or if I did, I made it accidentally. I will have to go back and look at exactly what I said. However, of course there will be an opportunity for me to look at the clause, as I will in any case be considering the amendment.

I must say, I am minded to concede the amendment, and if I am still of that view when we come to the remaining stages of the Bill, I will bring forward a Government amendment to the same effect, or, outwith the context of the Committee, I will continue to consult on the issue and discuss how we ought to do what is proposed under the amendment. I will, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, consider how the rest of the clause is drafted, but I am comfortable with it, and it does not seem to generate any other serious concerns. It creates an opportunity, and I think that we ought to have the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of that opportunity.

I invite the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw the amendment on the clear understanding that I am sympathetic to his points and will come back to the issue in the remaining stages of the Bill.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the Minister. In my opening remarks I said that I had no doubt that he would be persuaded by the strength of our arguments, and it would seem from his comments that he was.

We have had a wide-ranging and extremely useful discussion that has put down some markers for discussion later in Committee. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for spelling out that the scheme is compulsory. He is not trying to mask the fact that it will, in due course, be compulsory throughout the country, and that it is being introduced incrementally—and that, if one approves of the scheme, seems thoroughly sensible.

However, there is something that I still do not understand. For 26 years, I carried an identity card issued to me by the Government. I was compelled to carry it, and had to produce it on request. I do not understand the point of saying to someone, ''Here is the card, but you do not need to carry it,'' but I am sure that we will return to that later.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman refers, if I understand his personal history, to the fact that for 26 years he was a serving soldier, and there was a requirement to carry at all times an identity document that proved that he was a serving soldier. That was proof of his status and position in society, not of his identity; it was an Army identity card, not proof of his identity. It is just the same as a policeman being required to carry his warrant. ID cards are a different situation.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I take that point. I am sure that we will return to discuss the matter at a later stage. The logic still defeats me, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to illuminate me at that later stage. As a result of the discussions about the common travel area and, in particular the interventions by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Sheffield, Hallam, I think we have had a taste of what will come up in the future.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I think my hon. Friend was nearly at the end of his remarks, but will he join me in noting that the Minister graciously anticipated a Government amendment on the remaining stages to meet his amendment? I would like it to be on record that it will be a Government amendment. That is crucial because, as we all know, an Opposition amendment could well get stifled by the guillotine that will operate on the remaining stages. Will he reassure himself that the Minister will table a Government amendment to meet his requirement?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which as usual sheds light and clarity on the situation. The remarks that I was about to make were exactly that the Minister has generously and graciously said that he will table a Government amendment to make the clause that much clearer. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I put the question on the clause, I realise that it has been a fairly frustrating debate for some Committee members. However, when we get to clauses 6 and 8 there will be an opportunity to raise their concerns.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Applications relating to entries in Register

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 5, page 4, line 35, leave out 'must' and insert

'may, if the applicant so chooses,'.

The Minister was correct to say that the debate on the previous clause was a preface to this debate. In clause 5, we explore the mechanism for how the designated document procedure will work. The amendment seeks to break the link between the designated document and the ID card as a form of compulsion. It says that the only circumstances under which an ID card would be issued, or someone would be entered on the register when applying for the designated document, would be if the applicant chose it. It reverses the presumption, so that the applicant has to request the ID card rather than the Government being able to insist that they take it. I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his remarks on the previous clause about compulsion.

It seems to us, however, that the field of play has shifted as we have gone through the ID cards debate, and it has sometimes been difficult to keep up with where we are. My fear is that the legislation still reflects a previous stage of the political debate. The Minister has just accepted that the designated document procedure will now be subject to slightly more robust parliamentary procedure. As originally drafted, it was very weak in terms of scrutiny. All the scrutiny is piled up in clause 6, where we have the super-affirmative, gold-plated procedure. However, we understand from the last debate that the provision in clause 6, which deals with requiring the last 20 per cent. to get ID cards, is not the important one. By the time we get to that debate, we will have discussed compulsion. We are doing compulsion now—on this amendment and these clauses—and we will not be doing compulsion in the sense of clause 6. The decision, in principle, is being taken now.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I rise to reinforce the point that I have consistently made in this debate. We should have the debate about compulsion in the context of this legislation. We had it on Second Reading, and that was the appropriate place to have it. We should have it here in Committee when it arises, and not in relation to one clause or another but across the aboard. We should have the debate about compulsion now. People who do not agree with compulsion do not vote for this Bill.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for being so forthright. Because of earlier debates about how the ID card would work, there was a perception that we could introduce a voluntary scheme now. That was the situation that I have been trying to describe. The Government's intention was to introduce a voluntary scheme, and then to have a later decision, perhaps five years down the track or in 2008, when they would come back to the House and have a super-affirmative procedure to decide on compulsion. I suggest that the structure of the Bill still reflects that situation, although the Minister has now made it absolutely clear that the politics is not as such. The impact of accepting the Bill is to accept compulsory ID cards today.

I have been trying to describe the situation that I saw in the legislation. Certainly a reason for tabling this amendment is to reverse that position to an earlier stage in the political debate, when the suggestion was of genuine voluntarism. I will set out the reasons why the amendment seeks to do that.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

I support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but does he not agree that it would have been much more transparent and honest if the Government had called this Bill the compulsory identity card Bill?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Lady is correct. There is still confusion among the public. The terms of the Bill are such that there is a sense of voluntarism, which is only partial.

There is another debate at the moment, about the digital switch-over of TVs, which will find echoes here. At some point, the analogue TV signal will be switched off, which may be far more resented by people than anything to do with ID cards. That will be a more contentious decision. The Government have set up a genuinely voluntary procedure, in which they are saying, ''Please go out and buy digital TV equipment. At some point we will switch the analogue signal off.'' Some of the features are parallel. The decision is about numbers at any particular stage. How many people have digital TV? How big is the rump that we have to deal with with the big stick? How upset are people going to get when we deal with them? How much will things cost?

In these clauses, we are talking about the principle of compulsion, as set out by the Minister. When we get to clause 6—to the implementation of the regulations required some years hence, in 2008 or whenever—the debate is going to be about cost rather than any issue of principle. Who picks up the tab for the last 20 per cent.? I accept that we are now going to move on. However, the extraordinary thing is that we started out with a super-affirmative procedure for something that is, in a sense, quite trivial—a debate about the costs of dealing with this last 20 per cent.—and a very understated procedure for the big debate, which is the imposition of the ID card on the 80 per cent. It seems back to front to do it in that way.

If we are going to have this compulsory scheme, there are still some important questions about costs. Is there going to be a clear separation of costs in the Passport and Records Agency between those associated with the ID cards and those associated with passport? That is important for scrutiny purposes. The Minister may say that it is value for money to wrap all this up together, but we wish to establish the difference between our proposed scheme in which the ID card is a voluntary bolt-on to the passport, and the Minister's scheme in which everything is wrapped up together.

Unless we break the costs out and see those associated with ID cards, we will not be able to judge the success or failure of the Government's ID card scheme. My fear is that that is precisely the Government's intention—that all should be fudged and put together. From a parliamentary point of view, on a debate this contentious, it is important that we are able to see that. I hope the Minister can assure us that the true costs of the two things—passports and ID cards—will be presented separately.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Not very long ago the hon. Gentleman referred to—I use his expression, as it is not one that I would have coined—the ''rump'', the sans culottes, those who have not signed up. Is not part of the difficulty with the rump that we will not know who they are?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I think the sans culottes were those at the barricades.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

They probably will be.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Yes. We will know who those people are, because, as we established in an earlier debate, the Government will have a huge amount of data on them in other databases. Their only defining feature, in my understanding, is that they are people who do not have passports. Again, that is where the cost issues may come into it. It is more likely that elderly people and those on lower incomes will not have passports or will have not applied for them. Therefore, they will be subject to the clause 6 compulsion. I am sure that we will debate that in detail later.

It is important that the separation of costs is clearly set out and that we know whether there is cross-subsidy in the passport system between the passport applications and the ID card system. We may end up with a situation in which those who apply for passports today and over the next few years will subsidise the free or discounted ID cards for those who are brought in under clause 6. That might be a proper policy for the Government to set out, but they need to be explicit. I fear that there is, again, a complete lack of transparency.

It would be helpful to know whether there will be full cost recovery. The Government's regulatory impact assessment says that all the money for setting up the scheme will be recovered from people who are applying. The clause and the Government's procedures clearly define a set of people who will pay for the setting up of the scheme: those who are applying for passports now. We must be clear whether all the costs will be recovered.

I want to advance the case for the amendment both specifically and in terms of saying that there should be a voluntary extension. This debate has given rise to a question: why have the Government not advanced a policy that says that getting the 80 per cent. of people who will have biometric passports on to the system correctly should be the priority? The passport database and those documents that have a defined specific purpose—making it possible for a citizen to travel—would be available to the law enforcement agencies for their purposes under all the normal procedures and with all the normal safeguards. Therefore, why has the focus not been on getting biometric passports sorted out? It should be recognised that that would cover 80 per cent. of the population? Perhaps there could be a voluntary ID card scheme for people who do not want to have a passport and who want the convenience of an ID card. However, we should not go to all the hassle, expense and fuss of coming up with this all-encompassing, all-singing, all-dancing scheme.

We should allow the Passport and Records Agency to do its work issuing passports to citizens. We should get that sorted out and deal with the challenges that it will have to face, which are big enough on getting biometric passports right. Should that not be a higher priority? Our amendment would allow it get the passports right while accepting that the only people who would go on to the ID card system are those who choose to do so voluntarily. Going for the solution that the Government have set out is overkill.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

If the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his protestations that we should disaggregate the costs of the introduction of the biometric passport from the other aspects of the ID card system, can we rely on him and his hon. Friends on Third Reading and in the public presentation of the debate on this matter not to present the overall costs of the introduction of biometric passports as part of the costs of introducing ID cards? They did that on Second Reading and in other forums.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are in a propaganda war. We are chucking figures around and the reality is that none of them are clear. If we are to be accused of talking about the excessive cost of the ID cards, I would throw back at him the view that the Government are excessively understating the potential costs.

We are much more reasonable and rational in Standing Committee than people tend to be when they are on more of the bashing-away platforms. We are trying to get at the truth. We need transparency and clarity about the true costs of this system. I am pleading for that today. If we are given those costs, we will use them.

To date, we think that we have been given duff figures by the Government. If they want to accuse us of using duff figures, can we please have the true ones? We have been given figures that the Government have described as indicative. We have not been given the gateway review stage zero information that we need. I understand that we will not be given the other gateway review stage reports that might contain some of the clarity to which I referred. Until we get that clarity, it is hard for anyone to talk seriously about the true costs of the card.

There is an issue of principle. When the Government put their figures forward for accounting purposes and the review of the ID card system comes before people such as me and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on the Public Accounts Committee, should not the costs be clearly spelled out separately? I hope the Minister will be able to accept that principle today.

The amendment would ensure that the ID card proposal is genuinely voluntary and would knock a hole out of the Government strategy of compulsion through designated documents. The debate has been helpful in establishing that compulsion is happening today, but my concern still remains that the public debate is somehow divorced and is still behind the legislative debate. There is no clear understanding that issuing passports is the route to compulsion, as the Minister has said, and I seek to reverse that through amendment No. 164.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam is designed completely to undermine the basis of the scheme. We had an exchange during the last sitting about whether the amendment that he spoke to then could be described as a wrecking amendment. However, although this is a wrecking amendment, it is helpful because it enables me to be as clear about the Government's position as I was in the earlier debate.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the position clear in his introductory speech on Second Reading. I accept that the discussions on ID cards that have brought us to where we are have gone through a change. There has been a process of development and there was discussion at one stage about voluntarism. It must have been clear to everybody when the draft Bill and consultation document were published that there was a basis of compulsion associated with the scheme. Although I cannot speak for everybody else who has spoken on this issue, I have never made any bones about the fact that I consider this a compulsory ID card scheme. Indeed, I have challenged people who have suggested, as the hon. Gentleman did, that there was some implied voluntarism or stealth behind the measure.

Anybody who understands the scheme understands that there is an element of compulsion. It is the element of compulsion that the hon. Gentleman seeks to undermine and remove by making registration and the issue of the card an optional extra for persons applying for a designated document—for example, a passport or a residence permit.

The Government have been entirely open about the fact that linking ID cards to the issue of designated documents is an important part of the scheme and it will enable a sensible, phased introduction of ID cards as British nationals renew or apply for their passports and foreign nationals apply for or renew residence permits after those documents have been designated. We have also been open about the administrative arrangements. We have announced that we will establish a new agency to issue ID cards that will build on the existing UK Passport Service and work in close conjunction with the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office. There will not be two completely separate processes for people applying for a designated document and an ID card. It will be a single, seamless process.

Of course, if the scheme were optional, I believe that most applicants for these documents would choose to enrol on the register and obtain an ID card because of the additional benefits that that would bring. However, we cannot provide the choice that the hon. Gentleman proposes, because if we were to provide two types of document—one whereby the holder has had their identity checked to the highest standard needed for entry on the register and another for those who have not—that would be an open invitation to anybody who wanted to defraud the scheme.

It is argued that compulsion is being introduced by the back door or by stealth, but I have made it clear that it is not. Nobody is forced to obtain a British passport or to travel abroad. No foreign national is forced to come here—as a student, for example—and obtain a residence permit. If people feel strongly and decide not to apply for their passport to be renewed when it expires, it will be a matter for them. Until the second phase of the scheme is introduced, there will be no obligation on people to register.

We have always been clear about the fact that the identity card scheme is intended eventually to become compulsory for everybody over the age of 16 and for everyone who is resident in the UK for more than three months. We expect that most people will obtain an ID card and enrol on the register during the first phase when registration will be linked to applications for and renewal of documents, such as passports or residence permits that have been designated under clause 4.

The second phase will then become a requirement under clause 6 for those specified and who are not already registered so to do within a set period. Only then will people become liable to a civil penalty if they fail to register and obtain an ID card.

The stage at which it will be possible to require everyone to register requires further parliamentary approval by way of a report detailing the proposal to be approved by both Houses, following by an affirmative procedure order under clause 7, which we shall debate later. I hope I have reassured the Committee that a definite link between the application for a designated document and an entry on the register is essential. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

As for costs, the hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have published only a revised figure, which is £85 for a combined passport and ID card that lasts for 10 years. Clause 37(3)(d) allows the fee to include the cost of issuing designated documents. A combined fee for a passport and an ID card can be issued and charged for as a single package and the new agency that will be based on the UK Passport Service will issue the documents.

As the costs of checking identity will be same for both purposes, it might not be possible to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request. However, it will be the Government's intention as the process is being developed to publish information on costs. We have put certain information in the public domain. I am not in a position to add to it today, nor would it make the debate clearer if we were to guess what information might be available as the scheme develops. It will become available on the basis of the enabling legislation.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Minister has responded frankly and we have a clear difference of view. I will not waste valuable debating time by pressing all the amendments to a Division, but in this case it is appropriate for hon. Members to give their opinion of the proposal.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 10.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 79, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 80, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself'.

No. 152, in clause 9, page 8, line 28, after 'allow', insert 'all of'.

No. 97, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 98, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 106, in clause 14, page 13, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 107, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The amendments are designed to explore an important part of the Government's proposals, which is the use of biometric data. They cross over a group of clauses in which reference is made to biometric data. I want to explore the implications of using biometric data and the use of three biometrics in particular, which is the direction in which the Government are heading. I want to tease out from them the meaning of the phrase ''other biometric information'' and to ensure that we have on the record as much clarity as possible on the specific biometrics that the Government intend to use.

We had a brief debate on biometrics in response to an amendment spoken to by to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who discussed the concerns of organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind about eye-related biometrics. However, we also need to refer to an important body of work that the Government themselves commissioned. I will try not to get too technical here, but a certain technical understanding is needed if we are to make sensible decisions on the use of biometrics.

I refer to the document that the Government commissioned from Tony Mansfield of the National Physical Laboratory and Marek Rejman-Greene of BTexact Technologies, ''Feasibility study on the use of biometrics in an entitlement scheme'', which is available on the ID cards website. It contains a number of points that need responding to here, as we are deciding whether the Government should be given permission to proceed with the scheme.

In the context of the clause, the most significant issue to draw from the study is the fact that the costs of enrolment are potentially a major factor. They could end up being far greater than has been anticipated. This is clear in the early stages of the report—for example, in paragraph 5.e of the executive summary:

''The use of biometrics will add to the cost of an entitlement card system.''

That is obvious. It continues:

''The most significant component of this cost is the time and effort to enrol individuals and collect biometric data. However, this is one of the least well-understood aspects of biometric technologies.''

In other words, we are proceeding with something that, as the Minister said, has never been tried on this scale.

We are talking about the mass enrolment of people using complex biometric measures that take a significant time to record correctly. All we have to go on by way of experience are some very small-scale pilots, which the Government ran and which were not always entirely smooth, and such things as fingerprinting and recording biometrics in the criminal justice context, where the system required and the volumes are on nothing like the scale we anticipate here.

Certain features again emerge, such as the fact that the number of people with disabilities will be significant in computing the cost and effort involved. A range of disabilities might render people unsuitable for particular forms of biometric measure, which will have to be further explored. There are also questions as to the number of posts that the Government might have recording. We will come to the nature of those posts and how the Government should fulfil their responsibility to ensure that people can have their data recorded when it is demanded or it is their duty that they do so.

The number of those posts will be critical. I understand that the current proposal is for the UK Passport Service to have about 70 places where biometric data can be recorded. The cost of biometric data recording equipment is clearly significant, but the convenience for the citizen will depend on the spread, range and nature of the places where they can have their biometric data recorded.

There is a step change—from somebody filling in a form at the post office and sending it off to turning up somewhere—in the hassle factor. I assume that people will have to turn up during office hours, unless the Government plan to offer an out-of-hours service, which would be much more convenient. They are going to have to sit through the recording of their biometrics and potentially difficult intrusion and discomfort could be involved. If there are any problems with that biometric recording, this could be a lengthy process. These are all factors that may be important in terms of citizen acceptance, so the organisation is significantly challenging for the Government.

We also keep coming back to the costings. Some paragraphs in this report stand out in highlighting potential problems. Paragraph 105 gives some cost estimates:

''We estimate that including a biometric component in a national identity database will increase costs by approximately £500 million (over the originally specified 10 year rollout period). By far the largest component of this cost will be the resources expended in collection of the images for biometric enrolment.''

The report then breaks down all the different costs involved—this is quite a bonanza for some hardware and software manufacturers.

The figures are based on an estimate of there being 2,000 offices, which is considered a reasonable number to deliver the service needed. That is for one biometric component. The amendments relate to clauses that allow the Government to specify a number of biometric components, some of which are as yet unspecified. The phrase ''other biometric information'', which we want to remove, could permit anything to come in.

So, we are considering a scheme that the Government themselves say may use three biometric components. If it does, I think that we can expect significant cost escalations beyond the figures set out in the Government's feasibility study. The Government are suggesting that biometric data collection will be £500 million over 10 years; that is £50 million per annum. That is within the Government's window of £85 million a year—the specified cost of the new system—but if we multiply the costs for each additional biometric, and if one biometric costs £50 million and three cost £150 million, we are straight away out of the cost envelope. If the Government are saying that they can fit three biometrics within their budget, they will have to justify that, and say why they think that the incremental costs above the original £50 million will be sufficiently low to fit their projected costings.

Paragraph 109 of the report, which is about the selection of technology, tells us:

''The fourth option of using all three biometric systems—fingerprint, iris and face—has been rejected both on the grounds of cost and inconvenience to citizens as well as on the likely perception by critics of this as being a 'solution too far'.''

I assume that that was the state of play, but that things have moved on. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified exactly which biometrics would be used at what stage, and said exactly how he envisages the ultimate system will look.

The final subject that we need to explore is false match data. Some horrible numbers are being bandied around. I am trying to understand exactly how false match data works, because there are false positives and false negatives. Someone could fail to be recognised as themselves; also, someone could be recognised as being someone else. Both carry different problems and have different probabilities. The probabilities vary greatly. For example, the chance of a false match with facial recognition is significantly higher than for fingerprinting or iris recognition.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of biometrics. Does he accept that the probability of mismatches decreases exponentially as the number of biometrics used goes up?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The increased number of biometrics allows double checking to take place, but that opens up other questions, too. I think that everyone accepts that a biometric system based purely on facial recognition would be not entirely useless; in fact, it would be a significant advance on where we are now. We use one of the best computing systems available to mankind; it lives in the head. Passport officers perform facial recognition to a very high degree of accuracy using their cerebral computing devices, and for many years we have accepted that that is a very good safeguard.

Similarly, if someone goes into a police control station, as I am sure most hon. Members here have done, they will see that the police have a wall of villains—pictures of the people whom they know are the villains operating in their area. The police memorise those, go out into the streets and do a pretty good job based on their human form of facial recognition technology. Biometrically recorded facial recognition added to our method of facial recognition is actually a significant advance. But if we are going for the levels of accuracy that the Government want, and if the Government want the results to be computationally accurate—that is important—they will go for iris recognition and fingerprints, too, as that will allow those things.

Using multiple biometrics opens up questions about the algorithm used for trying to deal with competing claims of those different biometrics. It is quite possible that, when someone goes through passport control, their face will be recognised but their irises will not, or that their irises will be recognised but not their face. There has to be a system to establish whether someone is allowed to pass on the basis of having gotten through one or two of the biometric tests but not the rest. Exploring those algorithms is important.

There are levels at which the systems can be deemed non-functional—in other words, levels at which they would be so much hassle that they would not work at all. If a passport control system based purely on facial recognition were set up, and the number of failures was very high and each failure required somebody to go off into a separate cubicle and check a person and their documentation and to go through a great bureaucratic process, that system would be unworkable. The queues at Heathrow would be unmanageable, and the system would grind to a halt.

There are levels at which systems are effectively unworkable; they are computed by the people who study such things. The biometric feasibility study establishes that a false match rate needs to be less than one in 1,000. It states that

''a false alarm rate of much above 1 per cent. would probably make the system unworkable.''

We need to find the right compromise between cost, hassle, accuracy and a system that is genuinely workable. In order to avoid false alarms, one goes for more biometrics; if one goes for more biometrics, the time required to check them increases; and thus we return to the search for that delicate balance.

We should not necessarily accept as a given the Government's proposed scheme. It is important that they flesh out precisely how they intend to use biometrics. It is a key issue, and it must remain on the table as we discuss the Bill. Biometrics are potentially very intrusive and costly. They carry particular implications for people with disabilities, and if we are going to implement them, we must ensure that that is done in the right way.

I can envisage circumstances in which we get it wrong. We might have invested in all the costly biometrics, but because things have not been done in the right way they might not get checked. I can also imagine a situation arising—at Heathrow, for example—where there is an inflow that cannot be stopped; people will keep coming, and if the systems do not work, at some point the decision will have to be made just to let them through. The holy grail of a biometric system is to get to a situation where the necessary checks are performed but excessive checks are not, and people can be kept flowing through the system.

A common theme that the Committee will return to throughout its scrutiny of the Bill is whether the Government have gone for an overkill solution for something that I described as a ''nut.'' The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) took offence to that, and asked whether I was describing illegal working and other things as nuts. I was describing the checking of identity as the nut. In many contexts, it is quite a minor problem, and other problems are more serious.

There are different solutions for certain services. Even if one has a national identity register, it is not necessary to use the gold-plated, belt-and-braces, all-singing, all-dancing biometric system for everything. It would be perfectly possible to implement something like a chip and PIN system for some services, which is much easier and quicker to operate. Biometrics only where necessary is an important principle if one is seeking to reduce costs.

That was a canter around the biometrics issue. It needs to be seriously debated. The amendments knock out all the biometric bits to give us a debating peg to hang this discussion on. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the Government's intentions and flesh out their thinking. In particular, I would like to learn of their response to the biometric feasibility study. It was a useful piece of work that informed all of us about how these complex technologies work. In general, it is written in English rather than techy speak, and it poses important questions that the Government must answer.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I shall use my cerebral recognition system to call Mr. Malins.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

And what a great system it is, Mr. Conway.

I rise to speak on amendment No. 152, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. It relates to clause 9, but it has helpfully been grouped with amendments to clause 5. It would insert the words ''all of'' before ''his fingerprints''.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for his knowledge of and expertise in biometrics, which I do not share. As he rightly said, this gives us an opportunity today to probe the Government on this and related issues. I refer to the words of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), on Second Reading before Christmas, when he referred to a number of tests or hurdles on which the Government would need to satisfy us as the Bill proceeded through Committee. He said that

''we must be clear about the technology's capabilities. Biometrics technology is not infallible.''

I pause only to say that I imagine that there are huge numbers of people in Parliament who are simply not familiar with the world of biometrics. They will find it difficult to understand the technicalities and would welcome a careful and detailed explanation from the Minister.

My right hon. Friend went on to another of the important tests that the Opposition are putting forward. He said:

''The question is whether the Government have in place the organisation necessary to introduce the scheme. We know that what they are proposing is one of the most ambitious technology projects that the country has ever seen. We also know that the Government have an abysmal record—I am not making a political point here, because most Governments have an abysmal record—in overseeing large-scale projects.''—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1961–63.]

So there we have it. The Minister's task in this debate, as elsewhere, is to persuade those on the Opposition Benches of the twin issues of the effectiveness of the technology and of the capability of the scheme operators and the Government Departments involved. That will mean telling us a lot more than we know already about the details and certainty of the technology, about the companies, industries and experts who will forward the work and, incidentally, about the record of effectiveness and efficiency of some of those companies—subject to commercial confidentiality.

I was prompted to table this amendment by an article by Philip Johnston of The Daily Telegraph, shortly before Christmas, I think, who pointed out:

''The biometric technology is not foolproof and runs a high risk of false positive and false negative identifications. A feasibility study of the National Physical Laboratory says that in order to avoid false matches in a population of 50 million, a fingerprint system should use at least four fingers per person, preferably eight. An iris system should use both eyes and facial recognition could not on its own provide a sufficient accuracy of identification.''

During the past days and weeks a number of us on this Committee have been briefed by outside and interested organisations. Almost invariably, they have referred to the importance of biometrics—will they be effective, safe and secure? Can they be foolproof? The Law Society is one body raising doubts about whether biometrics will work accurately. There are others. The Minister may well have seen their papers, which suggest that there is a level of unreliability in the most sophisticated current biometric checking procedures.

I hope that the Minister has a chance to refer to the Cabinet Office document to which I was referred. I am told that the Cabinet Office found that 10 to 15 per cent. of genuine people failed biometric tests set at the highest level of corroboration, which is really quite high. That percentage, which comes from page 61 of the Cabinet Office document from July 2002 entitled ''Identity fraud: a study'', is really quite high. Accuracy rates will become crucial when magnified by the intention to include the entire population on the register.

The Government, perhaps properly, claim that some biometric methods are extremely secure and reliable forms of identification. They are plainly keen on fingerprints and iris scans to establish one's identity, or at least one's uniqueness. Will the Minister be able to say whether biometrics are really secure?

It is said—I refer in part to the report by Privacy International—that all biometrics have been successfully spoofed or attacked by researchers. A great deal of work has been undertaken to establish the technique of forging or counterfeiting fingerprints, and researchers in Germany have established that iris recognition is vulnerable to simple forgery. I have read that proposition in several places, and I hope that the Minister will dwell on it at length in his response.

It is, of course, worth considering other schemes around the world to ascertain what they have done. Has a scheme similar to ours been proposed or adopted in other countries? Yes; Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have very similar card systems. Significantly, I am told that China is moving rapidly in the same direction; it has developed a compulsory ID database and card system, but—and here is the rub—I understand that it abandoned the biometric element after concluding that the technology was unworkable with large populations.

Does the Minister know about that? Can he comment on it? I have summarised what was said to me in a report. I do not know what the population of China is; clearly, it is much more extensive than ours, but none the less, we have a very large population here. Does he know anything about how things went wrong in China and whether we face any of the problems that it had?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I do not speak for the Chinese Government, nor for the decisions that they have made. However, I recognise that making decisions for 1.5 billion people—one in five of the world's population—is on an exponentially different scale, albeit that, in the United Kingdom, we face a significant challenge. I suggest that China's population size may have had some influence on the Chinese Government's decision.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am sure that the Minister is right. I made the point to illustrate that the Chinese Government, having researched biometrics very carefully, took the view that there comes a point at which the population is such that the task would involve far too much. That point may have been reached in their case. We hope for reassurance from the Minister on why the task would not be too much for us, or alternatively, on why the ability to fake and spoof would not apply here, although it might in China.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I make a supplementary point. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Chinese have a sophisticated computerised register of their population that operates through local police stations—we would call them that, but they have a different name for them. I have seen it operate. They already have a sophisticated form of registering people by households, and the Chinese Government may have felt that it was unnecessary to go beyond that at present.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

That is, indeed, possible. I was going to say that Members of Parliament are all experts on some subjects; many would consider themselves experts on most subjects. However, the truth is that we all know certain subjects better than others. I speak for myself—and, I think, for others in the House—when I say that I am not utterly familiar with biometrics and their security and effectiveness. I repeat what I said earlier: I hope that the Minister can take us through some of the issues at a gentle and persuasive pace.

We should congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its work relating to the draft Bill and to this matter, about which it had something interesting to say. Professor Anderson of Cambridge university appeared before it to discuss iris recognition, which has been presented as a highly reliable form of biometric identifier. He was asked:

''What evidence do you have that it is practically feasible to produce contact lenses to fake irises on a significant scale?''

The answer was illuminating. Professor Anderson said:

''Well, I have not done it myself but I have seen a photograph of one that was produced by one of the researchers in the field and, given the underlying mathematics, I do not think there is any difficulty in principle with producing a contact lens that will produce a certain iris code.''

I hope that members of the Committee follow that; I am not entirely sure that I do.

Professor Anderson went on to say:

''The manufacturers of iris scanning equipment will say in their defence that it is possible to measure the nictation, the oscillation in the diameter of the pupil. I understand that none of the equipment currently on sale does that and I would be worried that someone might produce a well printed contact lens with a sufficiently clear area in the middle where the movement of the underlying eye would be taken by the scanner as indicating that the genuine eye were present. There is room for further technological work here. As things stand I am afraid that iris scanners, like fingerprint scanners, are liable to be defeated by sophisticated attack if they are used in an unattended operation. Attended operation is different, of course, if you train the staff properly they can feel people's fingerprints, they can look carefully at the eye and check there is no funny business.''

The two words that stood out to me were ''sophisticated attack''. Dealing with real world, the truth is that the issue of faking, spoofing or forging some form of biometric identifier would not occur to 99.9 per cent. of the population. Even if it did, it could not probably be tackled satisfactorily by them.

That brings us back to the purpose of the register and the ID card scheme. The principal purpose, which we have always sought to ask the Government to confirm, is a reaction to terrorist attacks in New York and elsewhere. The scheme also aims to be a useful tool in the prevention of terrorism and terrorist attacks. I sincerely hope that that is the case. The professor's words that certain matters are liable to be defeated by a sophisticated attack mean that the 0.1 per cent.—I cannot give an accurate figure—of those within our shores who would wish us ill would be capable of such an attack.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Iris recognition has been implemented only in very limited circumstances. I think that the largest scale trial involved 60,000 returning refugees to Afghanistan. It is the most accurate form of technology in preventing false matches. Only one person in 1 million will be matched to the wrong person. However, it still has a very high rate—one in 100—of false non-matches, where a person turns up, gets the scan done, and it simply does not pick up that person's record. If one person in 100 is not correctly identified as being who they are, that is clearly a big security problem.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

As always, the hon. Gentleman adds to the quality of our debates by such a useful intervention.

Does the Minister know that the Association for Payment Clearing Services, which has taken the lead in credit and debit card security, is reported to have doubts about the quality of biometric identification? I am grateful to the Library for confirming that information. Such a system was under consideration for the new generation of chip-and-pin credit and debit cards, but it was rejected because no system was found to be reliable enough.

I bring the discussion back to my own thinking. I am a layman in such matters. The Minister may or not be a layman, but I am faced with—as are all laymen who read the information—the proposition that an expert body such as the APCS has not found a system of biometrics that was reliable enough. If the association gave such evidence in a tribunal or court, we would first acknowledge that it was an expert in such matters and, secondly, that its evidence was be persuasive. The Government have much explaining to do in respect of biometrics. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made plain on Second Reading, they will have to satisfy the official Opposition on several tests, of which the biometrics is one.

I recall the conclusion of the Home Affairs Committee—not the evidence that it heard or gave. It said:

''The security and reliability of biometrics are at the heart of the Government's case for their proposals.''

We accept that. Clearly, security and reliability must be at the heart of the proposals because it can be nowhere else. To put it another way, if we had insecurity and unreliability, we have no case to answer.

The Committee went on:

''We note that no comparable system of this size has been introduced anywhere in the world.''

I did not know that until I read the report. The Minister now has the opportunity to talk to us about it. If we cannot explore such matters in Committee, we certainly cannot on Report or Third Reading, as a result of which the House of Commons will not have an opportunity to go into detail. It is essential that we do. Given that the Home Affairs Committee says that there is no comparable system in the world, I assume that the Government can confirm that. If there are similar systems, however, that involve many of the proposed elements of the system that we are discussing, the Minister is duty bound to take us through them and let us know their track record of satisfaction. I look forward to hearing from him.

The Home Affairs Committee continued:

''The system proposed would therefore be breaking new ground. It is essential that, before the system is given final approval, there should be exhaustive testing of the reliability and security of the biometrics chosen, and that the results of those tests should be made available to expert independent scrutiny, perhaps led by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.''

It took evidence over a long time and reported to the House and to the Government not many months ago.

If we consider that recommendation, we would naturally be slightly concerned. When the Committee says that, before the system was given final approval, there should be exhaustive testing of the biometrics chosen, two points immediately spring to mind. What will be the final approval date for the system? In parliamentary terms, if such matters are discussed on Report and Third Reading, we will be asked as a Parliament to give final approval in a matter of weeks from now.

The Committee said that the reliability and security of the chosen biometrics should be tested exhaustively before the system is approved, which suggests that the exhaustive testing that it felt was vital had not taken place; otherwise it would not have made the point.

Again, this is an opportunity for the Minister to outline lengthily, as he should, the testing programmes and processes that have been gone through in the past few months since the Home Affairs Committee reported. Perhaps he will make the results of those tests available to the Committee. We sit next week and it would be helpful if, before that sitting, we had on our desks an exhaustive list of the test processes that have been undertaken by the Government, which were recommended strongly by the Home Affairs Committee. Indeed, the Government said, in their response to that recommendation:

''We are engaged in a series of trials and tests to establish our technical requirements in the field of biometrics. However, the reliability, security and accuracy of the biometrics and of the enrolment and verification processes rely as much on organisational, procedural and environmental issues as technical ones.''

That made me pause to think, so I read it again, but was not sure what it meant. Will the Government give us details of the series of trials and tests that they said that they were engaged in when they responded to the HAC? Those must have been done and we must, and would like to, hear the results so that we can be confirmed in our understanding.

One of the bodies that reported to me was Justice, and I am sure that every Committee member has its report entitled ''Information Resource on Identity Cards'', produced in December 2004. I do not propose to go into that marvellous document today, because we do not have time, but it was produced with the assistance of volunteers from Clifford Chance, the well-known and very expensive solicitors. Justice dealt with a number of issues in relation to biometrics, and the biometrics debate could sensibly last for a lengthy period.

One of the disadvantages of the Standing Committee process is that we are examining the Bill and—in my case, because I am not expert enough—possibly having to take what the Government say on trust. I am sure that other Committee members are in a similar position. However, in a sense, the more helpful approach, which we cannot adopt, is to act almost as a Select Committee and get people to tell us a little bit more about the matter.

I shall quote only two or three lines from the Justice report, but I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government have taken it on board and to tell us their response to the entire report. Paragraph 22, ''IC Biometrics: fingerprints'', says:

''Opinion as to the reliability of current technology is divided.''

I assume that that is expert opinion. Over a series of pages the report goes on to point out some of those divisions between experts. It is difficult to come down on one side or another when a technical argument like this is placed before me for consideration.

In a later paragraph, having set out many examples, the report says:

''Thus, it is clear that current fingerprint technology is not only susceptible to attack but there are also numerous accuracy and long term implementation issues that need to be thoroughly investigated before a large scale fingerprint identification system could be successfully introduced.''

That is a conclusion reached in the report. Who am I to say if that is right or wrong? However, as I said at the beginning, it is important, if we are to do our job properly, that we should be fully briefed on the issues.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's arguments with interest. On the use of fingerprints, compulsory biometric identity cards were introduced for asylum seekers in a brief time and were successful. In all the inquiries I have made of immigration officers in Dover—of which we have quite a number—there has not been a single reported incident of forgery or failure.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He and I served together on the Home Affairs Committee, and I am well aware of his interest and expertise in matters of asylum. He is right that the new card for asylum seekers is probably effective, and that is good. However, he will understand my earlier comment about susceptibility to sophisticated attack. If asylum seekers are genuine, they are inevitably fleeing persecution and are not necessarily equipped either in their minds or financially to move themselves into the area of serious forgery. That is why I said that it might be a minuscule percentage of those persons within our jurisdiction that are capable of moving into that sphere. Those are the people we should most worry about. They may be the ones we should seek to target if the purpose of the Bill is to counter terrorism and terrorist acts.

Gwyn Prosser (Labour, Dover)

The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase ''susceptibility to sophisticated attack''. Those were the words of Professor Anderson to our Select Committee, but he also said that that possible flaw would be apparent only if those tests were done in an unattended manner. If we talk about the sharp end of the argument—the sophisticated attack by would-be international terrorists—those checks would have the best scrutiny. They would be attended, and attendants would be trained to look for those difficulties.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman might be convinced that biometrics is not a difficult issue. However, he must accept that there is a division of opinion even among the experts. That troubles me, as I am not personally capable of coming down on one or other side of the argument with my own background, which is not in that form of technology.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

There are a couple of points on the comparison with the asylum seeker system. One is the difference in scale. Interestingly, some problems of false matching increase the bigger the database. There is also the question of motivation. One would have to be pretty weird to want to pass oneself off as an asylum seeker. The motivation to want to crack that system is much less than to crack the national ID card system, where the benefits of gaining a card falsely could be significantly greater.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I will move away from pure and simple biometrics for a moment—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the matter, we could have an endless debate about biometrics, but I do not think that any of us intend to have one. The key answer to most criticism of biometrics is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out, enrolment in the scheme will be supervised. It will not be possible for people to do many of the things that can spoof or beat systems. The putting of the biometrics into the register will be supervised by trained individuals. That is very important.

I do not say that there are no other concerns. However, I do not want to encourage a debate that assumes that the supervision will not take place, that lots of other things could therefore happen, and that we should start to deal with the relevant possibilities and consequences. Having taken advice, we have decided to supervise at a very high level the registration of the biometrics, and that will deal with a whole series of the arguments about spoofing. I shall not go on to the issue of whether people might want asylum registration cards. I have an answer to that, but it is not relevant.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. Given what I have said about my own technical knowledge, he will readily understand that Committee members have been approached by reliable, respected outside organisations that have some queries. This is not a straightforward issue, about which the Minister can say, ''Don't worry, there are no problems.'' It cannot be as simple as that. Part of the purpose of today's debate is to tease from the Government their solution to some of the problems—all of them, I hope—that have been put to them by experts.

The fundamental first test is that we must be clear about the technology's capabilities. Will it work? The next issue is whether the Government are up to the challenge. We are embarking on the most immense organisational and technical programme. As I shall illustrate in a moment, our track record with some such projects has not been perfect.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the legitimate question of whether any Government are capable of delivering a major information technology project as efficiently and effectively as we would like, may I throw the question back at him? He needs to deal with it. The thrust of his argument on biometrics seemed to be that because the technology might not have advanced to the absolute limit of its capability, the Government should not embrace it. However, there has to come a point in the development of any technology at which the Government say, ''This has a useful application.'' If his party were in government, how much longer would it wait before embracing the advantages of technological change and innovation?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

That is a more general point, but the hon. Gentleman asks a very fair question. Owing to my lack of technical expertise, I cannot say how much longer that would be.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am a Luddite too.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is asking whether I am saying that, because the technology has not reached perfection, it is not time to grasp the issue and get on with it, he asks a sensible, real question, and I give him the answer that he wants to hear: I could never wait until I was 100 per cent. sure about something before I adopted it. There would have to be a point at which I said, ''Yes, subject to any blips, I accept it.'' However, the hon. Gentleman must also understand that the issue under discussion is linked to a much later debate on cost.

At the same time, a question is perpetually on my mind. If the system cost a certain amount, I would have another balancing exercise to do in my mind: would that money be better spent in another way to achieve the objectives? That debate is for a little later on. However, the hon. Gentleman made a good intervention.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. Does he not accept that very similar arguments must have been made when the police started using fingerprint technology? Although that technology is not perfect, it has undoubtedly resulted in the capture and conviction of many thousands, if not millions, of people throughout the developed world. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be very careful about making inflammatory claims on the failure of biometrics because we are all on a learning curve. Does he not agree that the fact that many other sophisticated and developed societies and Governments are embracing biometric technology teaches us, as a matter of common sense, that Britain must embrace it because of its benefits, and also be mindful of the fact that it will continue to develop and improve?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If I may say so, that is another very fair intervention by the hon. Gentleman. I am looking forward to hearing about the experiences of other countries that are embracing the technology; there will not be another possibility for us to do so.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of fingerprints. In effect, he is asking me whether I think it is likely that before that technology was introduced there was a tremendous argument about whether that would be worth doing, and whether it has in fact been worth doing. I am sure that there were arguments against it at the time, and I know with my other hat on that the fingerprint match is a tremendously helpful asset in criminal cases, so I agree that they work.

I have repeatedly said that I am not an expert in the field of biometrics and I await to be convinced on all matters, but where I probe a little more than gently is in asking what practical effect the biometric scheme as a whole will have on the mischief that we are trying to cure by the Bill. What is that mischief? I do not need to go outside and identify myself very often, and I would say to anybody who wanted to discuss that subject, ''Please don't ask me to be interested in biometrics for the purposes of identifying myself because I don't have a problem with that.'' That is not what the Bill is about. It is principally about giving us the tools to fight a possible terrorist attack. If it is about that, the issue of biometrics must be discussed in the context of how effective it will be specifically in terms of the principal purpose of the whole system, which is to fight terrorist acts. After all, the previous Home Secretary—the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—and other Ministers have said that they think that the system will help in countering terrorism, although the extent to which they think it will help varies.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the statement he has just made? The motivation for supporting an ID cards Bill cannot be purely to engage in the fight against terrorism. Does he not accept that Committee members have different reasons for supporting or opposing the Bill. The fight against terrorism is important to me, but the ability of any Government to know exactly who is in the country, and issues to do with serious organised crime, money laundering and the smuggling of drugs and people, are all of equal importance. I would like the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that Committee members have been motivated to want to serve on the Committee and to make the Bill work by many different issues.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I do reflect on that, but I come back to my central point that none of this legislation would have ever been introduced but for the terrorist attacks of the past few years. The Bill was prompted by them, and it is proper for us to consider that.

However, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that there are several balancing exercises involved here. A most important balancing exercise would be to ask, having decided whether the system before us can help in the fight against terror, whether we think that the money spent on the scheme could be better spent differently to achieve the same result. We shall come on to that.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman is enormously generous in giving way. He has probably been on his feet longer than he expected, but this is an important debate, and if we can contextualise the issue properly, it may save us a significant amount of time, both in my response and in our debates on this and other clauses.

All parties in the House, as well as some on the Labour Benches who oppose identity cards, support the introduction of biometrics in travel documents. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said that he supported expenditure on biometrics for passports, and thought it appropriate. That is what the bulk of expenditure on this scheme will go on. We will have to tackle the issue in any event. Just because we cannot answer all the questions properly now, does not mean that we have not all accepted that we need to face the challenge of developing the reliability and security of biometric technology for passports. That is a challenge that we all face, and something that we support.

I would not like to think that the continued support of the official Opposition was dependent on us having a perfect biometric system by the time Opposition Members come to vote for the Bill on Third Reading, as I hope that they will.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The continued support of the official Opposition will, inevitably, depend on meeting the five tests put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden on Second Reading. Before long, we will get to the issue of whether the money spent on the scheme could be better spent elsewhere. However, the Minister's intervention was helpful, and this has been a good debate so far.

I move on briefly to the issue of technology, and the question of whether the Government can achieve what they want. All Governments are the same, in the sense that they are not necessarily bodies to whom I would trust a great deal, in terms of handling aspects of my life or anything with which I am connected. But that is the nature of Governments. The hon. Member for Reading, West suggested that I was being inflammatory; I hope not, as that is not my style. I do not want to be inflammatory now when I say that this Government have failed to implement successfully practically every large IT system that they have tried to implement. That has resulted in a loss to the public of many, many billions of pounds in the past few years.

The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside himself said that

''it is important to recognise the past failures of Government technology systems''.—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 231.]

One has only to look at the Child Support Agency, the UK Passport Service, the Inland Revenue, National Air Traffic Services and the Criminal Records Bureau to see that the list goes on and on. Whatever Government are in place, it is never surprising to anyone on either side of the House when they read something that says: ''System Crashes, Chaos Results''. We think, ''My Goodness, another shambles!'' That is an entirely non-party political point. Every expensive project, in my experience, promises to deliver better and cheaper services to the public but inevitably fails to do so.

I ask the Minister to be as open with us as he can be on the issue of the companies and bodies that will be involved in the project. [Interruption.] I see hon. Members holding their papers. It is either because they have absolutely had enough of me or because time is moving on.

Someone somewhere has to administer the scheme. There may be considerations of commercial sensitivity that we need to discuss more privately, but I have read in an official report made to me that a company called—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 5 - Applications relating to entries in Register

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 80, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself'.

No. 152, in clause 9, page 8, line 28, after 'allow', insert 'all of'.

No. 97, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 98, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 106, in clause 14, page 13, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 107, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

On behalf of those on the Opposition Benches, may I offer you, Ms Anderson, the warmest of welcomes to the Chair and all our best wishes? I hope that I can be forgiven for saying that our earlier debates have been constantly good humoured, which is always a bonus. We are delighted to see you in the Chair.

The amendment that was being referred to is the critical one in relation to biometrics and the Government's capability to carry out their functions under the clause in a mechanical way. I had rehearsed the arguments and was just concluding my remarks. I was saying to the Minister that it would be helpful if he could, subject to the normal rules of commercial confidentiality, give some indication about which great players in the field might take under their wing this huge enterprise of the technical side of creating the register. I also wanted to know what some of the considerations might be.

I do not think that I am breaching any confidential commerciality when I say that I have received a briefing from one of those who briefed this Committee saying that a company called Atos has reportedly expressed interest in running the national scheme. Two other major providers of outsourced services, Capita, which runs the London congestion charge scheme, and Serco, which runs the UK's ballistic missile tracking and warning system are understood to be cautious about bidding for the contract. Misgivings are believed to relate to security, civil liberties and reputational risk.

I simply ask the Minister to tell us as much as he can on that very important area which came under the second test, to which I referred earlier. Although amendment No. 152 is not the lead one, subject to any guidance from the Chair and depending on the way the debate goes, I might seek to press the matter to a Division later in the day.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I join in welcoming you to the Chair, Ms Anderson. Things have been light-hearted so far. The proceedings have been extremely efficient, and I have no doubt that they will continue in the same vein.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is not in his place, because a number of his interventions in earlier debates were telling. He expressed grave concern about the need for identity cards being associated with needs other than those purely of counter-terrorism. He mentioned control of illegal immigration, assistance to track down criminals who are about to commit, or are in the execution of, serious crimes, and money laundering.

Terrorism and all those subjects are inextricably linked. That is why I want to echo the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). He talked about the need for two tests, as exemplified by amendment No. 152. The first is whether the biometrics of the card will work. The second is whether the Government, and, therefore, the Home Office, can put these things in place.

I will not talk about biometrics, but about previous examples where technology has either failed or been introduced too early. I will use historic examples, because that is what I am familiar with. I am not talking about biometrics, but the technology in question was the biometrics of the day. I am talking about the Northern Ireland driving licence, which was used as a form of identity card in Ulster in the '70s, the '80s and indeed the '90s. We were promised that the card would help considerably in countering terrorism. I mentioned in an earlier debate how the card came to be seen more as a pass than anything else, perhaps abetting terrorism rather than countering it.

There were practical issues with the biometrics of the day—namely, the technology of the day—which made sure that the card did not work. First, the card was extremely shoddily produced—it was not waterproof. That meant that after two or three exposures to the driving rain of Ulster the thing started to fall to pieces. Secondly, the licence was desperately easily faked. The photograph contained inside it could be levered out, replaced with another and sealed up in such a way that the card became completely meaningless. Again, that assisted terrorism rather than thwarted it.

Are the biometrics on the card that the Government are talking about going to be successful? Again I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made—when are we going to indulge in biometrics? Are we going to wait for them to be perfect or are we going to use them now? I thought that that was a persuasive argument. The fact remains that we must not try to use a technology of biometrics which is in any way less than feasible, if not perfect. If we do, the scheme will be worse than useless. If we do, we will be making a stick with which to beat ourselves rather than an asset for our security forces.

Let me give another example. Again, I am talking about the use of technology to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the late '80s it was decided that a plate checker would be introduced for service, a piece of technology that would assist by automatically reading the number plates of cars as they passed through permanent vehicle checkpoints. It was introduced prematurely; it did not work. It did not work to the detriment of that particular brand of terrorism. Cars were able to pass unchecked. Plates were easily faked. The terrorists became used to what was required of the plate checker. In other words, the technology—for which we might substitute biometrics—was not up to it.

On the point about fingerprints mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), serious and organised crime in Ukraine has put a finger—forgive the pun—on the fact that fingerprints can be removed. The process is painful, but can be done. If we are going to have fingerprints on the card, then all eight fingerprints will have to be on there, as discussed. At this point, are we in a position to say that biometrics are useful, that we can make them work and underlie the utility of this card?

Secondly, there are the logistics of the card. We have had many examples so far showing how difficult it will be to get software and other computer programmes physically to ensure that these cards are correctly configured and distributed.

Sticking to the subject of terrorism, the Government told us last year that households were going to be warned about the threat of terrorism and how to cope with that threat. A leaflet to tell every household was produced. There are 1.5 million households that have yet to receive that leaflet—that is 1.5 million households that have yet to understand what message the Government are trying to put across. That is relatively simple stuff.

What chance do we have of ensuring that such technical details for identity cards—with all the biometrics required on them—are going to be feasible? I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those two challenges, in terms not only of the technical aspects that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and a number of my hon. Friends have outlined so clearly, but of the straightforward, practical elements of historical examples that I have seen fail.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I add my warm welcome to that of the hon. Members for Woking and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), Ms Anderson, and I look forward to this afternoon's sitting under your guidance. I am sure that our sittings will continue to be as good humoured and inquisitive as they have been until now, and hopefully we will make significant progress on the work before us this afternoon.

As I expected, we have had a wide-ranging debate on these amendments about a number of issues to do with biometrics. In the spirit of my contributions thus far, I shall seek to respond to the degree that I can, subject to the general caveat that if I am unable to give detailed information that is available to be given, I will ensure that it is provided to Committee members at some time in future.

In essence the contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam raised a question of principle: why are we planning to have a biometric identity card scheme? The answer is twofold. First, the international developments, which were alluded to in interventions and responses during the course of our short debate, mean that there is a move towards document security through the introduction of biometrics. We in Britain have already agreed to be part of that drive and development across the world, and that process has the support of all the parties represented in this Committee and the House. For example, the introduction of a facial image biometric in British passports starts in about a year.

The inclusion of fingerprint biometrics in visas, which has already started, means that we need to develop biometric enrolment for other purposes. The United States US Visit biometric scheme is already in operation and means that every British citizen who wants to visit the US will need to enrol their fingerprints in anticipation of it. That measure does not affect British citizens immediately, but it will progressively do so. A substantial number of British citizens travel between the UK and the US.

Secondly, the inclusion of biometrics will allow a step change to be made in our ability to identify individuals precisely and to combat identity fraud. That means that we will be able to prevent people enrolling on the system twice and that the biometric will help to link the person to an established identity when using public services, or in commercial transactions. I use the term ''established identity'' carefully, because although the biometric is important, we need to consider its use in the context of the whole scheme. We need to combine that technology with reliable checks on an individual's identity to ensure that the identity established is the true one. That is why I am contextualising the debate. We could debate the possible flaws of biometrics in any number of circumstances until the cows come home. However, most importantly, and as the Bill spells out, the scheme is designed to operate on the basis that the biometrics are collected personally from the individual who is present. Checks will circumvent a lot of peoples' concerns about biometrics, and all the problems that others can identify will be overcome, because the person will be present and the biometrics will be taken by a trained operator.

The hon. Member for Woking quoted the National Physical Laboratory report on the use of biometrics, which is a substantial document of about 38 pages which has, appropriately, been published. That report was commissioned by the Government to inform the discussion and to lead to informed decisions that needed to be made. It would have been inappropriate for anyone to quote from it at length, because we can all read. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to it, but, of necessity, if we choose one or two sentences from it, they must be contextualised.

The report was produced specifically for the Home Office, the UK Passport Service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to consider the feasibility of using biometrics as a means of establishing a unique identity. My argument is that the report answers many of the question asked by hon. Members about the feasibility of the use of biometrics. It concludes that, in principle, fingerprint or iris recognition can provide the identification performance required for the unique identification of the entire population. I stand by that conclusion and pray it in aid in support of the argument for continuing down such a route.

The report recognised that the system would be groundbreaking, certainly in scale and for the United Kingdom. It would be one of the largest biometric schemes to date. The report recognised the differences between a scheme for general civil application and one that was used for storing criminal data, which is the difference between the existing fingerprint database to which the police refer constantly and what is proposed under the Bill. It acknowledged that there would be cost implications, especially because of the need for personal enrolment and interaction to collect the data securely.

The National Physical Laboratory recommended that we undertake a large-scale biometrics enrolment trial. We did exactly that, which is why the Government set up the UK Passport Service biometric enrolment trial of some 10,000 people. The collection of data has recently finished. The trial tested the process of enrolling biometrics and customer experience with different user groups. The report is not available yet, not even in shortened form, but its principal conclusions will be published later.

One of the initial messages that we have gleaned from the trial is that the volunteers saw no particular problem with enrolling three biometrics and, if they were enrolled at the same time, the cost of so doing would clearly not be three times the cost of enrolling a single biometric—the implication of the short arithmetic of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam when he suggested that the cost would be £500 million or £50 million to collect a biometric, but that it might cost three times that sum to collect three.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

In the spirit of fairness and contextualisation to which the Minister referred, he should have said that I said, ''and, if the Government are arguing that it would not cost three times, it would be helpful to know the incremental cost when it goes from one biometric, to two biometrics and then to three.''

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did say that. I am not in a position at this stage to give him a response. We are carrying out the steps that were suggested by the report that has been prayed in aid by others as an appropriate way in which to proceed.

During the procurement stage of the scheme, we will examine systems and supplier examination to compare the technology available. Perhaps I should now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Woking about which companies might be carrying out such work. We have yet to enter the procurement phase of the scheme, but the companies mentioned are known as IT integrators, such as Atos and Serco, and those that we would expect to express an interest or to consider whether they should be interested in such matters. I have no way of knowing the source of the quotation that was produced by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it was the result of an after-dinner conversation or a publication. For understandable reasons, I have no direct communication with any of those companies. I reassure members of the Committee that I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I will not have. I have no way of knowing their views and whether they will be interested in such work.

To my knowledge, several IT integrators and smaller companies specialise in biometrics. Some of them are spin-off companies from universities. From my knowledge of the university of Glasgow, I know that at least one company operates in the area. It is a spin-off from research undertaken at the university. I know of that company because I was a student there. I am sure that Committee members who have contact with other universities will know of similar companies throughout the country.

It would not be right at this stage to respond to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman. We have gone to significant lengths to ensure that the whole procurement process and the advice that the Government take is known and understood. The system that we operate will be transparent. As a Government, we have taken advice. We are being advised by PA Consulting, and we have set up a special Government biometrics group chaired by the chief scientific adviser, advised by individual academics and industry experts from the Home Office science and technology reference group and by specialist biometric system consultants. Those involved know full well that the consequence of advising the Government may be that they are disqualified from the procurement process. That has been transparent, and everyone knows that.

I can reassure the Committee that we have taken the best possible advice in this area, in the knowledge that British Governments, and Governments throughout the world, do not have the best track record of delivering IT programmes. We have all learned a lot in the last 10 years or so, and I submit that the Government are getting better at such programmes. There are still some legacy problems from projects and contracts agreed some time ago, but we must admit to the number of significant IT projects and bits of technology that work very effectively every day.

In response to the question of what trials are anticipated or planned, I can say that much larger trails are required fully to test the performance of biometrics for a population the size of the United Kingdom. They will preferably involve more than 1 million individuals. Large-scale testing is envisaged during the early phase of the implementation of the ID card scheme, and will determine the final design of the scheme—as hon. Members would expect us to proceed. That is substantially why it is an enabling Bill. The legislation before the House will enable the scheme to be introduced, but it would be wrong to commit public money to all the further detailed and very expensive testing without the legislation first being in place. That is why the Government are proceeding on this basis, recognising that it needs to be an incremental process.

We also recognise that using biometrics on such a scale is new, but there are programmes already using the technology successfully. The hon. Member for Woking probably mentioned all of them, but I will try to respond to his question with more information. For example, negative matching to avoid multiple identity enrolments is a common feature of existing biometric systems, including, not surprisingly, the police national automated fingerprint identification service. NAFIS holds more than 5 million sets of prints, and more than 500,000 crime scene maps. The asylum seeker application registration card, ARC, uses fingerprint technology for all asylum seekers coming through the asylum screening units in Croydon. Cards are issued with the holder's fingerprint biometric encoded on a chip in the card. Other examples include the FBI system. That is the largest in the world and contains the fingerprints and criminal history information of more than 47 million subjects. The United Arab Emirates has a database of more than 350,000 iris scans. We are also launching a fast-track immigration clearance system—known, I think, as ''Operation Iris''—using iris recognition technology for foreign nationals who are resident here or are frequent travellers. We are testing that through certain ports of entry.

We have already stated that our best estimates are that the annual cost of issuing biometric passports will be £415 million by 2008. Our best estimate of the additional costs of introducing a biometric ID card alongside the passport is £85 million, including the cost of recording, matching and storing three types of biometric information.

I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that that is the best information that I have, and I apologise that it does not answer his desire for better information. I give him an unequivocal undertaking that when we get better information, we will share it. We have no interest in keeping such information to ourselves. If the system is to work, it will need to be introduced incrementally. That incremental process will have consequences, which we will need to share. Principally, the people of the United Kingdom, who will have to pay for this, will have to have faith that the money is being invested appropriately. We will have to come back to Parliament and say, ''Have faith in making the scheme compulsory.'' What would be the purpose of keeping the information secret? There would be none.

It so happens that that is the best information that we have at the moment. There is no other way to dress that up. I would be sorry if Committee members felt that, with that amount of information at this stage, they could not continue in their support. However, I suspect that nobody will withdraw their support because of the presence or otherwise of that information.

As far as further reports on the progress of biometric developments are concerned, we will report back to the Home Affairs Committee, which has been significantly helpful in this process and made a very important contribution during the consultation. We have a duty, beyond that arising from our accountability to Parliament, to keep the Committee informed. It raised some of the better questions about biometrics in the report and it deserves a response. We have a reporting matrix in the Home Office that I check regularly to ensure that we respond as we said we would to all the issues raised by the Committee and that we are still on track to continue to do so. Over and above all that, the identity cards programme is subject to the regular Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Newark, for Woking and for Sheffield, Hallam for making their points so widely on biometrics. I hope that my response, which was intended to deal with the general points that they made, has been sufficient. I now turn to other points that deserve a response.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My mind goes back to my amendment and to the article by Philip Johnston in The Daily Telegraph about the need for eight fingerprints. I do not know whether the Government are saying, ''Yes, that is right'', or , ''No, that is wrong.''

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should be patient, as amendment No. 152, which he tabled, relates directly to that point. Presumably, that thought engendered that amendment, which I shall respond to specifically. However, I should say that I intend to deal quickly with the amendments because none of the hon. Gentlemen who made contributions argued them in any detail. I would be wasting the Committee's time if I argued in detail in response to arguments that were not put forward.

I have been asked about what happens in other countries, and I shall give the best information that I can. Our European partners are also considering closely the role that biometrics can play in securing identity. I risk encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to think that she has at last found the link to creeping integration in Europe that she seeks. Twenty-one of the 25 EU countries have ID cards. That seems to me to provide an unequivocal answer to a question that we may need to address later, which is whether the legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Only the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Latvia do not have identity cards, and we are not alone among them in considering introducing them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking says from a sedentary position that common law countries do not have ID cards. That argument contains a spurious distinction; I do not understand why the people who make it think that it somehow means that identity cards would be unsuitable for this country. We were a common law country during both world wars and we had identity cards then; that did not destroy our common law system. A common law system and identity cards are not incompatible.

That is another of those arguments that people assert and then walk away from, leaving the argument standing as if it were somehow conclusive. They say, ''Common law countries do not have them,'' and they then think, ''I have made my argument, so now I can go.'' I never understand that. To be fair to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, he at least tried to put some flesh on an argument of this nature about written constitutions yesterday, but he is the first person I have ever known attempt that.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Some countries do have identity cards, but they are not necessary compulsory. My wife is a French citizen. She is not domiciled in the United Kingdom, but she is resident here. Many years ago, her identity card expired and she found it impossible to get a new one. She asked whether the authorities would take her passport in evidence. They said that they would not, because it was un titre de transport and not evidence that she existed. When she needed to renew her passport, that was done without identity card evidence being produced. Therefore, the system in France is much more voluntary than that which the Minister has, very honestly, said that he envisages for the UK.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am no expert on the details of identity card systems around the world. I suspect that if the right hon. Gentleman were living with his French-born wife in France rather than being resident in the UK, we might have some questions about whether to give him an identity card under this scheme. I understand the relationship between residence and identity cards.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

My wife pays tax in France.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The organisation of the right hon. Gentleman's family affairs and whether they are prepared to pay tax in two countries is for them to decide. I make no comment about that.

We could go into greater detail for other purposes about voluntarism and compulsory cards. Some countries have voluntary cards and others have compulsory cards. It is interesting that the concerns that some people express about a creeping process associated with identity cards is not supported by evidence in any countries that have them. Most of the countries that had voluntary cards still have voluntary cards; they did not progress to compulsory cards.

In the EU, 21 out of 25 countries have ID cards. Enhanced security features for passports are a priority for our international partners, and we will launch a British passport incorporating a facial biometric later this year. Across the world, there is a drive for more security. The Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks and the Portuguese already record fingerprints during the identity card issuing process, and some of them record the fingerprint on the card. There is an increasing interest in the role of iris recognition; the Germans are particularly keen to explore that. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are closely examining incorporating biometrics in an identity card. Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are running visa trials involving biometric registration. EU member states routinely fingerprint asylum seekers. A number of non-European countries also use biometrics: Hong Kong and the Philippines use fingerprint biometrics in their identity cards. Around the world, biometrics are increasingly being used for this purpose.

That sets the importance of the Bill in the appropriate context for the UK in economic terms, because this is a serious opportunity. It would be a dereliction of the Government's duty if we did not play our part in ensuring that we moved at the pace of developments being made across the world. Apart from anything else, there will be increasing opportunities from around the world for companies to develop expertise and sell it on internationally. The UK is constantly accused of being too late in some of those technological areas, but recently we have got much better in that regard, and we should not lose that.

Amendment No. 152 would mean that an individual might be required, for the purposes of renewing a card under clause 9, to allow not just fingerprints and other biometric information about himself to be taken and recorded, but all his fingerprints. The hon. Member for Woking and those who support him should be satisfied that the amendment is not necessary, as we could already require any biometric that the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purposes of verifying the information placed in the register. It is our intention to use not eight but all 10 fingerprints for that purpose. That is how the biometric trial was configured, and that is what we intend for the future, for the obvious reason that that increases security.

It is not surprising that the Government's view is that the hon. Gentleman's amendments would severely limit the benefits of the scheme and represent serious threats to its security. I could go on to explain why, but the hon. Gentleman knows fine well why, because it was his intention that they should. It is the intention of the Government to preserve security and the correlation between biometrics and the information on identity gathered from persons in the way that I explained.

A further consequence of those amendments is worthy of note: they would restrict the incorporation of biometrics of the future in the Bill. The fact is that we accept that this technology, although proven to be effective in large-scale trials and operations, is comparatively young. In future, we may develop biometrics that are superior to, or more convenient than, the best biometrics that we can gather at present. If the Bill were tied to a particular biometric technology, it would not be possible to take advantage of any new technologies without further legislation. That would be an inappropriate and inadvisable position for the Government to allow the scheme to get into.

For all those reasons, an if hon. Members are satisfied that I have responded sufficiently and appropriately to the issues that they have raised, I invite the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw his amendment, which I resist.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I join other hon. Members in welcoming you the Chair, Ms Anderson.

I compliment the Minister once again on being sharp enough to rumble the Liberal Democrats' cunning plan to derail the Government's scheme for identity cards. His summing up was interesting, in that he was quite clear that there is still huge uncertainty on the subject. That is why we wanted to debate it in Committee. He set out an interesting additional argument for proceeding with biometrics: the US Federal Government defence spending argument. There has been a long-running debate between British and American hi-tech companies about the fact that that US Government use such spending to shove contracts the way of American companies and give them a boost. Such an argument might be relevant in the context of the British debate, except that this Government do not offer any certainty that any contract will go to a UK company. Therefore, we do not know where the money will eventually go.

I appreciated the contributions of the hon. Members for Woking and for Newark. They seemed to be arguing for a very old technology maxim—always buy version two. Never buy version one; let other people take the pain. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the point that banks looked at biometrics before coming up with chip and pin as an alternative. That is a helpful example of where the debate needs to go.

I have started to understand that a distinction can be drawn. We could require biometrics for registration, to stop people getting on to the database unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) talked about asylum seekers; perhaps I did him an injustice. I asked who would want to get on to the asylum seeker database. Of course, no British citizen would want to get on it once, but plenty of asylum seekers might want to get on it twice, and that, I think, was his point. I can understand why biometrics might perform a gatekeeper function, but that is distinct from whether or not they will be used at the points of access to public services.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am conscious that I have only just sat down, but the hon. Gentleman reminded me that I did not deal with the issue of chip and pin, which he raised. There is no reason why the ID card cannot use chip and pin. It would use it in addition to biometrics, because there is an obvious vulnerability of chip and pin: people can steal one's pin number.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

That is a helpful clarification of the sort that we were trying to tease out with the amendments.

There a number of different ways in which the presentation of the card might take place. In a sense, passports contain a biometric—the photo of a face—and we use our eyes to scan whether or not the face matches that of the person. We are moving towards computed biometrics—numeric biometrics rather than the other sort. However, that does not mean that on many occasions the photo identification is not the only one we need and we do not need to bother with all this other stuff.

The concerns remain. The false matches raise concerns about security, because one of the temptations may be to allow people fast access through passport control on the basis of using biometrics, rather than checking them visibly. A false match clearly opens a potential security loophole in that somebody might go through who perhaps should not.

The false non-matches raise different concerns. They are more about one presenting oneself for a service or for access to something, handing over the card, going through the scanning process and the operator looking up and saying, ''The computer says no.'' One might be presented with a situation where one cannot gain access to a service. It might be that one looks like the person on the card but the computer has returned a false negative.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

On a point of order, Ms Anderson. It is a minor point of order, which relates to the Official Report of our debates on Tuesday afternoon. I am quoted as referring to the issue of clarity of purpose. The Official Report goes on to state that I referred to

''words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 2005; c 59.]

I am pretty certain that I said my right hon. Friend the Shadow Home Secretary, by which I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. It is probably not a genuine point of order and I apologise, but, if nothing else, it may enable Hansard to take a note of what I said.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of it.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 5, page 5, line 15, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.

I am simply proposing to the Committee that the Secretary of State should have a requirement imposed on him that any requirements he makes are reasonable. It is wrong for anyone to suggest that they would be unreasonable. I hope I do not get punished later for saying that I do not think that the Home Secretary of this or any other Government would ask us to do something unreasonable.

There is a strict requirement on an individual under that clause. Under later clauses, failure to attend at a specified place and time for fingerprints and photographs to be taken and recorded is punishable. It is a little wide simply to use the words

''otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary of State.''

The Secretary of State should have a test of reasonableness imposed on him—a minor matter, but one that I hope the Government will take on board.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take that point on board. As a matter of fact, public law requires that of the Government. I will explain.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to the Minister, who has reassured us that the Secretary of State is required under public law to act reasonably. On reflection, that is right. He would be open to judicial challenge if he did not. I felt it might be more helpful to have the word ''reasonably'' in the Bill, but I can see why it is not necessary. We have had a short but useful debate and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State shall make provision for local facilities to satisfy the attendance requirements of subsection (5)(a).

(8) The Secretary of State shall make provision for home visits to people unfit to travel to satisfy the requirements of subsection (5)(a).'.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

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

No. 154, in clause 6, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

'(c) the assistance available with transportation arrangements and costs to vulnerable or disabled individuals required to make an application.'.

No. 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 11, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State shall make provision for local facilities to satisfy the attendance requirements of subsection (5)(a).

(8) The Secretary of State shall make provision for home visits to people unfit to travel to satisfy the requirements of subsection (5)(a).'.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

These are important amendments. Amendment No. 81 would add to clause 5, which is about the initial requirement to register for the national identity register or, as discussed, the initial requirement to attend a place to give biometric data—now for passport applications. That will have a speedy effect on ordinary citizens in the United Kingdom, even before discussion of any compulsion for the ID register as a whole.

Amendment No. 99 would do the same to clause 12, which deals with the alteration of any data on the database. There are various points at which the citizen may now be required to attend and, in particular, hand over biometric data in person. The Minister has made a case for why that must happen in person. We are, therefore, now considering a process that is quite different from the existing process for a passport application, in which everything can be done remotely. That will impact directly on the citizens of the United Kingdom, and in considerable numbers. Estimates from the National Physical Laboratory of what we will have to deal with are of between 10,000 and 50,000 applicants per working day.

Subsequent to the passing of the legislation—if that should happen—in the ordinary process of reapplying for United Kingdom passports, we are talking about tens of thousands of people per working day who will have to attend these centres in person. We must get more detail from the Minister about the circumstances under which that will take place.

We are trying to deal with two groups of people with whom we are particularly concerned. Please note that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has put his name to the amendments. One concerns the locality of the places where one might have to register. That is a very significant concern for someone who lives in Orkney and Shetland, and for people in many other areas of the country. Potentially, the costs of applying first for a passport and then for an identity card—which we are requiring by compulsion under threat of a fine—will vary dramatically depending on where someone lives. The Government say the flat fee cost will be £85, though we shall bid them up to some other figure when all the true costs come out. The flat fee cost is also only the start. As I said earlier, a critical question is what time these offices will be open. If they open during working hours, there will be a significant opportunity cost if people have to take time off work to make the journey to the place, remain there—perhaps sitting in a queue—and then come back again. There are also the physical travel costs.

It is important that we tease out whether the Government intend to have a sufficient network so that if somebody in Orkney and Shetland—or elsewhere, such as the Yorkshire dales—applies for a new passport in two or three years' time, they will not be told that the only way to get it is to go to a place that is so distant that it will cost them a lot of time and money.

The Minister referred to the problems of the Passport Agency a few years ago, when the Government's requirement to register babies coincided with the introduction of a new system that caused all kinds of delay. I am sure that all Committee members are aware of the stress that constituents experienced when they were told to go to passport offices as that was the only way to get an emergency passport. People do not like having to travel to get passports; they would much rather go through the normal applications process.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

There is an important analogy here. The hon. Gentleman will recall that last year, when the Government intended that there should be voting by postal ballot only, as indeed took place, they were going to say that in each electoral district just one polling station would remain open so that people could deliver their ballot paper if they wished to do so or the ballot had been posted too late. I, among others, pointed out that there are 900 square miles of Pennines in my constituency and that only one polling station remaining open would be wholly inadequate. The Government sensibly agreed that far more places to vote should remain open to account for those differences. Passport offices are much rarer than even polling stations, and getting to the passport office in my constituency costs almost as much as buying the passport.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The right hon. Gentleman gives a helpful analogy. I enjoy travelling around his constituency on holiday, but I would not were I one of his constituents having to drive across it simply to secure a passport for a planned foreign holiday in a couple of weeks' time, or in a shorter time scale, as there are cases of people needing passports more urgently. Moving everyone to something similar to the emergency passport procedure, with physical attendance being required, will cause great resentment. Locality is a very significant point that the Government need to assure themselves on. My amendments would ensure that the Government had a duty to do so and would make that duty explicit in the Bill.

Another aspect is home visits for people who are unfit to travel so that they can satisfy the requirements to provide their biometric data. Again, we are considering an important category of people, as will be remembered with Ryanair, which was found against when it said at one airport that it did not have to provide wheelchairs for disabled passengers. Those people have a right to access Government services, but they will be told that the only way to gain that access is to provide their biometric data, even though they might not find it either easy or cost-effective to get to the centre. It is entirely appropriate in the circumstances to impose on the Government a requirement to offer a home visit service. The two amendments would do that. It may well be that, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government will have to make special provision. These are not filleting amendments, but ones that would add to the substance of the Bill.

In probing the Government, we need to spend a little time discussing these two groups—people in remote areas and people who, in normal circumstances, are physically incapable of reaching the stations to which they must go in the first instance—in view of the penalty of not having a passport and being unable to go about their ordinary business. Post-2008, those people will face the full threat of legal sanctions and fines if they do not get to that place and offer their data.

Those are the reasons behind the proposals. I am sure that the Minister picked them up as soon as he read the amendments and I hope he can offer us assurances on both points.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Ms Anderson, and I look forward to our deliberations today.

I want to draw attention to an error in the report of the second sitting. I shall not do so in a point of order, but just slip it in at the beginning of my speech, unlike the hon. Member for Woking. The report said that I had tabled amendment No. 115, but it was, as all Committee members will remember, amendment No. 155. I say that today because we have a lot more time than we had on Tuesday, when I spoke rather quickly, which is probably why the Hansard people had difficulty recognising the accent and realising what the number was. I hope that, with your indulgence, Ms Anderson, I have put the record straight.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam on his amendments, with which I have more than a little sympathy. These are probably the first amendments that he has tabled that are not intended to wreck the Bill and instead offer something constructive, so I welcome them.

I wish to make some points that probably enhance the hon. Gentleman's argument in dealing with people who have, or could have, problems putting themselves on the register and getting their biometrics in the register. I tabled the amendment because of information given to me by Royal National Institute of the Blind, which is more than a little experienced with people who are disabled either physically or in terms of sight. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is talking with the RNIB, because he told me so in his reply to my previous contribution, and I assume that he will continue to talk to it about some of the points that I am about to make.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam talked about assistance with transport and related costs. One of the points that the RNIB made very well to me was that in 59 per cent. of cases—about 10 million people—assistance with transport was required for people going on any long journeys and was sometimes needed on short journeys, because part of the problem is with pedestrian areas, not just the transport.

I ask the Minister to look at that, because if, as the hon. Gentleman says, distance comes into play, it will be the distance for not only one person, but two. That makes a good argument and a fair case for allowing visits to Orkney and Shetland, for example, which is represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is a friend. There should be a portable centre that could go round not just the rural areas, but those such as my constituency, Glasgow, Anniesland, where there is a high concentration of elderly who cannot get about and would find it very difficult, intimidating and scary to get into the centre of Glasgow.

On cost relating to passports, it should also be remembered that people can post their passport with a cheque and documents. They do not have to go further than the local post box. That could be done for them by a friend. Will the Minister consider that?

I should like the Minister to go into a little more detail other than simply saying that he is discussing matters with the RNIB. I want more meat on the bones. Will he say that he will examine such issues? I do not want it to be just a matter of talk. By the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent, I want people such as the elderly and the disabled and, for that matter, those in rural areas, to be taken care of and not feel as they do in many cases that no one really cares about them.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) that we are already in contact with Dr. John Gill, the chief scientist at the RNIB. Our communication at present is principally about card design, but we are discussing with the RNIB all the legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend, which are relevant to people with disabilities. We will, of course, communicate with other organisations that represent such people.

As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, the agency will need to conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that have been enhanced significantly during the Government's term of office. It is an achievement of which I, as a Minister, am immensely proud, and I wish us to conform to its standards.

The provision should be understood in the context that we have already made the decision that all first-time applicants from 2006-07 will have to make a personal appointment. First-time applicants for passports will not be able to apply by post, for a good and sensible reason, in my view. As the Minister responsible for that decision, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Such a process will enhance the security for passports. It will ensure that there is no risk of passports being issued to people with a false identity. We will require first-time applicants to apply in person. That is a consequence of the provision. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam referred to it earlier and may have given the impression to members of the Committee that the decision to expand the UK Passport Service offices was made to accommodate identity cards. It was not. No final decision has been made about the number of front offices that will be needed for the in-person passport nor has a decision been made whether they will be stand alone, separate offices or whether we will take advantage of a network of Government or other agency offices that already exist. There is good sense in using existing networks in accessible offices in convenient spots to undertake such work, if that can be done economically.

The UK Passport Service's research into travel showed that most people who currently apply in person for a passport travel about 25 miles. On the basis of that research and other information, early signs suggest that between 70 and 100 offices may be needed to offer the appropriate opportunity to first-time passport applicants to attend in person. That is a different matter, but that network will be in place for the new agency that is being created to deliver the identity card, which includes the UK Passport Service and others.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

It is important to understand how the scheme will work in practice, so it would be helpful if the Minister spelled out what we now call a narrative, in the political language of the time. I wonder if I have understood him right. I will give an illustration of what might happen, but I will not ask him to be clear on the issue. In Skipton there is a modern Jobcentre Plus, or social security office, which is well equipped with modern communications. That is the sort of standing establishment that could well be a front office for the UK Passport Service for the purposes that we are discussing.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I had responsibility for Jobcentre Plus for about a year when I was Minister for Work. The roll-out of the new Jobcentre Plus offices happened mostly during that time, although it is not yet completed; we were about halfway there when I moved to my present job. I am immensely pleased with how that agency has delivered a service to the public for some years now, and how it has developed open and friendly offices that are working very well.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, the offices have good, sophisticated networks of communication, and are also becoming known as established places in communities where people can go for advice. It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to hear that, when investment of £1.2 billion or more was being made in those offices, discussions were going on across Government about using them not just for delivery of advice on employment, training and benefits, but for other purposes, too. As Minister with responsibility for immigration and asylum, I expect that the executives of the UK Passport Service will report to me on the suitability of just such a network of offices as a possible place for enrolment centres for passports and, in due course, identity cards. The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right to say that that is the sort of network of which we should take advantage.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

To continue with the analogies, we on the Public Accounts Committee are constantly discussing the number of no-shows for, for example, hospital and general practitioner appointments. If we are to use an appointment system, the Minister needs to build into it assumptions about the propensity of people not to show up, even when it is clearly in their interests to do so.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his common-sense advice. I am aware of that and, from the point of view of the making the best use of public money, we will be conscious of that fact. He will bear in mind, of course, that the UK Passport Service already has significant experience of an appointment system, although in a much more concentrated fashion. I recently had to attend at the Victoria office because I had a transaction to make, so I know from experience that the system works very well. It allowed me to be dealt with within a window of about 20 minutes. I have to say, I was surprised by how well it worked, given the amount of traffic going through the office. So, that is an experience to draw on.

The UK Passport Service conducted the biometrics trial. There are two or three important points to make about that. First, the trial included 10,000 people and revealed a significant amount of information, although not yet enough for us to be absolutely certain how the enrolment system should work. However, the trial has informed further deliberations. Also, the trial required biometric enrolment from 700 disabled people so that we could do just what hon. Members are encouraging me to do: identify the problems with the process for disabled people. When we move to the much bigger trial, which will involve in excess of 1 million people, a substantial proportion of those people will have to be disabled.

My final point about the passport biometrics trial is that part of that trial involved a mobile enrolment unit, which was put in this very building—in the car park of the Palace of Westminster—so that hon. Members could go and experience the process. That way, their understanding of it would be informed by their experience. That has happened in various locations, including some rural locations, so that the information and evidence that will inform the decisions that need to be made could be gathered. I trust that my answer has assured Committee members that the Government have thought about such issues, and that we were on to them before we started discussing the amendments. I suspect that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland appreciate that.

I shall deal with the amendments quickly, given that I have, broadly, responded with the reassurance that such issues are priorities for the Government in planning the enrolment process. The intention of amendments Nos. 81 and 99 is to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make provision for local facilities and for home visits for people unfit to travel to satisfy the application requirements of clause 5 and the notification requirements of clause 12. Amendment No. 154 would require an order to set out

''the assistance available with transportation arrangements and costs to vulnerable or disabled individuals required to make an application.''

As I hope has been made clear, there is a recognition that there are groups with particular needs, and we are considering developing ways to meet those needs as we design the system. We are proposing that enrolment centres should be located around the UK. It is intended that they should be local and convenient to everyone, but we do not need to write that into the Bill, partly because the definition of ''local'' is unhelpful; it does not fit with the different travel patterns for which we need to cater. People regularly travel to work; it may be more convenient to place enrolment centres there. Such considerations are just as important as where a home is situated; being local to residence is not necessarily that helpful.

We also need to balance such decisions against the cost of establishing a centre without a large enough catchment area to be economic. It is too early to say what that might be, although we have some information to work with and we will know about the early experience of the new UK Passport Service locations.

Other Government offices, including Jobcentre Plus offices, do not have a legal requirement to provide local offices, but they do so because that makes sense for their users and themselves. I recollect that as we rolled out Jobcentre Plus, we had continuing discussions with Members of Parliament about their constituencies and the best configuration of offices—whether a full Jobcentre Plus office was needed or whether other Government or local authority offices could provide the service. That degree of flexibility needs to be kept, and what happened with Jobcentre Plus is a good example of how such flexibility could benefit the provision of the service.

On the question of registering people through home visits, we are conscious that such enrolment must be convenient. We are making provision to register people who live in remote areas or are unfit to travel. However, it would not be appropriate to write a duty to provide such visits into the Bill, as they are one of a range of options that we are considering. Registering through home visits raises security issues that would need to be overcome.

I have already alluded to another option: mobile enrolment centres, which we recently tested as part of the biometrics trial.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Will the Minister bear public libraries in mind? Libraries have moved on enormously; many have very good computer connections. They are used by a large number of older people learning how to use computers, and have extensive facilities. In areas with no other obvious facilities, it might be worth while using libraries to register people.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I will, of course, bear public libraries in mind. I was discussing just that issue with the chief executive of the UK Passport Service in connection with the programme to which I made reference earlier. We need flexibility. There are any number of possibilities, and that very fact argues against the notion that we should be as restrictive as the amendments would make us. Shortly after the enactment of the Bill, we might regret amending the provision.

The requirement to set out in the order what assistance would be available to the vulnerable or disabled is not necessary. The Bill already allows us, under clause 37, to make regulations setting variable fees for applications, for example for those on low incomes. Requiring such assistance to be written into the order for compulsion will make it difficult to change what the assistance will be as user needs change over time, harming those that the amendment is intended to help.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Would the variation in charges include or take into consideration the cost of travel?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am not going to say now that we could be as flexible as that and have a system of charges that covers every eventuality. However, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the scheme is configured in such a way that we would not have to register every single person in the country in the same way if we did not want to. We might not need to take biometrics from some people at all. It might be pointless to do so; we might come to the view that it is not necessary to take biometrics from people over a certain age. We will need the flexibility to do such things as we move forward. We might also conclude that taking biometrics from people with certain disabilities would be so disruptive and inconvenient of their lifestyle that we do not need to do it. We would need to address that in regulations. That is another reason why we need an enabling Bill; we might need the flexibility that allows us to do what I have described.

As I keep on saying, the success of the system will depend substantially on it being able to move to full compulsion on the basis that the people of the country support it. It will have to be able to respond to such logical and ordinary everyday issues. Such decisions will need to be made, but I am not going to make them as I speak to Committee members now. I am asking the Committee to give me the flexibility in the regulation-making powers to be able to respond to just those human situations.

A lot of common-sense decisions need to be made about this process so that we can take it forward. It is not intended to be a sledgehammer; I do not see all the people of this country as nuts and the Bill as a sledgehammer to hit them with, to adopt the earlier reference of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam.

My argument against these well intended amendments is that, unfortunately, they would unnecessarily constrain us from doing the things that we are already planning to do with greater flexibility. I ask that hon. Members do not press them.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland for his sympathy for the spirit of my amendments. I still have particular concerns about the remoteness issue. However, I welcome the Minister's final comments about the ways in which biometrics could be applied selectively; that is important.

On the remoteness issue, the ultimate test is that which will be applied by my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland and for St. Ives (Andrew George). Liberal Democrats seem to be good at winning the bits at the end of countries; it is winning the parts in between that we find more challenging. My hon. Friends will want to have more to say about this issue.

Although I may decide to come back at a later stage with better amendments on the same issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Power of Secretary of State to require registration

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 6, page 5, line 30, at end insert ''without reasonable excuse''.

This clause deals with the power of the Secretary of State to require registration. The amendment relates to subsection (4), which currently states:

''An individual who—

(a) contravenes an obligation imposed on him by provision made under subsections (2) and (3), or

(b) contravenes a requirement imposed on him under section 5(4) in connection with an application made in pursuance of such an obligation,

shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £2,500.''

The amendment is a simple one. We believe that, after the phrase ''an individual who'', the words ''without reasonable excuse'' should be inserted. Why we wish to do so is fairly simple. Currently, the clause means that when someone fails to answer the compulsion to register, they will pick up a penalty of £2,500. Surely there must be reasonable excuses why people might not be in a position to register? For instance, if someone were on their death bed, would that be a reasonable excuse for not going along with this part of clause 6?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It sounds like it.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

It feels like it.

What about those who are working offshore? What about those who are working abroad? What about those who are in the middle of military service abroad? I could go on, and no doubt I will.

An individual should be able to offer a reasonable excuse as to why they are unable to comply with this part of clause 6, and therefore not pick up the civil penalty of £2,500. That is a simple inclusion. It makes a huge amount of sense, and I have no doubt that the Minister will agree with my reasoning.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

There come moments during the passage of any Committee when the Opposition feel a surge of optimism. That moment has arrived. I have a feeling that the Government will rather like this amendment, which has been so well proposed by my hon. Friend.

We know—and my hon. Friend said—that the clause provides a power to require an individual to apply to register. The registration could be compulsory whether or not a person applies for a designated document. Under the clause, as he said, if a person contravenes, they will be subject to a penalty.

As the Minister knows, in the criminal law in this country, some offences involve what is called ''strict liability''. Such examples include crossing a red traffic light, and speeding; one has either done or not done such a thing. There are many offences for which there is some form of defence. The clause does not currently lay down any form of defence.

I will pose one or two queries that I have about certain little details of the clause. Clause 6(1) states:

''The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals''.

It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the individuals will receive notification of an obligation that has just been imposed upon them. That is closely linked to whether or not a reasonable excuse is involved.

I imagine the Minister will make an announcement in Parliament in relation to a group of individuals imposing some form of obligation requiring registration under the clause. That would possibly be reported in the press, but there are those who neither take newspapers nor listen to the media. Therefore, the question of how he is able to notify a series of individuals of a particular group about the obligation that has been imposed upon them is an important one.

This is a narrow point but, at some stage, the Minister might impose an obligation on individuals of a description that might cover those aged 16 and 17. It would be helpful to know how he will communicate with such persons. Will he communicate to the individual concerned—the person aged 16 or 17—or to the parent or guardian of that person? Where will the penalties bite in relation to 16-year-olds if there is a failure?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made the realistic observation that someone who is terminally ill might, indeed, have a reasonable excuse not to fulfil the order that has been imposed on them. There are classes of people who may well have a reasonable excuse. I remind the Committee that the obligation is to make an application and the applicant is told of the time when the requirement arises and the period after that time when the application must be made. In his response, can the Minister help us on the nature of timings?

For example, I assume that when an announcement is made, it will be that as from a certain date some time ahead—one assumes that it is going to be months rather than days or weeks—there will be an obligation on a class of people. Can the Minister help us on timings, and also on the second question arising from that, which is how long after the requirement comes into effect is it likely that the person will have to comply with the obligation imposed on him or her? Apart from the categories mentioned by my hon. Friend, there are others who may not, through no real fault of their own, comply with the obligation imposed on them. I have mentioned 16-year-olds and the ill, but there are others who can neither read nor write and those who are aged and confused.

The Minister and his Department will clearly take a proper and sympathetic attitude towards such people. It is impossible to consider that he would start to fine a series of people who were, for example, too confused to register, as they have to do. I cannot consider that he would enforce a penalty for a failure to register against somebody who was abroad for a period. We do not have to go through today all the classes of people who might have, in our language, a reasonable excuse for not complying with the obligation—there are other amendments concerning the levels of moneys payable—but the Minister would be wise to accept our amendment. It would make it clear that the clause refers to contravening the obligation without reasonable excuse rather than simply contravening it. That would give the Minister and others some form of discretion and does not make it a strict liability offence. Many would be unfairly punished if it were such an offence.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The reassurances that the hon. Member for Woking requires of me are grossly premature in respect of the process. The clause comes into effect in terms of compulsion only if there has been a super-affirmative process, including the debating of the Government report by Parliament, and a super-affirmative order. In that context, there will be plenty of opportunity for the Government to explain to Parliament exactly how they are going to move from the non-compulsory stage to the compulsory stage. The groups affected and the timetable will have to be specified in the order, which will be fully debated before Parliament.

The super-affirmative process in clause 7 will ensure that a report is published and debated and made before the order itself. Depending on who is affected by the order, the Government will be required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they are aware of the obligation. I am not therefore in a position now to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about days and time, but I am sure that he understands why. All of this will have to be dealt with in significant detail before Parliament agrees to move to compulsion. I have more sympathy with the other point that he made.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

It is disappointing to be told that discussing problem issues in the Bill is premature. If the Minister accepts that there are problem issues, they should be attended to now. I do not see how a debate by Parliament in due course can or will cover the issues that I have raised—namely, the issue of without reasonable excuse, which should be in the Bill, but also that of those classes of people who, given the Bill as it stands, would offend when, in truth, no reasonable person would think that they had.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have inadvertently misled him. I was responding to his request for details of the time scale. I am sure that he is reassured that that was premature and will have to be debated in some detail before a step can be made towards compulsion.

The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies that I have some sympathy with the other point he made. I appreciate that Members seek to raise concerns by way of amendment and of expansion on that. First, however, it would not be feasible to require the Secretary of State, before imposing a penalty, to satisfy himself that someone who had breached a requirement did so intentionally or without reasonable excuse. In practice, these penalties will be imposed in a unilateral exercise of discretion, not subsequent to some kind of hearing.

Secondly, the objection stage would be open to a person to raise reasonable excuses. The Secretary of State would take such excuses into account and has the power to cancel or reduce penalties. The hon. Members tabling this amendment—which would introduce the qualification of ''without reasonable excuse''—seek something similar in amendment No. 117, which adds the fault element of ''intentionally'' to the civil penalties in clause 12.

I recognise that the answer thus far may not completely reassure those hon. Members, but I am aware of their optimism. I undertake to consider whether there are ways in which it can be made clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State must take into account—I quote—''reasonable excuses'' at the objection and appeal stage. I should stress, however, that such an amendment would relate to grounds of objection and of appeal. As I explained, such a requirement would not be practical at the stage at which the civil penalties are imposed. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentlemen and allows them not to press the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I think that my hon. Friends and I are more reassured by what he said. We will be interested to hear what comes up in clause 12 under amendment No. 117. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

May I say that, for the convenience of the Committee, I intend to suspend the Committee for a comfort break of 20 minutes at about 5 pm?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out 'civil'.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£1,000'.

No. 82, in clause 6, page 5, line 36, leave out '£2500' and insert '£50'.

No. 35, in clause 6, page 5, line 40, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£500'.

No. 83, in clause 6, page 5, line 40, leave out '£1000' and insert '£50'.

No. 37, in clause 6, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (6).

No. 131, in clause 6, page 5, line 44, leave out 'civil'.

No. 36, in clause 6, page 5, line 44, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£1,000'.

No. 84, in clause 6, page 5, line 44, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£50'.

No. 165, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end add—

'(7) Unreasonable failure to comply with a request of the Secretary of State under this section shall be a summary offence to be heard before a magistrates' court with an appeal against a finding of guilt to the Crown Court.'.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Clause 6 is important in the Bill, because, apart from setting out obligations on individuals, it provides for individuals to be subject to a civil penalty for failure to comply.

The lead amendment is No. 130. It concerns ''civil penalty'' and would omit the word ''civil''. I am sure that the Minister will have been briefed fully that there is a particular reason why I want to omit the word ''civil''. I hope that I would have thought of it anyway, but the matter was drawn to my attention by one of those who briefed me on the Bill a little while ago. The Bill refers to a civil, not criminal, penalty. Frankly, a person in receipt of such a penalty will probably regard it very much as criminal, not civil. To most normal people, ''civil'' means something like a county court judgment for a debt, but when the state—usually through the Crown—imposes a financial penalty by way of a fine, we are much more inclined to think that it is a criminal penalty. Indeed, in most people's minds, civil penalties are akin to a fine.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman believes that a civil penalty is one that is written in moderate and polite tones, rather like the manner in which he speaks.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

It is terribly kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that.

We are guided towards the Human Rights Act 1998. The Minister will know what point I am about to make. For the purposes of article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial—the penalty might be considered criminal rather than civil, regardless of the label attached by the Government. European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has established that

''for Article 6 to be held applicable, it suffices that the offence in question is by its nature to be regarded as 'criminal' from the point of view of the Convention, or that the offence made the person liable to a sanction, which, by its nature and degree of severity, belongs in general to the 'criminal' sphere''.

The sanction, by its nature and severity, would be regarded by most right-thinking people as belonging very much in the criminal sphere rather than the civil sphere. Clause 6 will apply not only to the person who absolutely refuses to have an identity card, but to anyone who does not take the chance to apply when the voluntary window of opportunity is open to them. It might also apply to individuals who have already volunteered, but fall into a designated class, based on age or status. It is well argued that the Government should reconsider the introduction of such a harsh and arbitrary penalty system and call it at the same time a civil penalty.

There are parallels in relation to civil penalties that I should be grateful for the Minister to deal with when he responds to what I hope will be a full debate. For example, I think that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has a parallel so-called civil penalty. I am now coming on to penalties and the volume of the penalties and, if the Minister could be given guidance—if not today, but during the next few days—I should be interested to know what total sums have been imposed by way of penalties under that Act? What total sums have been received under that Act? What sums have so far been written off?

I wish to suggest to the Minister another aspect of the use of the word ''civil''. As was pointed out to me by the group Justice, it might be sensible to remove the notion of civil penalty for non-compliance and replace it with an offence of non-compliance, with a Secretary of State's order, punishable, say, by a fine enforceable by means other than imprisonment, but levied only after a hearing before a magistrate and subject to an appeal to the Crown court. I do not support that proposition, but I put it to the Minister in the spirit of our debate on penalties.

Having dealt with why I seek to remove the word ''civil''—principally because of the Human Rights Act—I move on to deal with amendment No. 34 and subsequent amendments in this group. Without going through the amendments in detail, I am seeking, by way of probing amendments, to have the £2,500 penalty, which to most of us would be a fine, reduced to a maximum of £1,000. I am also seeking to have the £1,000 penalty on someone who makes an application and is required to attend and give biometrics but does not do so reduced to £500. In short, I am seeking a dramatic reduction in the penalties to be imposed. Amendment No. 37 makes the same point with regard to repeat penalties, which can be imposed by the Secretary of State under this clause.

We need to be realistic and consider the level of the penalties—£2,500 for the more serious, and £1,000 for the less serious. Realism involves examining the group of people in society who are most likely to fail through one reason or another and be subject to the penalties. Who will it be that day after day will walk into the magistrates and stipendiary courts in London to answer a summons or charge? A combination of the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed—those who lack some basic abilities in life that would otherwise enable them to get a paid job and live a life of comfort—will most likely be subject to the kind of failures that will bring them to court. They will fall victim to this penalty.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I apologise to my hon. Friend for walking in in the middle of his speech—he may have already covered the point that I am about to make. He has huge experience of imposing a level of fines for a whole range of offences. Would he not take into account that some relatively serious offences carry a fine of only a few hundred pounds? One has to justify the level of seriousness of the offence against other possible offences for which a fine is levied. On that scale, these figures are unduly harsh.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will draw one or two of his sentiments into some of my remarks.

The top level fine is £2,500. The problem is the same when one sits in the magistrates court—95 per cent. of people appearing have not got a bean. I tease the Government, but it is all very well their saying last week that they will introduce a wonderful new fining system in the magistrates courts and treble fines from £5,000 to £15,000. Big deal. I do not think that a fine of £5,000 has been imposed in a magistrates court for the past 20 years, so what is the point of raising it to £15,000?

Can the Minister tell me today how many fines in the past five years have been imposed up to the maximum in a magistrates court? I bet him something that he would like to receive as a wager that there have been fewer than, to use his words, the number of fingers on his hand. In fairness, he said that in relation to Government amendments, and we know that two are coming forward at the moment with three to come. However, he has got my point.

A fine of £5,000 has never been imposed; it is as simple as that. I make the point again that even if it had been imposed, 95 per cent. of people in magistrates courts have not got a bean. I would guess that the average fine in a magistrates court is £50, £60 or £70. The average person in a magistrates court is vulnerable, dispossessed and inadequate. We cannot fine those people £5,000, let alone £15,000. That relates distinctly to my next point. Who are the people who will get this wrong—I was about to say ''commit a crime''? The answer is the inadequate.

I venture to suggest that when the Minister and I find out that we are required to do something under the clause, we will probably do it. We might read about it in a good newspaper; we might listen to the radio and take on board what is said; we might get a letter, and read and understand it; and we would know how to fill out the forms. So which people will find themselves the victims under the clause?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman and the Minister will never be subject to the clause, because they will have applied for a passport. The sanction for them will be not obtaining it, so they will go and get it. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case: this clause will apply to the 20 per cent. of people who do not hold passports. The strength of his argument is that those subject to the clause are likely to be the vulnerable, the dispossessed and, in particular, the elderly.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. On the subject of passports, I am terrified about the Bill becoming law, because my wife has lost the entire family's passports on three separate foreign holidays in the past 10 years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That is three lots of identity cards.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I know; that would be £7,500. But the Minister understands that I am making a serious point.

Of course, there is another side of the issue that is very important. If the maximum fine is £2,500, and Bill Gates or some billionaire—or even, say, a rich drugs baron—does not co-operate in any respect with the provisions, they will not find the odd £2,500 any trouble at all. It would be absolute pocket money, unless they are fined on a repeat basis. The Minister could tell us about that. What would it be: once a month, or once a fortnight?

Some planning laws—I am not very good at planning—impose a daily penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will correct me if I am wrong. I am not even sure that £2,500 a day would be a penalty to some of the richest in the world. I venture to suggest that, for a rich drug dealer or someone with a lot of backing who has evil intent, even 10 times £2,500 a year is neither here nor there. The Minister may say that that is an argument to say that the maximum penalty should be greater. We come to an issue that is very important, and that I think we will discuss later: there is no provision at all—[Interruption.] I have lost the attention of the Committee, with the exception of my hon. Friends.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

Order. I know that we have been sitting for nearly two hours now, but it is only about 40 minutes until our comfort break, so I beg the indulgence of Committee Members. If they must have sedentary conversations, could they keep their voices down, please?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

What I say is particularly true given that there is no provision that I can see, in this clause or later, for the Secretary of State to take into account the means of the person who pays the penalty.

I understand that the person who imposes the penalty will have to be a junior official at the Home Office. Goodness knows what criteria they will use to impose the penalty. The whole of the Government's current thinking on fines appears to be that they are to be paid according to the means of the person concerned, and that is a throwback, as far as I can see, to the old unit fine days of 1992 and 1993. Such fines were introduced, I think, by my own party, and were an absolute disaster. I have never known such a hopeless policy. Well, that is the end of my career.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

That sums up the hon. Gentleman's party.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am far too kind to respond to that; I take such comments on the chin. However, the Minister knows that I approach these matters honestly, and the truth is that it was not a good policy and it was eventually dropped, as it should have been.

The Minister also knows that the current position in our courts is that those who impose fines take into account people's means. There are problems with blanket fines because many people do not even turn up to court to say what their means are.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Of course I will; I was drawing to a conclusion anyway.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In that case, I am sorry that I have given the hon. Gentleman the oxygen of an intervention. However, he might like to look at clause 36, as it deals with all the issues that he is concerned about.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Clause 35 deals with appeals against penalties.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Clause 36.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

That is about codes of practice on penalties. I have not seen a code of practice yet; I am dealing with clause 6. We can discuss codes of practice in due course.

The Minister draws my attention to clause 36, and perhaps he is not wrong to do so. However, there is a very good argument for challenging the size of the penalties in clause 6. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants expressed strong views about the clause and the penalties on behalf of the people for whom it cares. It states:

''The bill appears to presume that the imposition of penalties on foreign nationals who fail to obtain the correct documentation is justified because such behaviour would arise solely because of a desire on the part of the foreign national to evade immigration controls.

However, there is now evidence that the difficulties in obtaining proper documentation arise because of the actions of unscrupulous employers, gang masters, and others seeking to exploit vulnerable groups of workers.''

It also states:

''The threat of punitive action by the immigration authorities against some groups of migrants for their failure or inability to obtain the correct documentation is used as an instrument to strengthen the grip of the most exploitative employers over the workers concerned, and therefore runs counter to the government's intention of combating the exploitation of the immigrant labour force.''

When the JCWI recommends a review of the level of the penalties for non-compliance, it makes points that have not so far been raised in our debate. Although the penalties are not mandatory, it thinks that if they were imposed—by magistrates, for example—at a significant proportion of the maximum level, they would be disproportionate in respect of the earnings of many migrant workers, particularly those arriving under the sector-based scheme. They may fail to comply with registration requirements purely through oversight. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) wish to intervene? No, he chooses only to make comments from a sedentary position. As the days and hours pass by, we will look forward to hearing lengthy contributions from the hon. Gentleman. He has not yet been able to contribute at any great length.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

On a point of order, Ms Anderson. For clarity, I should state that there is a parliamentary convention that normally prohibits Parliamentary Private Secretaries from contributing in proceedings such as these. Obviously, I would not want to breach that, but if the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to disregard it, I would seek your guidance.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

That is not a matter for the Chair, but Mr. Malins may wish to respond.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Yes, I do. I held that position many years ago, and I have a funny feeling that the hon. Gentleman may be right, and if he is right I offer him my unreserved apologies. However, there was also a convention in those days that Parliamentary Private Secretaries did not make sedentary interventions, although it may well be the case that that convention has lapsed.

I know that the Minister will take on board the spirit with which I made my remarks, and I will now conclude.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I have added my name and those of my hon. Friends to amendments Nos. 130 and 131 that were inspired by the organisation Liberty, which raised the issue of the meaning of the word ''civil''. We have engaged in what is technically known as a reverse Dutch auction when we bid down the Conservatives on the level of fee. We bid below them on amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 to draw attention to the level of fines and the way in which they will be set.

The organisation Justice assisted us with amendment No. 165, which we tabled to receive clarity about the process. As I have listened to the debate, I have become more worried, not less worried, about how fines under the clause will be imposed. We are talking about people who do not have a passport. It is important to remember that to most people, certainly in the Room, and throughout the country, the provision will not be relevant because they would have provided all the information to receive a passport. The sanction would have been no passport and they will have provided the information to avoid that sanction.

The clause will be invoked at a point at which the Government deem the process to have gone as far as they wish it to go. Indeed, we must bear in mind that the clause could be invoked much sooner. It could be invoked at any time. The Government said that they will wait for the passport process to occur but, if they bring it forward under the super-affirmative procedure in clause 7, they can invoke the powers much earlier. For example, they could change their mind next year. We could have a different Government with a different policy, but under the Bill, they could say that they want to require everyone to register compulsorily.

In normal circumstances, however, we shall be dealing with the rump of people who have not applied for passports. It is important to understand what will happen if those people fail to come forward, the precise nature of the process that will take place and the sort of fines that may be imposed. The clause seems to have been drafted to avoid ID card martyrs. Lessons have been learnt from the poll tax, when people refused to pay it. They went through the court process and used it as a platform to challenge politically what the Government had done. As I read the clause, I suspect that the Government are, in a defensive way, seeking to avoid such a position, and thus have come up with a scheme that is confused.

What sort of record will be kept of someone who offends under the clause is important, as is the relationship between that and the usual proceedings in respect of a criminal record for other offences that a person might commit. Will the Minister clarify that? He said that the level of fine and the way in which it will be imposed will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That rings very big alarm bells. The whole thrust of human rights law is about taking matters out of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State and putting them into the courts. That is relevant to amendment No. 165, because we are trying to establish the role of the courts in such a process. Will there be appeal procedures? Will those procedures go before the courts in the usual way? We have had a long-running debate about life sentences, in which it was made clear that, under the European convention on human rights, the Secretary of State's interference in the setting of tariffs was not appropriate.

As I say, the thrust of the law is that politicians should be as far outside of the judicial process as possible, and I entirely agree with that. I understand from the Minister's comments that the process would mean that the Secretary of State, or his officers, would effectively be able to decide on the level of fine, manage the process and, presumably, deal with any appeals against it or objections to it. That would be very troubling indeed. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that issue.

If we are to move down the route of compulsory identity cards—the Liberal Democrat position on that is absolutely clear—the citizens of this country have the right to understand at this stage its full implications. I suspect that the clause will lead to a not-trivial number of cases in the future. A significant number of citizens will be affected, either because they choose not to have an ID card and are explicitly becoming ID card martyrs, or because they fail to get one for another, less direct or explicit, reason. It seems that we are to take such citizens through a process in which the Secretary of State can issue them with a penalty notice. As the hon. Member for Woking pointed out, people may fail to respond properly to such a notice because they do not have the means and cannot afford to pay. They may not be doing that deliberately or maliciously.

We need a much clearer understanding of the full process and I feel very uncomfortable about leaving the clause, which would give that huge range of discretion, as it is worded. I make no personal swipe against any particular Secretary of State, but the general thrust of human rights legislation is that penalties imposed on citizens must have a sound basis in law. To satisfy our article 6 requirements, such matters should be in the hands of the courts, rather than political officials of the state. The clause seems entirely contrary to that spirit.

I hope that the Minister can give more detail on the way in which the system will work. However, I suspect that this will be another occasion on which he will not be able to satisfy us about the rightness of the solution that he sets out.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said. I am grateful to the Minister for referring us to the later clause, because how that works will be crucial.

I am co-chairman of the all-party group on homelessness and housing need. When we were in government, I managed the rough sleepers initiative for four years as Minister with responsibility for housing. It was very successful, supported by all parties and never the subject of political contention. However, what strikes me is that there is a significant group of people in society—I hesitate to use the word ''underclass''—who are simply not competent, and the major task is to teach them some sort of competence.

I remember vividly that John Bird, who runs The Big Issue, said that a home is the last thing that such people need because so many things have got to come before they have the competence to live in their own home. I also remember a 16 or 17-year-old going into a Salvation Army hostel in the east of London saying to me, ''The most frightening thing that ever happened to me was being given the keys to my own little maisonette, because I was in charge and had to take responsibility.''

Many people who sleep rough—many of whom have bounced down from the armed forces, funnily enough—suffer from drugs, drink, mental illness and combinations of all three. If they are to be able to conform with the law, there will, with the best will in the world, have to be a mentoring system through which people can act on their behalf. They are unlikely ever to want a passport, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. Nothing could be more absurd than repeated appearances in court by people utterly incapable of meeting the fines levied on them and probably incapable of fulfilling the law without somebody mentoring them closely.

I represent a northern English constituency on the edges of Bradford and Leeds. Many women among many ethnic minority populations are often not expected to take any role outside the home, and in many cases they have very limited competence in English. We must make sure that they do not inadvertently find themselves to be unintended victims of the legislation because of cultural difficulties.

I should be grateful if the Minister would bear the points I have made in mind when he thinks of how the measures will operate in practice. I hope he will give reassurances that he will do so. He keeps repeating that this is the only primary legislation, which gives us the opportunity to debate the subject.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

In terms of penalties it is appropriate to look also at clauses 33 to 37 to see the provisions that relate to civil penalties that are in the Bill. With respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—and I do have respect for him—it is not fair to say that there is nothing in the Bill about that when those clauses exist. I will, appropriately, not be drawn into debating them prematurely. We will come to them in due course and there will be an opportunity to discuss them in some detail. It would be inappropriate for me to do that now, despite the fact that if I were to respond to all the questions that have been asked of me, that is what I would do.

It is appropriate to set out the context to the clause, because we are getting as near to a clause stand part debate as we can in terms of these amendments. The Government's proposals, which command significant and consistent public support, are for a national ID card scheme. In time it will become compulsory, in the sense that every British citizen resident in the UK and all foreign nationals resident for more than 3 months will be required to register, if they have not already done so.

That will not happen—and the provisions that are considering today will not become relevant—until the time is right; it will not happen until Parliament has the opportunity to debate it. That debate cannot begin until the Government are satisfied that the roll-out has already delivered significant coverage of the population, that there is clear public acceptance of the card, that no vulnerable groups would be disadvantaged, that the scheme has made a contribution to meeting its aims, and that the technology is working and trusted.

All of the conditions that precede being able to move forward will allow Parliament, in considering the report and any order that might come from it—even if the conclusion of the report were amended—to examine all of those issues and the implications. I would not expect Parliament to make its decision unless it was satisfied in respect of all the things to which I referred.

It is right and appropriate that the Government should set out a scheme that proceeds in that way, so that just the sorts of concerns, which are proper ones, that hon. Members bring to this debate are considered. We are talking about a vehicle and a mechanism for considering them in some detail at the appropriate time.

Amendment Nos. 34, 35 and 36 would reduce the maximum amount of the penalties that may be imposed. There would be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for a contravention of one of the requirements set out in clause 6(2) or 6(3) relating to registration. There would be a reduction from £1,000 to £500 for a contravention of a requirement set out in clause 5(5) relating to supplying further information. There would also be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for each contravention of a notice requiring a person to register, subsequent to a contravention by them of an initial requirement to register. Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 would reduce all those penalties to £50. I fear that that is not an amount that would deter many people from doing anything or from not doing anything.

I appreciate that there may be concerns that the penalties would impact disproportionately on those least able to pay, and they probably would if they were imposed at their maximum levels. However, the sums I was referring to are the maximum penalties.

The hon. Member for Woking points out that in magistrates courts when magistrates consider the individual circumstances of offenders it is highly unlikely that they will impose the maximum penalty. I have no idea what the answer to his question is, but I know from my experience in the equivalent courts in Scotland that it is highly unlikely that magistrates there would impose the maximum level of penalties—or indeed, that sheriffs, who have a greater jurisdiction, would.

Mr. Malins rose—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Let me finish the point and I will then take the intervention.

We are talking about maximum penalties and the provisions allow for lesser amounts to be imposed. How would those lesser amounts be calculated? We have to look to clause 36, which requires the Secretary of State to publish a code of practice setting out the sorts of things that have concerned Members and the matters that the Secretary of State will consider when determining the amount to be paid. That code of practice will, in turn, be laid before Parliament.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

We look forward to the code of practice. Whatever the code says, however, am I not right that when the Secretary of State imposes the penalty he will not have before him any details whatever to assist him about the—for want of a better word—defendants' means, abilities or lack of them?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

That does not necessarily follow. In fact, that is highly improbable. That will not be the case, I suspect.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Why?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Because the code of practice will set out the markers that the Secretary of State has to take into account. It is unlikely in the extreme that any Secretary of State will set out markers that do not include just that information, particularly against the background where almost all penalties imposed in the courts have to be imposed, by law, with an understanding of a person's ability to pay. The ability to pay the penalty will have to be one of the factors that the Secretary of State takes into account. Inquiry will have to be made of a person's circumstances before the penalty is set.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Can the Minister inform the Committee whether there is any likelihood of us catching sight of some draft codes of practice, either before we reach the relevant clauses or before the Bill becomes law? This is not technology dependent and, presumably, there are other models on which the codes are going to be based.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I will answer that question once I am in a position to do so. I will bear that in mind.

Amendment No. 36, which relates to subsequent failures to register, would fall if amendment No. 37 was accepted. Amendment No. 37 would remove clause 6(6) altogether. The effect would be that the Secretary of State would not be able to impose further fines for continued failure to register. I oppose that amendment because it sends entirely the wrong message, saying, in effect, that failure to register is not a serious matter. When the scheme eventually does become compulsory, its efficacy would be seriously undermined if people could, in effect, avoid registration by paying a one-off fine. If Members object that this provision is draconian, I would remind them that the remedy is entirely within the hands of the individual to comply with the original requirement.

Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 would remove the word ''civil'' in two places in clause 6, in subsections (4) and (6). This is an attempt to make the offences criminal. It is a different motivation from that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who tries to do exactly the same thing in amendment No. 165, informed, in my view, by a partial explanation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights. That imposes a requirement for fair trial.

Those requirements are fully satisfied whether or not the penalty in the scheme is regarded as civil or penal in convention terms. The individual concerned is able to object to the penalty under clause 34, and to challenge the penalty in court under clause 35 and have a full hearing. Eventually, the courts will be in a position to decide on these penalties. That makes the provisions in the Bill fully compliant with article 6.

Several penalties, as the hon. Member for Woking knows, are a well established feature of the carriers liability scheme. They have been tested in the courts against this very argument.

He asked me for specific information on the amounts imposed under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 through civil penalties. I am not able to give him that information. I could give the Committee the maximum penalties, but that would not assist in any way. I am not able to give them at the moment, but, should they become available, I will make sure he gets them.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister mentioned the ability of the aggrieved eventually to find him or herself in court. What is probably a matter related to the debate is whether the Minister can give any assurance that, depending on the means of the individual and the nature of the excuse, he or she might have access to legal aid?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am not in a position to go into that matter in any detail. However, I shall return to it and perhaps we can consider it in the context of clause 34 and other clauses.

The Government do not intend to criminalise people's behaviour under the Bill. We are introducing a system of civil penalties, so that people do not have a criminal record. Most procedures will be settled between the individuals and the Secretary of State and, when courts are involved, they will be civil, not criminal, in cases when appeals are brought.

Amendment No. 165 would create a criminal offence—a summary offence—of failing to comply with the requirements of clause 6. No penalty is mentioned, but even if a moderate one were imposed, if the amendment were accepted a person who refused to register would have a criminal record. That is not what the Government wish and, for that reason, I shall also resist that amendment.

Indeed, I must resist all the amendments and I invite members of the Committee to consider whether they wish to press them to a Division.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister has done his best to respond to the arguments that have been advanced, for which I thank him. Clearly, he is unable to go very far because certain matters such as the codes of practice are further down the line and we do not know some practicalities that it would be necessary for us to debate. During the short debate on penalties we have discussed the vulnerable, although he is not yet able to return to us with more detail.

I am particularly pleased by the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, who asked a moment ago whether we might have an opportunity before the end of our discussions in Committee to see a draft code of practice, or guidance, as it might inform our debates. We shall keep a careful eye on penalties and possibly come back to such matters on Report.

I thank the Minister for his reply. It has not satisfied us completely, although he would not expect that to be the case. However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Procedure for orders under s. 6

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in clause 7, page 6, line 45, at end add—

'(7) Orders made under section 6 shall be considered to be primary legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.'.

In moving the amendment, I am relying on the fact that there is not too much joined-up government at present. That echoes a debate that took place in the context of the Civil Contingencies Bill, which was handled by the Cabinet Office. The Government sought to bring in some sweeping powers as secondary legislation and to treat them as primary legislation for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998. We spent a lot of time arguing fiercely against that, so, in tabling the amendment, I am not necessarily expecting the Minister to respond to it affirmatively or even in a super-affirmative fashion. I want only to tease out from him how the Human Rights Act and the provisions of the European convention on human rights will interact with any regulations made under clause 6.

It is important to test matters a little. We seem to have an innovation under clause 7 and I would be interested to hear from the Minister other examples of when a similar procedure has been used. The Government are saying that they do not wish to come back with primary legislation when they want to make matters compulsory. The playing field has moved. When we started discussing ID cards, it was suggested that we would have two pieces of primary legislation. One would bring in a voluntary scheme and we would have the assurance that, if the Government wished to return with a compulsory scheme, it would have to be introduced with the explicit consent of Parliament at a later date.

As I say, my initial assumption was that we would have two pieces of primary legislation, but things have moved on. The Government have come up with firm plans, which are that there should only be one piece of primary legislation, and, to satisfy those with concerns about the compulsory scheme, we have been given the clause 7 super-affirmative procedure.

There are important distinctions to be made between primary and secondary legislation in the context of the Human Rights Act. Primary legislation requires certification; this legislation has to say that it is compliant with the convention rights. Primary legislation cannot be struck down. As the courts have recently found out with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, they can say that they do not think legislation is compliant, but they have no ability to strike it down. We had a long debate about the sovereignty of Parliament and I remember that there were different models for human rights conventions and for incorporating human rights into law, including Canadian and Australian models, but we ended up with one that made a distinction between primary and secondary legislation.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Who?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

That was a random choice, but if my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) makes a challenge through the courts and is suddenly told that he must be subject to these orders, their status will be important if he is bringing a challenge—perhaps under article 8—asserting that the Government's measures are not proportionate or necessary in the context of the potential breach of his privacy. That would be a perfectly reasonable challenge, which we might expect to take place. At that point, the status of the regulations will be important.

In tabling the amendment, I am seeking to tease out the Minister's understanding of the status of these measures and, in particular, trying to get an answer this question: if the Bill goes through unamended and someone successfully challenges the regulations, thereby making it clear that they can be struck down by the courts in spite of the super-affirmative procedure, will the convention rights safeguards also apply to it?

The purpose of the amendment is to try to establish the interaction between quite a serious power that the Government are to take on themselves, which is quite likely to be challenged under the convention rights, and those convention rights. In particular, the amendment seeks to achieve understanding of the distinction between primary and secondary legislation, and whether that is affected at all by the fact that we have the super-affirmative procedure. It would be helpful to understand whether there is any distinction in respect of how negative and affirmative, or affirmative-plus, procedure are treated, or whether they are all essentially the same, and whether the additional bells and whistles that we have received from the Secretary of State make any difference to the status of the regulations when they have been passed.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I shall respond quickly and in short compass to the question that he asked, because it can be answered straightforwardly. I suspect that when he hears the answer, he will not want to press his amendment.

On one view, tabling the amendment could imply that the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues acknowledge that the so-called super-affirmative procedure is almost the equivalent of primary legislation in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. However, that is not what he is saying. His amendment would limit the power of the court to quash an order made under clause 7. The Government's position is that we are confident that the Bill's provisions and the powers that it gives to make subordinate legislation are compatible with convention rights. We see no need to limit the courts' powers of scrutiny of orders under the clause. That is the answer that the hon. Gentleman wants. I present it to him and invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

That is a helpful response from the Minister. He has clearly put on the record the fact that regulations presented in this way could be struck down by the courts and that the Government are prepared to go down that route because of their confidence in human rights compliance. I suspect that at some point that will be tested. We would have preferred a second piece of primary legislation, but I suspect that we are not going to get it. We need to consider some of those issues on clause stand part, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It will be helpful to have a short stand part debate and I deliberately tried not to steer on to the questions that I want to ask now. In particular, it would be helpful to understand subsection (2), which is the novel part about a report being made. I would like a couple of minutes' explanation from the Minister of what he envisages being in that report. The subsection is a fairly bland statement and we are being asked to trust that it will somehow lead to a significantly more rigorous process than a normal affirmative resolution procedure—the difference being that the report has been thrown into the mix.

It would be helpful to understand the Government's intention, particularly as the Minister has said that this is a moving target and things will evolve. To what extent will we be able to roam widely in a debate on compulsory registration or will there be a normal affirmative resolution procedure with a short document attached? Either could be the case as the clause reads: there could be a comprehensive exercise or an affirmative resolution procedure with little more than a fig leaf to cover it. In the latter case, the Government could argue that they conceded that there would be extra scrutiny, when that would not be the case.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The principle of compulsion has already been the subject of some debate, not only on Second Reading, but during our deliberations. The clause sets out how the requirement to register will be put into effect. First, it may be worth repeating what the effect of compulsion will be. Those to whom it applies will be under an obligation to be entered in the register from a time at which they could not otherwise be subject to such an obligation. That is all: there is no compulsion to carry, no extra power for the police and no criminalisation of those who fail to meet their obligations.

In the process, the Government must first publish a report setting out their reasons for wanting to make registration compulsory, including a proposal on how compulsion would operate—for example, the categories of people to whom it would apply, the timetable for its implementation and all the other factors that I spelled out in my response.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Is it amendable?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Yes, it is of course amendable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My understanding of negative or positive procedure is that an order is laid before the House, it is considered for an hour and a half in Committee, and the only options that the Committee has are to approve or reject it—there is no opportunity to amend. Is the Minister outlining a new parliamentary procedure?

While I am on my feet, if I may crave your indulgence, Ms Anderson, the House of Lords has a convention that it does not normally vote against affirmative resolutions. Will the convention be broken in this case if the House disapproves the motion?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The report will need to set out exactly what the order will do and the reasons for the proposal. It will be unlike an affirmative order as we would recognise it in that the reasons will need to be given and modifications can be made—it will be amendable. On the basis of that proposal, as agreed, normal affirmative procedure will proceed.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

In practice, this is as though it would be a matter for consideration on Report, and we will all behave as if it were a Report stage. There will be amendments and then, presumably, a vote on the final document, as amended. That is the equivalent of a Third Reading.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

This is the new procedure, which has been created by this Bill. I do not recognise it. I am always reluctant to be tempted very quickly to agree with right hon. or hon. Members, but to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman draws my attention to that analogy, he is right. In my view, the procedure allows us to have the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny of the process while having the debate about compulsion in the context of primary legislation now, before any of the significant steps are taken. Some of the steps will involve considerable public expenditure. This seems to be entirely the right way to proceed with the scheme.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As the Minister says, this sounds like an entirely new procedure, which will be put on the Order Paper as an Order of the Day and debated on the Floor of the House. Therefore, it would be amendable. I do not know whether he will be able to respond to that point, but will he give me an assurance that he and his Department have discussed the matter with the House authorities and that the Standing Orders of the House will allow for such a procedure? Will they have to be altered?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I do not like doing this, but I will have to say candidly to the hon. Gentleman that I will need to come back to him on that issue. His question requires a precise answer, and I would much rather it if members of the Committee would allow me to give it such an answer. I promise that I will give a precise answer before the Committee reaches its conclusion.

I have said, however, what I want to say in this short clause stand part debate. I trust that I have dealt with the issues that were troubling the hon. Gentleman even though I might not have dealt with the detail. He is entitled to receive that detail and I will give it to him. I do not think that that should prevent anybody from voting on the principle of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Clause 8 - Issue etc. of ID cards

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 8, page 7, line 4, after ''issued'', insert ''free of charge''.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 186, in clause 37, page 31, line 24, at end insert—

''but no fee shall be imposed for a card issued in consequence of an order by the Secretary of State for compulsory registration.''.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Before I forget, I should say that I hope that I will remember to say at the conclusion of our debates on the clause that we hope to vote on amendment No. 43, which was debated much earlier in our proceedings and which will come up in due course.

Amendment No. 44 is very simple. It would insert the phrase ''free of charge'' after the word ''issued'', so that the beginning of the clause would read, ''For the purposes of this Act an ID card is a card which—(a) is issued free of charge to an individual by the Secretary of State''. The amendment is intended to enable us to begin what should be an important and significant debate on another major test in relation to the ID card and the register, namely the cost that will be involved to the taxpayer, the individual and, overall, how it will be divided.

I recall an interesting exchange that I had the day before yesterday with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. He asked me to consider what I would do if I had a set of scales in front of me and I had to weigh on one side the prospect that a card or register would be of help in fighting terrorism, and on the other side the huge infringement on civil liberties that that might involve. I think that he was asking me where my tipping point would be. It was a very good question then, and it remains so now. I say to him again what I said to him then: there is no firm answer to that, and eventually one has to rely on instinct as to when to exercise one's judgment. It is almost like asking whether it is worth spending £5 billion to save one life. There is no human answer to that question, because our nature and our instinct say that it is worth spending everything to save one life. These conversations are very difficult.

I begin my approach to the issue of cost by putting my question in a slightly different way: is the cost of the register—and the identity cards, readers and everything else that follows—worth it? Later, we shall ask what the cost is, and to whom, but initially I want to know whether the cost represents the best value for money. The first principal thrust of what I want to say is that the cost of the ID card scheme, the register, and everything else might amount to £5 billion. Has it been considered whether the same amount could be better spent in other ways to achieve the same objectives, in particular, the principal objective, which must be the reduction of terrorist activity?

To put it another way, who has considered—and can the Committee consider—whether the £5 billion, or whatever the sum is, could secure our objective better if it were spent on extra police, security services, and people at our ports, airports, and customs to exercise the relevant controls? Where would the money be better spent?

I imagine that studies have been carried out on the best-value issue. I hope that the Minister will share those studies with us and try to convince us that the card and register scheme is much to be preferred to other options that would use the same amount of money.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

I am somewhat confused by what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. We are talking about ensuring full recovery of the costs of introducing ID cards, and therefore we are not talking about resources that are available from the Government purse to sustain the development and operational costs of the scheme. Given the hon. Gentleman's support for the programme, can we expect the costs to be met in the shadow Chancellor's Budget proposals? If not, it seems that his amendment is somewhat frivolous. Perhaps one could even suggest that it is wasting the Committee's time.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I do not speak for the shadow Chancellor, and this is not a frivolous amendment. The hon. Gentleman, whose further contributions to the debate Opposition Members—and Labour Members, I am sure—would greatly welcome, must understand that we are talking about significant issues of cost and security. As to why I am raising the matter when the costs in their entirety will be recovered from the individual, that gives rise to the question of whether I, as an individual, expect to pay £85 for a biometric passport, and whether I would prefer to have the money taken from me and spent in other ways to achieve the same objectives. That is a worthwhile aspect of the debate.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am wasting the time of the Committee; I am sorry that he still has to be here, but he will understand the importance of debating the issues in full, and not simply gliding over them.

I understand that the police and security services want the identity card and the register. There will come a time when the Minister will have to take us through exactly what the police and the security services have said—I hope he will seize the opportunity sooner rather than later—and trail before us the arguments they put forward.

Specifically, have the police discussed among themselves or with Government the option of spending the money that would otherwise be spent on ID cards and the register instead on more police, more customs officers and more security services. What is the so-called best value to the police of those two options, not only in terms of money but also, more usefully, in the fight against terror?

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

Will the hon. Gentleman help me, because I am somewhat confused? If we take away the cost of the identity card from the individual and place that burden on the state, is the choice between whether we have more police or whether we use the money in a different way? If the individual is paying the cost of the identity card, how is there a burden on the state?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If the individual pays for absolutely everything, as though in a private, commercial transaction, although we know that costs tend to escalate—double or treble—in a general sense the burden does not fall upon the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman is right to that extent. Nevertheless, the question of how a particular sum could be better spent is surely worth exploring in Committee. Would the money be better spent on an ID card and register system or on other areas that could go towards the same conclusion?

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we say to the population of the country, ''We want a contribution from you, not for ID cards, but in order to do something else, which is undetermined at present''? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

No, I am not directly suggesting that. I remind the hon. Gentleman, whose experience is not inconsiderable, that in Committee it is worth trailing arguments. One of the arguments that I am trailing this afternoon is value for money. Whether the global sum is £5 billion or £1 billion, whatever the amount or wherever it comes from, everything boils down to price and cost and money best spent.

I quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, on Second Reading:

''My fourth test is the cost-effectiveness of the scheme . . . The introduction of the Bill saw the cost of the ID card scheme almost double overnight, from £3 billion to £5.5 billion.''—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1964.]

So, let us look at the question of cost and go back a little in time. Irrespective of who pays, the whole issue of the cost of this scheme needs to be looked at, not only in the interests of the taxpayer generally, but also in the interest of the individual who may be called upon to pay some or all of the cost.

The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) shakes his head as though the issue of cost is irrelevant. I am proposing to tease out of the Government, as the Home Affairs Committee—unsuccessfully I think—sought to do, what they regard as the likely cost of the scheme.

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

I do not want to labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman said that I was shaking my head. I was doing so in disbelief. I find it very difficult. If there is no cost to the Government, but the cost is to the individual, how could the money be used by the Government if no cost exists at the present time?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman—in part and quite accidentally—misses the point. We are talking about cost, and I am concerned on behalf of the individual as to whether his or her money represents best value for money.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is doing the Committee and nation a service in what he is saying.

It depends on whether the full cost really is recovered, because if it is not, there is a general cost on the taxpayer. However, even if it is recovered, it will matter a great deal for those on benefits, those receiving purely the state pension and those just above that level on very low income, because in one case the state will pick up the tab, but in another the cost will become a burden on some of our constituents, particularly youngsters who have just started in their first job. It will really be a burden if the cost, which is estimated at the moment at £85, is £150 or £200 by the time that the card comes in.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am disappointed to see Labour Members smiling and even laughing at the sensible comment made by my hon. Friend, who rightly says that if the cost falls to certain individuals, they might find it difficult indeed.

In July 2002, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked the following written question:

''To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the (a) costs and (b) change in the levels of crime which would result from a compulsory national identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement.''

The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) in her reply, insofar as it relates to costs, referred to a consultation paper and said:

''The paper includes a number of estimates of what a scheme would cost, depending on the sophistication of the card. A reasonable estimate would be that a scheme would cost around £1.3 billion over a 13-year period covering the three years it would take to set up the necessary information technology systems and the 10-year period for which the first cards would be valid.

This would include much more stringent identity checks than currently apply for passports and driving licences in response to increased levels of fraudulent applications.

It would also include the costs of using biometric information (fingerprints or iris images) which would uniquely link the card holder with a card.'' [Official Report, House of Commons, 10 July 2002; Vol. 388, c.1066-67W.]

Inasmuch as we were clear about anything after that, we had a figure from that Minister that I infer—I hope that the present Minister can take us through it with some care—was her proposition for the cost of the entire scheme, ranging from the introduction of the register and set-up costs to the card and the readers.

I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) is not serving on this Committee. He was and remains a distinguished member of the Home Affairs Committee and in a hearing of that Select Committee, he had a most interesting exchange on the question of costs with a gentleman called Mr. Stephen Harrison from the Home Office, the head of the identity card policy unit at the Home Office, who was examined. I will paraphrase certain bits. However, the hon. Gentleman began by asking,

''How much is all this going to cost?''

I hope that you can take it from me, Ms Anderson, that in his first answer no figure was given, but a number of points were made.

The next question from the hon. Gentleman was:

''On the basis of a voluntary arrangement and then a compulsory one, what at the end of the day would be the total estimated cost?''

The answer was:

''We then have the set of costs there, as I have mentioned. We then have a period at which cards would be issued to the population and the Government's policy position on that is that those costs should be recovered through charges.''

The hon. Gentleman then asked:

''But could you just give us the figure of what it is estimated to be at the end of day, the cost involved, whoever meets the bill? We will come to that in a moment, but what do you believe is the sum which we should be working on if it comes from both the voluntary stage and the compulsory stage? What is the round figure?''

The answer was:

''I think in terms of looking at that, forgive me for trying to give you a sort of lengthier answer on this, I think it depends at what point one draws the line because in a sense the scheme''.

The hon. Gentleman interrupted:

''At the end of the day, if Parliament approves, what would be the round figure? Is that difficult to answer?''

Mr. Harrison responded:

''What is the end of the day in that sense? Even if you reach a point''.

The Chairman intervened:

''Mr Harrison, in the Government's consultation document last year you published a figure £3,145 million''—

I take that to be £3.1 billion. The answer was ''Yes''. The Chairman carried on:

''Is that still your estimate?''

The answer was:

''There was actually a range of figures''—

I love that phrase—

''which were published and what that was based on was adding costs and we talk about the period at which you cut it off.''

The Chairman asked:

''Is that our best figure?''

The answer was:

''We have better estimates of some of the detailed costs that have gone on.''

The hon. Member for Walsall, North asked:

''You seem to be rather evasive about this. I understand you are not a politician''.

In due course, Mr. Harrison, who clearly gave his best evidence, said:

''On the consultation paper there was a range of costs and it varied from about £1.3 to about £3.1 billion. We believe that if you look at a comparable costing for the period of that scheme, the consultation period envisaged which was 13 years, then our cost estimates still lie within that range.''

The hon. Gentleman asked:

''Which range? Quote the figure yourself. Which range?''

The answer was:

''The 1.3 to 3.1 billion.''

Finally, the hon. Gentleman said:

''You have been very cautious, Mr Harrison. Congratulations.''

If nothing else, that illustrates—

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

That the hon. Member for Woking is wasting time and can read.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.