Identity Cards Bill

House of Commons, 10 February 2005.

New Clause 1 — National Identification Scheme

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Commencement and continuation in force of certain provisions of this act—

'(1) This section applies to the following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 5(2) to (6),

(b) sections 6 and 7,

(c) section 9,

(d) sections 15 to 17, and

(e) sections 19 to 22.

(2) The provisions of this Act to which this section applies may only—

(a) be brought into force, and

(b) continue in force,

in accordance with the provisions of an order under this section.

(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless he is satisfied that either the conditions in subsection (4) or the conditions in subsection (5) are met.

(4) The conditions in this subsection are that—

(a) an emergency within the meaning of Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c. 36) has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, and

(b) it is necessary to make arrangements under the provisions of this Act to which this section applies for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency.

(5) The conditions in this subsection are that—

(a) a public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights exists in the United Kingdom, and

(b) it is necessary to make arrangements under the provisions of this Act to which this section applies for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the public emergency.

(6) The Secretary of State may 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.

(7) No order under this section may provide for the continuation in force of a provision of this Act to which this section applies for more than a period of twelve months.'.

Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out clause 1.

Amendment No. 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out 'previously'.

Amendment No. 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert

'during the previous five years'.

Amendment No. 43, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, after 'resident', insert

'during the previous three years'.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert

'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert

'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.

Government amendment No. 52.

Amendment No. 44, in clause 5, page 4, line 43, at end insert

'(d) state that the individual does not consent to be included in the Register on the basis of the application.'.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert

'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.

Amendment No. 5, in clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert

'(1A) An ID card may only be issued for the purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme].'.

Amendment No. 45, in clause 10, page 9, line 5, after 'card', insert

'and about whom there is an entry in the Register'.

Amendment No. 34, in clause 12, page 10, line 30, after 'circumstances', insert

'save details of a change of address for any place where he has lived for a period of less than three months'.

Amendment No. 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 9, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert

'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.

Amendment No. 50, in clause 15, page 14, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'evidence' in line 13.

Amendment No. 51, in clause 15, page 14, line 13, leave out from 'himself' to end of line 14.

Amendment No. 61, in clause 17, page 15, line 39, after 'he', insert 'reasonably'.

Amendment No. 62, in clause 17, page 15, line 41, at end insert

'(1A) Information provided under this section shall be limited to—

(a) a person's full name,

(b) his date and place of birth,

(c) his address, and

(d) his current residential status (which shall mean his nationality and his entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom).'.

Amendment No. 7, in clause 43, page 36, line 35, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert

'Register established as part of the National Identification Scheme under section [National Identification Scheme];'.

Amendment No. 8, in clause 43, page 36, line 37, leave out '1(5)' and insert

'[National Identification Scheme](4)'.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 43, page 36, leave out line 41.

Amendment No. 63, in clause 45, page 38, line 17, after 'from', insert

'the provisions to which section [Commencement and continuation in force of certain provisions of this Act] applies'.

Amendment No. 64, in clause 45, page 38, line 20, leave out 'to bring' and insert

'under this section to bring certain'.

Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (h).

Amendment No. 13, in schedule 1, page 40, line 32, at end insert

'and the number of any ID card issued to him, which numbers shall be the same'.

Amendment No. 14, in schedule 1, page 40, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the position that we now face, would it be convenient for the Chair not to use the expression, "With this it will be convenient"? It is not convenient for the House; we are proceeding in the current manner because we have to. That is altogether different.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. I simply refer to the way in which the amendments are grouped, not the time allowed for them.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I repeat that our problem is that we now have 17 minutes in which to get through a great deal of business and it simply cannot be done properly. I had intended to outline new clause 1 at some length. In fairness, I cannot do that because other hon. Members want to make some contribution to the debate, and I shall ensure for my part that they have an opportunity to do that.

My hon. Friends and I would very much like to divide the House on new clause 1. We have already discussed the fact that the purpose of the Bill is principally to set up the national identity register. New clause 1 would change the existing clause 1 in a number of respects. Under the existing clause, I shall be obliged to provide "registrable facts" about myself to others, so that they may check on me. I have already remarked on the vast number of registrable facts that an individual will have to provide. New clause 1 seeks to limit that number. After all, if I am seeking to establish my identity, why on earth should I provide more than my full name, my date and place of birth, my address and my residential status?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It would be helpful to the Liberal Democrats if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that his new clause seeks dramatically to restrict the functions of the scheme. He will be aware that we are opposed to the scheme as a whole. If he is seeking our support, we might find something that seeks to restrict it preferable to the Government's option, although that would be no indication of our support for the scheme as a whole.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman contributed significantly in Committee and I respect his views on this matter. He is right: we are seeking to place restrictions on these measures, in this brief debate.

The purpose of clause 1 ought to be to establish the real purpose of the scheme. The Information Commissioner himself has said:

"The lack of a clearly defined purpose for ID cards, including the continuing change in focus causes concern".

Having heard different arguments over the past two or three years about what the Bill is for, I believe that it is time to establish in the Bill what the card and the register are going to do, and what the purpose of the scheme is. Surely the Government should insert in the Bill the statement that its principal purpose is to assist the Secretary of State

"in the preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security",

as new clause 1 would do. I believe that it is essential that that vital purpose should be specifically set out, although the Government appear to disagree.

We have not yet been persuaded that the register and the cards will significantly contribute to reducing acts of terrorism. We also need to be persuaded that the costs involved will be worth while. Could the money be better spent elsewhere? The Information Commissioner, Mr. Thomas, also told the Home Affairs Committee:

"I want to see on the face of the statute right at the outset a very clear indication of the stated purposes for this card."

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

The list in new clause 1(3) differs significantly from the provision in clause 1 only in that it omits any mention of illegal employment. Do the Opposition not care about illegal employment?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I have made it quite clear that the significant difference is that we want to insert in the Bill a reference to terrorism, which we believe is very important.

I want to illustrate the uncertainty that exists among Ministers by quoting some exchanges between them and others in the past. In 2002, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), the then Home Secretary said that he would not rule out the possibility of the cards making a

"substantial contribution to countering terrorism".

He said on a later occasion that they could make a contribution towards countering terrorism, but that it would not be their primary purpose. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was taking a break from ministerial office at the time—otherwise he would not have asked these questions of the then Home Secretary:

"May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether he accepts that it is for those who are in favour of the card to make a case for it, not the other way round? Secondly, will he confirm that the card will be little or no use in combating terrorism? Thirdly, given the unhappy history . . . of Government information technology projects, are we not entitled to be sceptical about some of the claims made for the card?"

The Home Secretary replied:

"I can say yes to all three."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 231–236.]

So there are serious doubts on this matter.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government might be resistant to his new clause because they themselves do not believe that an identity card can significantly reduce the risk of terrorism?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. That could well be the case. In Committee, the Government certainly did not persuade us on that point.

On illegal immigration, a MORI poll found that a third of the people surveyed tended to support a card because they believed that it would prevent illegal immigration. Are they right? In the few moments remaining to me, I should like to point out that all new asylum seekers—the poll showed that most people were referring to asylum seekers—are already issued with a biometric card, so they are already covered. What about the 250,000 failed asylum seekers who are already in the country? How will the card help in that regard?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Does the hon. Gentleman have any sympathy with our amendment No. 44 in this group? We may not get to it, but we would like to divide the House on it. In it, we seek to dissociate ID cards from passports. British passport holders are the last people we need to issue with an ID card, as they already have a secure document.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point.

What will the card do to prevent illegal immigration? What effect will it have on the millions of people who come to this country on short-term visits of up to three months? They would not need to register or have a card. Have the Government persuaded us that the card or the register will have an effect on illegal immigration? No, they have not. Have they persuaded us that the card will have a sensible effect on identity theft or benefit fraud? No, they have not.

Our other amendments are restrictive. I am concerned that the registrable facts that we shall have to supply include information about addresses at which we have previously resided in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. I have tabled amendment No. 11 to restrict that to the previous five years. We also seek to limit the nature of information about the addresses where we have lived. We are trying to limit the Government.

If the principal purpose of clause 1 is to help us to prevent terrorism—or if it is not—the Government should say so. Our debate is uninformed unless we know that. Furthermore, we need convincing that it will do that. I am also reluctant for the state to have quite so much information from me as an individual, and the new clause seeks to restrict the information to an amount that we regard as reasonable in the circumstances.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I should like to speak to new clause 5. In the limited time available, I want to explain that it aims to limit the use of identity cards to dealing with terrorism or an emergency and that it would introduce the necessity for the Government to seek parliamentary approval every year. As I have explained elsewhere, including on Second Reading, I do not accept that identity cards would help in the fight against terrorism. They would certainly have been of no assistance during the 30 years of IRA violence and murder.

Nevertheless, the Government put great emphasis—more than on anything else—on the view that identity cards would help in the fight against terrorism. Therefore, I believe that, if we are to have such cards, their use should be confined to terrorist outbreaks or the kind emergency that I describe in the new clause. It would then be necessary for the Government to come to the House of Commons to defend and justify their view that such an emergency was about to occur, and to seek the approval of Parliament for the use of identity cards—incidentally, we have not had such cards for more than half a century—and then, if Parliament gives its approval, it would do so on the basis of 12 months. Obviously, the Government would then come back if they require a renewal of powers given by Parliament for that purpose.

For all those reasons, we should confine identity cards along the lines that I have suggested. I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully than they have done.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Is my hon. Friend concerned that the Government have made no response available to hon. Members to the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the human rights aspects of the Bill?

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

That was mentioned in the debate on the programme motion. That is unfortunate, and perhaps the Minister will refer to it on Third Reading. The criticism that has been made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights is very important. I do not want to appear in any way immodest, but in some respects, it draws on some of the matters raised in the minority report of the Home Affairs Committee, which I recommend, with due modesty, that some Members read, even if the footnotes were not included as they should have been.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Read out the report.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I will resist that temptation.

My other amendment relates to public services. In effect, my argument is that it should not be necessary for those seeking hospital treatment or access to other public services to produce an ID card. At Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who is a supporter of identity cards, said nevertheless that people do not want a society in which the response is, "Where's your papers?" Neither do I, although it would be, "Where's your identity card?" There are already enough checks on people coming along for registration or treatment at a GP surgery or hospital. It would be an undesirable state of affairs in which the first inevitable question asked of a new patient at a GP's premises or hospital is, "Can you show me your identity card?" That is what will occur if the measure is passed without amendment.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

The hon. Gentleman is addressing the question of producing an identity card in anticipation of public services. Would he take note of my recent experience buying a new motor car last autumn when the dealer required me to produce my passport? I suggest that the application of identity cards would not be confined to public service but might also become widespread in private sector transactions.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I note that point, but the hon. Gentleman satisfied the motor car dealer by producing his passport. If he did not have a passport, he would no doubt produce other evidence. There is all the difference between that sort of evidence, which we all carry on us, and an identity card. That relates to the debate on Second Reading.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's reply to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is available in the Vote Office?

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

That is useful.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I went to the Vote Office just before the debate began and it was not available.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Perhaps it is restricted, but it will not be after the Minister's intervention. If the Government have responded in a positive way—I have not read it—that would be very encouraging.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I want to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 42 to 45, which address issues raised in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would restrict the amount of historic address information. That came up in Committee and we did not receive a satisfactory answer. We want to ensure that any address information is necessary and proportionate to that which is sought to be achieved, and we are not yet clear what the bounds of that are.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are important, particularly amendment No. 44, which has cross-party support and on which we would seek to divide the House, as it is intended to break the link between applications for passports and ID cards. The Committee pointed out that assigning ID cards to those who apply for passports is a fairly arbitrary method. Those who have passports are the very category who do not need ID cards. Therefore, we would seek to make the scheme genuinely voluntary by breaking that link. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment on that basis. If the Government want compulsion later, they can use clause 6 powers to introduce compulsion in a much more open and transparent way, rather than using the passport system.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does not the House see that the Minister has not had a chance to answer any of these points, which shows that we are once again held in contempt? The Minister must remember that even small cogs in wheels are in the end guilty of destroying great institutions. He ought to remember that he will be held responsible for allowing this scandalous situation, when we can neither debate properly nor can he answer properly—

It being fifteen minutes to Three o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

New Clause 4 — Application of Freedom of Information Act

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 20, in clause 24, page 21, line 15, leave out third 'and'.

Amendment No. 21, in clause 24, page 21, line 16, at end insert

'and

(e) the workings of the Identity Card Scheme and the Register including complaints made to him in relation thereto.'.

Amendment No. 15, in page 21, line 17, leave out from 'Commissioner' to end of line 33 and insert

'include general policy matters, but do not include—

(a) the exercise of powers which under this Act are exercisable by statutory instrument or by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I.1979/1573 (N.I.12)) unless any particular case affected by these powers or rules raises a concern of substantial public interest;

(b) the imposition of civil penalties, objections to such penalties or appeals against them, unless a particular penalty, objection or appeal raises a concern of substantial public interest;

(c) the operation of so much of this Act or of any subordinate legislation as imposes or relates to criminal offences in any particular case, unless a particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest;

(d) the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters in any particular case, unless the provision of information in any particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest; or

(e) the provision to another member of the intelligence services, in accordance with regulations under section 23(5), of information that may be provided to that Director-General, Chief or Director in any particular case, unless the provision of information in any particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest.'.

Amendment No. 23, in clause 24, page 21, line 18, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).

Amendment No. 16, in page 21, line 33, at end insert—

'(3A) 'The Commissioner may, where appropriate—

(a) before undertaking a review which includes the policy towards the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters, liaise with the Intelligence Services Commissioner with a view to referring responsibility for that review to that Commissioner, or

(b) liaise with the Information Commissioner in relation to any processing of personal data.'.

Amendment No. 24, in clause 24, page 21, line 45, at end insert

'to a maximum of ten members of staff'.

Government Amendment No. 56

Amendment No. 17, in clause 24, page 21, line 46, after 'section', insert—

'"Information Commissioner" means the Commissioner established by the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29);'.

Amendment No. 18, in clause 24, page 21, line 47, at end insert—

'"personal data" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29).'.

Amendment No. 26, in clause 25, page 22, line 3, leave out from 'must' to 'about' and insert

'lay before each House of Parliament a general report'.

Amendment No. 27, in clause 25, page 22, line 5, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—

'(2) The Commissioner may also, at any time, lay before each House of Parliament such other reports on any matter relating to the carrying out of those functions as the Commissioner thinks fit.'.

Amendment No. 28, in clause 25, page 22, line 5, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 29, in clause 25, page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 35, in clause 25, page 22, line 8, leave out 'annual'.

Amendment No. 36, in clause 25, page 22, line 9, at end insert 'and (2)'.

Amendment No. 38, in clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert

'would cause substantial harm to the public interest'.

Amendment No. 37, in clause 25, page 22, line 12, leave out from 'security' to end of line 15.

Amendment No. 39, in clause 25, page 22, line 12, at end insert 'serious'.

Amendment No. 40, in clause 25, page 22, line 13, leave out from 'crime' to 'or' in line 14.

Amendment No. 25, in clause 25, page 22, line 14, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 15.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that the letter in response to questions from the Joint Committee on Human Rights was available in the Vote Office, but that the staff there did not seem to understand that that was what was being requested. However, the Committee asked for a reply by 7 February and said that it would consider the response and report back. There has been no opportunity for the Committee to report back on the Government's response.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

That is not really a matter for the Chair, but the point made by the hon. Lady is now on the record.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to indicate—or the Minister, through you—what opportunity it is felt that hon. Members have to consider their response to the Joint Committee report before we continue our debate?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

That is not a point of order for the Chair at this stage. All the official documents necessary for dealing with the debate should, of course, be available to the House. That matter has been raised before, and I trust that the documents have been made available.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it not important for us to know exactly when the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report was deposited in the Vote Office? If information is supposed to be available before the debate, surely considerations of reasonableness must apply. Did the Government intend to put the response in the Vote Office only today? Was that an insult, incompetence, or a combination of the two? I think that we ought to be told.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

That is not a matter with which I can deal precisely at this time. I repeat what I said earlier—that all Government documents necessary for the debate ought to be available to all hon. Members before the debate starts. I think that we should now proceed, as time is limited today.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

No, we have dealt sufficiently with that matter for the time being. If the Government have not done something that they should have done, that will obviously be looked at later.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be extremely grateful if, at the end of this debate, we can have Divisions on new clause 4 and amendment No. 26. I shall speak to the latter in a moment.

The debate has been under way for a little while, and it is time for me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). On Second Reading, he had something to say about the commissioner. I pause only to remind the House that clause 24 was not debated at all in Standing Committee, even though it is the vital clause that deals with the appointment of the national identity scheme commissioner. Neither was clause 25 debated in Committee, but on Second Reading my hon. Friend very properly expressed his disappointment that the Bill made it clear that the commissioner's report

"can, and probably will, be doctored by the Secretary of State before being presented to Parliament".

He went on to say:

"Does that not underline our anxiety that the commissioner will prove to be but a craven lickspittle of the Government?"

He was right to draw our attention to that issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that he had

"a prejudice in favour of the commissioner reporting to the House rather than to the Government".—[Official Report, 24 December 2004, Vol.428, c. 1958.]

What is the effect of my new clause and the associated amendments? Clause 25 provides that the commissioner must make a report to the Secretary of State about the carrying out of his functions. Clause 25(3) states:

"The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of every annual report made to him under subsection (1)."

So far, so good. However, the tricky bit comes next. Clause 25(4) states:

"If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commissioner, that the publication of a particular matter contained in an annual report . . . would be prejudicial to national security,"—

so far, I think, so good—

"the prevention or detection of crime or"—

and the House should mark the next words—

"the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority, or . . . would be otherwise contrary to the public interest"

it could be excluded.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrase

"would otherwise be contrary to the public interest"

is couched in such wide language as to have no meaning other than that the Secretary of State may do as he pleases?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the clause seems to give the Secretary of State the power to say, "I don't want Parliament to know about this bit of the report. I don't have to justify it on grounds of national security. I can catch this point under any of these little subsections." Frankly, I am not happy about that.

New clause 4 offers a different way to proceed that would avoid the House getting a watered-down report. As a general proposition, it is impossible to review the Secretary of State's actions independently and properly if the commissioner's reports to Parliament are filtered by him. For that reason, the new clause would establish an alternative scrutiny mechanism under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. New clause 4(2) identifies the commissioner as a public authority under that legislation, and there is no obvious dispute about that. Proposed new subsection (3) would disapply the exemption in the 2000 Act relating to the formulation of Government policy, as well as the prejudice to effective conduct by public affairs. It means that legal advice in relation to human rights and the ID card could be accessible to people who request it. The reason for that is that the Government, as the Joint Committee has shown, cannot be trusted on human rights issues.

New clause 4(4) would remove the absolute national security exemption, mainly because the service has, for example, secret access to details on the register under paragraph 9 of schedule 1. I commend the House to examine that paragraph.

My proposed change would not jeopardise national security, as the 2000 Act contains an additional, non-absolute national security exemption that can be used case by case. In short, new clause 4 would set up a new mechanism that would allow the House of Commons to have access to some information to which it would not have access otherwise but which may be very important. There is no intention to jeopardise national security, to which the new clause poses no threat. All we seek is a method whereby more information can be made available to parliamentarians.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Clause 25 is a recipe for the exercise of ministerial fiat. The new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has commended to the House is absolutely indispensable to provide a brake on the use and abuse of Government power, and I warmly welcome it.

My hon. Friend's words about my little intervention on Second Reading were generous. I am thoroughly depressed about this obnoxious and distasteful Bill, but as a result of his characteristic generosity, I shall go about my business for the rest of the day with a glint in my eye and a spring in my step that would otherwise have been lacking.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

If I have brought a glint to my hon. Friend's eye and a spring to his step, I —

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

Apologise!

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Well, if my comments have caused those reactions in my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, I am delighted. It is probably my most useful act of the day.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Should the Minister decline to accept the new clause, would my hon. Friend consider advising colleagues in the other place to delete the phrase

"the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority"

and paragraph (b)? Does he agree that if those amendments were made, subsection (4) would be less offensive?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. The other place will certainly consider that message. He has made an extremely valid point.

I am conscious of the time and want to make two further points. First—my right hon. and learned Friend touched on this—it would be better if those offensive parts of clause 25(4) relating to the

"discharge of the functions of any public authority, or . . . otherwise contrary to the public interest"

were removed from the Bill, because we do not want to give the Home Secretary carte blanche to do what he likes without the House of Commons knowing about it.

My second point relates to amendment No. 26, which is simple and essential. It would change the clause so that instead of stating that

"the Commissioner must make a report to the Secretary of State",

it would require the commissioner to

"lay before each House of Parliament a general report".

That is essential, which is why I hope that all hon. Members will support my amendment.

There is a further minor amendment. In Committee we debated the cost of the scheme as much as we could—we were heavily curtailed—but never received a satisfactory answer. One of my amendments in Committee, which is now amendment No. 24, relates to the appointment of the national identity scheme commissioner. Clause 24(6) requires the Secretary of State to

"provide the Commissioner with such staff as the Secretary of State considers necessary for the carrying out of the Commissioner's functions."

I pause only to say that at no stage have we been reassured about how many members of staff would be employed by the commissioner. My probing amendment suggests that it should be limited to 10, but it is only a probing amendment. Why would I probe? The answer is simple—it would be helpful when looking at the cost of the whole scheme to know what the cost of the commissioner and his staff will be. At the end of the day, someone must pay. There was an exchange in Committee when the Minister said that the issue had very little to do with taxpayers' money because the burden would be on the individual to pay for the service—[Interruption.] Well, if I have misquoted him, he will put me right, because he will have a chance today to speak to the House. He has not had that chance yet, but I hope that he will.

The national identity scheme commissioner should have broad and strong powers, and they should be wide-ranging and not limited. The commissioner should have greater powers to take any steps that he or she wants to take in relation to the scheme, even to the extent of receiving complaints from individuals about the way in which it is running. I do not want his powers to be limited. That is the genus of our amendments.

I am certain that any decent Government—I hope that this Government are decent—would accept the proposition that the commissioner should report direct to the House of Commons and would also accept that while matters concerning national security should perhaps be kept from the House, that is the limit of what should be kept back. Matters should not be excluded just because it suits the Secretary of State for us not to hear about them, otherwise there would be yet a further diminution in our influence and power. I hope that the debate on my new clause and amendments will produce some interesting arguments during the amazingly short time left to us.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to this group of amendments, will he explain how and in what way the commissioner will have the power to protect the rights of the individual? The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) touched on that. If information on the register is inaccurate and wrong, or if the register is in some way abused, how will our constituents seek redress? I cannot see in these clauses that the commissioner has specific powers to act as a tribunal and guardian of individuals' rights. Should our constituents appeal to the commissioner, either through us or in their own right, and what could the commissioner do to put the matter right?

I suspect that every hon. Member has had constituents who have found that their credit rating is incorrect. A couple of years ago, one of my constituents had that problem and although the credit card company recognised and eventually admitted that its information was wrong and my constituent should not have been denied a credit rating, it took me nine months and unending correspondence to get it corrected. If that happens with a relatively small commercial data bank, how will constituents obtain redress and correct information? Surely, we must have a fast-track method of appeal to the commissioner, or to someone else, to have such information corrected. Otherwise, there will be absolutely no confidence in the scheme.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commissioner might wish to use his annual report to identify such errors and to bring them to the attention of the House, so is it not undesirable to give the Secretary of State the power to amend the commissioner's report in the wide terms set out in clause 25?

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is addressing—correctly—the strategic macro point, but I do not want to lose my micro point about individuals. Whatever the virtues of the scheme, it will be completely discredited if it is seen to abuse the rights of individuals and people will not have confidence in it. In a scheme of this scale, which requires individuals to submit 56 pieces of information, things are bound to go wrong and there must be a fast-track procedure to put them right.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern from past experience of things going wrong. When the previous Government introduced the poll tax, one of its flaws, in addition to its unfairness, was that it attempted to keep a register of where everyone lived and, in the process, managed to introduce many mistakes. That register involved just names, addresses and locations of people, not the wealth of information that the national identity scheme will require.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

It is inevitable that there will be mistakes, so it is essential that our constituents have an easy, comprehensible and swift way of putting them right, otherwise their career and many other aspects of their life could be put at prejudice. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that point before we vote on the new clause.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am pleased that this group of amendments has been tabled, as it is an opportunity to explore at more leisure than we had on the previous group whether the commissioner will be any more than a fig leaf to cover the Government's embarrassment or genuinely an organisation or individual who will be a fearless champion for the citizen. That is what we are interested in.

When discussing these issues we must remember why an individual might want to go to the commissioner. What might have happened to them? They may be seeking redress for a range of serious circumstances. We know that the cards will be used for public services. A person may have had all kinds of hassle accessing a public service; they may have found it difficult to obtain health care or education. Those are serious matters for an individual. The person may have been falsely arrested and have had problems with the criminal justice system. We have seen how errors in the Criminal Records Bureau system have led to individual cases of hardship, where a person has been denied a job because a record is fake or has been falsely matched. We must be aware that people could be seeking redress for serious circumstances.

A person could have had travel difficulties. They might have failed to buy a car that they were after.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

On cue! The hon. Gentleman knows my theme—about needing a passport to acquire a new car. He was talking about accessing public services with the aid of an identity card. Would he care, just for a moment, to speculate on how widely the use of an identity card might be made necessary in private sector transactions?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. A typical circumstance that someone may take to the commissioner is that in a financial transaction a bank has denied them access to financial services or they have been hauled up on suspicion of doing something they had not done, because the identity card checking process has gone wrong somehow, as it will do in some cases.

In Committee, we discussed the fact that there will be a trickle-down effect. Banks will be offered a voluntary service for checking people against the identity register and will be charged for that service. That is in the Bill. But then the Government could come along with money laundering regulations that will make the process mandatory if the banks want to be in the clear under those regulations. There will be a trickle-down effect; the ID card could come into play for a huge range of everyday transactions, for all of which people might want to go to the identity commissioner.

We must take the amendments seriously. They try to remove some of the restrictions that the Government have placed on the ability of the commissioner to carry out his or her work. Governments increasingly like commissioners for all sorts of things. We have seen how some of them—for example, the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, and the data protection commissioner, Elizabeth France before him—can build their roles and perform a good function. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards performs an effective function. The measure of that is the extent to which commissioners can criticise Ministers and the Government, on a serious and well-founded basis, and have that criticism accepted.

Well-functioning commissioners have an important role in making criticisms of particular instances and in drawing lessons from them to show why the system is flawed. That is what we want the identity scheme commissioner to be able to do. If, as we fear, the identity card system contains serious flaws, we want the commissioner genuinely to be able to highlight them and bring them to Parliament so that we can hold an informed debate and either scrap the scheme or change it, depending on the depth of concern. Our fear is that unless we accept some of the amendments or the Government make their own proposals to strengthen the commissioner's hand, the commissioner will be too weak.

The Government, like previous Governments, have been desperately keen to avoid judicial review of anything that they do. It now seems to be built into legislation—Ministers do not like being hauled up before the courts and told that their legislation is poor. I suspect that the commissioner process is part of that. The Government hope that the commissioner will deflect some of the criticisms that might otherwise come through the courts and be directed at a Minister.

I fear that the proposed commissioner system will still leave citizens having to take the judicial review route, which is much less satisfactory than being able to put the case to the commissioner, particularly in respect of the exclusion applied to the commissioner looking at the way that fines are levied. As we understand it, the Secretary of State, almost personally, will be taking people to court. The Secretary of State will take people to the county court saying, "You owe me £1,000 because you didn't register. You didn't notify your change of details or do x, y or z." The county court could send the bailiffs round if a person did not pay up. The Government are trying to avoid poll tax martyrs, so they have set up a complicated civil recovery scheme, yet the commissioner, unless the clause is amended, will have no power to look into that system.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Have the Government offered any explanation at all of subsection (4)(b) of clause 25, the circumstances in which uncensored publication of the commissioner's report would be

"otherwise contrary to the public interest"?

If such an explanation has been offered, I have not yet heard it and it is palpable that, particularly in the early stages when all sorts of mistakes are made, the Government will have a huge vested political interest in suppressing publication on the ground that otherwise confidence in the whole scheme might—perish the thought—be damaged.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that point. We received no explanation whatever in Committee because the clause was not debated; it just passed through. We had no opportunity to go into the detail of how the process would work. There is a clear statement in the clause that the Secretary of State can suppress matter if it would be contrary to the

"continued discharge of the functions of any public authority".

I think that plays to the hon. Gentleman's point. If the functioning of the identity card scheme would be damaged by publishing criticism of the scheme, we shall not criticise it. The law as currently drafted would seem to permit the Secretary of State to do that. If the Government have something to be embarrassed about, if they have dirty washing, let us have it out in public. What is the point of having a commissioner if they are not able to do that?

Unless the clause is amended, sadly, we shall have a fig leaf commissioner rather than, as I want to see, a fearless champion of the citizen. There will be a spill-over. If people cannot obtain satisfaction from the commissioner, there will be judicial review. The case will go to the parliamentary commissioner, the ombudsman, instead of to the identity commissioner. People will bypass the process. For example, if the problem was with the health service, they would go to the health service commissioner. We run the risk of creating a real mess and that is not satisfactory from the citizen's point of view.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the great advantage of new clause 4 is that it makes information available to the citizen, on the back of which the citizen can go to the court for judicial review if he feels that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct about the citizen having access to information. There are other examples of the kind of harm we are talking about. Something may have happened to the system that meant that a citizen was denied entry to another country. They may have spent several thousand pounds to somewhere, but then have immediately been flown home again. That would be a serious incident in anyone's life. If that occurs, they must be able to obtain information about what went wrong. If there is any suggestion of blanket coverage, if the individual was told for example, that it was an agreement between the UK and the United States authorities covered by terribly secret terrorism provisions, when they were merely going on holiday to Disneyworld, that would not be satisfactory in terms of the citizen's ability to obtain redress. I question the point of having a commissioner if they were unable to expose that type of information. I hope that the citizen could go to the commissioner and say, "I turned up at Orlando airport and they sent me back. They said it was something that came out of the identity system that we are all part of now." I hope that the commissioner could say, "Right, I'm going to get on with that. We will take the case through whatever process we need to get the redress that you are after."

My fear is that the citizen will meet a blank wall and the commissioner will not offer such satisfaction. I hope that the Minister, in the time available to him, will be able to offer some more assurances. I suspect that this is one of the issues that will have to be picked up at greater length in the Committee proceedings down the corridor in the Lords, where they often do have sufficient time to consider such things. I certainly feel that to establish the commissioner without testing his real powers and accepting some of the amendments will not offer citizens the safeguards that they need for a scheme of this significance.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall be brief because this is a time-limited debate. I shall confine myself to three points. First, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an important point. It is certain that errors will be made with regard to individuals. One of the problems about the Bill is that the individual will not be well placed, perhaps not placed at all, to identify the fact of an error or to challenge it. The advantage of the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is that it will make it possible for a citizen, using the procedure set out in new clause 4, to identify errors of fact made in relation to them. Once an error of fact has been identified, corrective action is possible. I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that new clause 4 goes directly to the anxiety that he has properly expressed.

Secondly, looking at the wide powers set out in clause 25(4), one has to accept that, in reality, they give the Secretary of State of the day the power to amend at will the report of the commissioner. Phrases such as

"would be otherwise contrary to the public interest,"

and

"prejudicial to . . . the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority"

are so wide that there are few Secretaries of State who could not bring their own prejudices within the parameters of those phrases. And of course the discharge of that amending function is not reviewable, which takes one back to new clause 4. If new clause 4 is accepted, individuals—whether they be Members of this House or someone else—will be able to say, having obtained that information, that the exclusion of material from the commissioner's report is unreasonable and does not fall within the language of this Bill and either raise it as a parliamentary matter or seek judicial review of it. That is particularly important when one reflects that the commissioner might well wish to use his annual report as a vehicle for criticising the Government's use of the scheme. It would be intolerable if the Secretary of State was able, by using the language of clause 25(4), to delete that criticism.

My final point is that my own preference, and one that I commend to the House, and through this House to the other place, is the approach recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, namely, to approve new clause 4 or something like it and to amend the language of clause 25(4) broadly in terms of amendment No. 38, which is in this group, so as to remove the offensively wide language on which I have addressed the House.

As time is pressing, that is all that I wish to say, although were time not so limited, I would wish to say a lot more.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I rise to oppose the new clause and amendments and to speak to amendment No. 56, which I think, when I explain it, will give some significant comfort to hon. Members, especially those who espouse the provisions of new clause 4. Amendment No. 56 in substantial measure covers exactly the same ground as new clause 4, although there are qualifications, which I shall come to in a moment.

Before I deal with the new clause and amendments and the questions that I have been asked—to the extent that I am able to answer them—it is important that I put on record the position in relation to the Government's response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am disappointed at the way in which hon. Members have implied in the House that the Government were dilatory or that there was some attempt not to make the information available to Members of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I might say that those observations were made to some degree in bad faith because no one asked me about the matter at any point or made any inquiries about the true circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is correct. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested that the Home Secretary respond to the Committee's report within seven days and named the date of 7 February. The letter that was sent from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was dated 26 January, and it arrived at the Home Office and was received by the Home Secretary on 28 January. He responded by 8 February, which was one day out. Bearing in mind the fact that the report was received two days after the date of the letter that accompanied it, I do not think that that is a matter of serious criticism.

I think that all hon. Members have now had access to the letter, and they will see that its final paragraph contains an appropriate request to the Chair of the Joint Committee that with her permission, which was sought by implication in the request,

"it would be helpful . . . to make this reply available to the House for the remaining stages of the Bill on 10th February."

That permission was given yesterday, and the letter was deposited in the Vote Office before 10 o'clock this morning. Nothing could have been done in any sense any quicker, and I do not think that there can be any criticism of the way in which the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have acted in relation to this issue.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The Committee set the date of 7 February, but it would not have been aware that we would debate the Bill on Report so soon. Obviously, the Committee has not been given sufficient time to report to the House about whether it considers the Home Secretary's response satisfactory.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. All those observations are truisms, but the workings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights are matters entirely for the members of the Joint Committee, and the timetable for their work and the priority that they give to their work are matters entirely for them. The Bill has been published in draft form—substantially the same form as at present—for some months now. I make no criticism of the members of that Committee. Indeed, I was a member of it at one stage and served with some members of the current Committee for whom I have the greatest regard. However, it cannot be a criticism of the Government that a Committee of the House adopted a certain timetable—that is the only point that I make.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

rose—

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

rose—

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I will give way to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as I understand that he is a member of the Joint Committee.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am a member of the Joint Committee. Of course, the drumbeat of Home Office legislation that touches on human rights matters is so great that we are running behind the Government. That is the difficulty that this huge volume of legislation places on us, as well the constraints that lie within it. It is in the Government's gift to make reasonable the passage of Bills and the deliberation of Select Committees. That is what all this is about.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I remind the House that, before the Government's incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the law of this land, there was probably no need in the House for the Joint Committee on Humans Rights.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am afraid that that simply will not do. I have the very highest regard for the Minister's ability, as he knows. Moreover, I do not on a daily basis make partisan points for the sake of it—when the Government are right, I am quite happy to say so—but what we have just heard in relation to this matter from the Minister is a very shabby piece of buck-passing. No hon. Member on the Floor of the House is suggesting for one moment that the timetable for the activities of the Joint Committee, or those of any other Committee, should properly be a matter for the Minister. Does the Minister accept that one is entitled to say that the Government should operate on a joined-up basis? If the Minister did not know what the Whips Office had in mind when scheduling the Bill's consideration on Report and Third Reading, he certainly should have done. It should have been his priority to do everything that he could to ensure that the Joint Committee's report was available for consideration by Members well before today's debate.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I do not want this to turn into a mutual admiration society, but I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, too, although he is perhaps inflating the debate on this issue slightly. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been available to hon. Members for some time. Nothing that the Government have done has interfered in any way with hon. Members' ability to access the report. I thought that I would be able to cover this matter in a few minutes, but it has turned into a mini-debate of its own. However, hon. Members will agree that some comments that were made strongly implied that the Government delayed their response to the report and produced it at the last minute. I was merely pointing out that the Government responded within the Joint Committee's requested timetable—albeit one day out—and that a further day's delay was required before the Joint Committee gave permission for the letter to be placed in the Vote Office.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I never attribute bad faith to the Minister—quite the reverse—but now is the time for frankness. Does he think that it would have been helpful to the Standing Committee if it had had the benefit of the report during its deliberations? Does he also think that all hon. Members would have benefited if the Government had produced their report a little earlier? I am sure that he will be frank and say yes.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I will be frank and say yes. It would be nonsensical to say anything but that that would have been helpful. I am merely explaining to the House how events arose because although there was a clear implication that timings were manipulated, they were not.

In the few minutes that remain, may I try to reassure hon. Members who want to be satisfied that the Government intend the commissioner to work with teeth and be a formidable person? The Government's response to the report of the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that we accepted the recommendation that the national identity scheme commissioner should have a broader oversight of the whole scheme, which is provided for by clauses 24 and 25. The commissioner's remit will thus include examining the uses to which ID cards are put, the dealings of all recipients of information held on the register and the administration of the issuing of cards.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the Minister specify the relationship of the commissioner with the Scottish Parliament and its Committees?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The commissioner will have no relationship with the Scottish Parliament and its Committees under the Bill's structure because we are not considering a devolved matter. There would be no reason for the commissioner to have a direct relationship with the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Minister said that one aspect of the commissioner's remit will be examining the uses to which identity cards are put. Many of the uses to which they will be put in England will not be those to which they will be put in Scotland. How can the Minister maintain that that is of no relevance to the Scottish Parliament and its Committees?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am not suggesting that the commissioner's actions will be of no relevance to the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question to which I gave a specific answer.

Hon. Members posed questions about the commissioner's ability to listen to specific complaints. The commissioner will of course be able to listen to specific complaints and will have a strong advisory role to the Secretary of State. I understand that there is a clear and established process if there are errors in the issuing of driving licences, which eventually ends with the possibility of judicial review, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out. The commissioner will be able to take individual complaints from people who are affected by the process and from people whose attempts to correct information on the register were not successful.

New clause 4 relates to the status of reports and information from the national identity scheme commissioner in respect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The most important aspect of the new clause is that subsection (2) would make the commissioner a public authority under that Act. Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act lists all public authorities for the purpose of the Act.

I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising that. They are no doubt aware that it is not strictly necessary for the Bill to be amended because it is possible to add to the list of public authorities by order. The Government could do that later, which was our intention. However, as dealing with that important issue in the Bill has merit, I accordingly tabled Government amendment No. 56 to do just that. I must, however, reject subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause which relate to Freedom of Information Act exemptions for the formulation of Government policy—

It being fifteen minutes to Four o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 24 — Appointment of National Identity Scheme Commissioner

Clause 25 — Reports by Commissioner

New Clause 3 — Disclosure from the Register: Unlawful Activities

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—The Register and CCTV Systems—

'Use of the National Identity Register in conjunction with CCTV systems shall be considered to be directed surveillance for the purposes of Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23).'.

Government amendment No. 53.

Amendment No. 46, in clause 22, page 19, line 43, after 'information', insert

'not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1'.

Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.

Amendment No. 47, in clause 22, page 20, line 1, after 'person', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.

Amendment No. 30, in clause 23, page 20, line 13, leave out 'reasonably practicable' and insert 'possible'.

Amendment No. 32, in clause 23, page 20, line 26, leave out from 'person' to end of line 28.

Amendment No. 31, in clause 23, page 20, line 47, at end insert—

'(6) The Secretary of State must not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of such regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am conscious that we have a lot to get through in a very short space of time. Certainly, Conservative Members feel that we did not have enough time to cover as many clauses as we would have liked in Committee, where we constantly ran out of time, although I hope that I spoke with great brevity. I will try to do so again today, so that Members who are interested in speaking to their amendments in the available 15 minutes or so will have the opportunity to take part in the debate.

I will speak briefly to new clause 3, as well as amendments Nos. 30 to 32. It is designed to address the issue of disclosure from the register in terms of unlawful activities. First and foremost, I am extremely concerned about the wide powers in clause 19(1), which, to remind the House, says:

"The Secretary of State may, without the individual's consent, provide a person with information recorded in an individual's entry in the Register if . . . the provision of the information is authorised by this section; and . . . there is compliance with any requirements imposed by or under section 23 in relation to the provision of the information."

I am concerned about such wide powers to disclose information held on the register without the consent of registered individuals. The range of eligible authorities under clause 19(2)—the director general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of the Government Communications Headquarters and the director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—means that far too wide a register of individuals can be concerned with this. Moreover, the test on what information can be disclosed to such bodies—in other words, "for purposes connected with"—is insufficient. That is why new clause 3 would provide that the

"term 'connected with' shall not be construed as meaning that the connection with a particular event is remote or unlikely, but to the contrary, that the connection with an event is significant or that failure to obtain the information from the Register could prejudice an investigation into that event."

Similarly, the authorisation to disclose information that does not fall within paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to a chief officer of police for the prevention and detection of crime under clause 19(4) is far too wide. I shall not bore hon. Members by talking about that in great detail except to underline that subsection (4) specifies

"in the interests of national security".

New clause 3 tries to redefine that by stating:

"The phrase 'in the interests of national security' shall be construed as meaning that failure to obtain the information from the Register would cause prejudice to the objective of safeguarding national security."

I am concerned that the police could conceivably have information routinely disclosed through the powers of the clause. I also view the disclosure of information that does not fall within paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to a prescribed Department

"for purposes connected with the carrying out of any prescribed functions of that department or of a Minister in charge of it"

in clause 19(5) as not tight enough. The provisions need to be much more clearly focused and new clause 3 achieves that.

I am worried about the powers of disclosure in clause 21(2), which would allow disclosure to a person who provides "inaccurate or incomplete information" of the discrepancies between it and the information recorded on the register. Regardless of whether the person who provides the information is an individual who represents himself or herself to an organisation for entitlement or an organisation that requests information to check against what an individual provides, disclosing the discrepancies would be most unwise.

The seventh data protection principle requires data controllers to take appropriate technical and organisational measures against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss, destruction or damage to personal data. Given the importance of the national register and its security and the number of linking organisations, that will be tremendously difficult and technical. Above all, the managerial task, which includes staff vetting, and dealing with the rules and different cultures across the many organisations, will be difficult. To ensure that the principle is met, there should be clear information for users about how their data will be used, processed and transferred. We need unambiguous consent—that is essential—and I believe that new clause 3 would cover that.

I am concerned about the extended powers of disclosure without consent in clause 22. Previous clauses provide an extensive list of personnel, some of whom we have covered, who may get access to an individual's information. However, clause 22 provides the Home Secretary with an opportunity to add people and purposes by order. Again, it is far too slackly defined and bestows far too much power.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important in highlighting to the public the scope and dangers of the Bill that we should underline what secondary legislation means? As my hon. Friend well knows, it means that, subsequently, the Government will set up delegated legislation Committees to sit upstairs and consider proposed extensions of power for an hour and a half at most. The Government are contemplating that, and they hope that the public will either not notice or understand and cannot therefore complain.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a clear and unambiguous point, which we are trying to achieve in new clause 3. We made that point consistently in Committee. I hope that the Government have listened, but I take my hon. Friend's point. If we try to tighten the clause and explain it in unambiguous language, we will get some way towards tackling my hon. Friend's point.

I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, which deal with the rules for using information without an individual's consent. Amendment No. 30 would substitute the word "possible" for "reasonably practicable" in clause 23(1). Amendment No. 32 would delete clause 23(3)(c), and amendment No. 31 would add to the clause the sentence:

"The Secretary of State must not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of such regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

That addresses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just made.

New clause 3 and our other amendments in this group would considerably clarify what is going on, and considerably narrow the scope of the provisions, making them much less likely to be abused.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I rise to speak to new clause 6 and amendments Nos. 46 and 47. I shall deal with the amendments briefly, because Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55 seem to deal with the issues involved, which came out of our considerations in Committee. Amendment No. 46 identifies a particular kind of data that Committee veterans will know as "schedule 1, paragraph 9 data". These are the audit data, the trial of information on every time the national identity database has been checked. Significant invasions of privacy could occur as a result of its use, because it could be shown that someone had accessed a public service in a particular place, or been abroad at a certain time, for example. The gathering of this kind of data is most intrusive, and I am pleased that amendment No. 54 seems to accept that it should not be available to be given out under the powers in clause 22.

Amendment No. 47 was important. I asked the Minister in Committee whether he could introduce an order under clause 22 to allow the FBI, Europol or any other external, foreign agency access to the entirety of our national identity database without our consent. He replied in his usual forthright manner that, yes, the existing wording would allow that. I hope that he will now confirm that amendment No. 55—which changes the word "person" to "public authority"—will achieve what we were trying to achieve, namely, that the authority in question would have to be a UK public authority. People are interested to know who will be using the national identity register database, and their legitimate concerns are motivated not by xenophobia but by an interest in whether the bodies that will have access to the data will be accountable under the British constitution and jurisdiction, or whether the provision will extend to external bodies. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what is meant by "public authority".

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. If I have a chance later, I will expand on that, but I can give him that reassurance now.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister.

New clause 6 merits a much longer debate, but I shall spend just a few minutes on it now. It springs from a question that arose in my mind as I was reading Jane's Police Review—my normal bedtime reading—which is a police product review that describes the products that are available to the police. It talks about the use of biometric technology in combination with technology such as closed-circuit TV cameras. This country has more CCTV cameras per head of population than anywhere else. There are 4 million of them out there, and they have their uses. However, one use to which they had not been able to be put, because the technology was not there, was the real-time monitoring of people as they go round the streets. They are used for evidence gathering and deterrence, but if we were to move to such monitoring, it would be a significant change.

Tim Lott writes in the Evening Standard tonight:

"For most of us, liberty is a feeling rather than the difference between jail and freedom—but it is a feeling I value tremendously. The idea of being able to go about my private business without being stopped by a policeman, or observed by a secret camera, strikes me as something many of us so take for granted that we can't imagine what it would be like to lose it."

That is at the heart of this issue: the idea that we could be monitored everywhere we went changes the feeling that we have as we go about our business. We are trying to test that in our proposals, and to understand whether the protections that Parliament has rightly put in place—including the legal safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which establish who authorises any surveillance, what suspicion has to be shown and what thresholds apply—will apply under the new regime if the Government have their way. Questioning that is justified. Jane's Police Review provides some lovely quotes—for example:

"The co-ordinated national use of intelligent tracking systems . . . which can piggyback onto the CCTV network is viewed within the service as something of a holy grail."

I accept that it may be a holy grail for law enforcement purposes, but it is not necessarily a holy grail for privacy. Throughout this debate, we have tried to argue that law enforcement measures are necessary, but they must always be necessary and proportionate in respect of the invasion of privacy that takes place. It is a delicate balance to strike, and we are trying to establish whether it has gone too far.

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

If one of the hon. Gentleman's or my constituents were attacked by a group of youths, and were they to find themselves recorded on CCTV cameras, is he saying that we should not use that for identification, along with national identity cards?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman has described the kind of circumstances in which, under normal policing procedures, it would be acceptable. I am not seeking to rule out the use of the technology where appropriate; I am trying to establish the bounds of that technology. What would be inappropriate, for example, would be people outside the police service who monitor CCTV cameras having access to the database to monitor everybody going past. There would be temptations for people to seek to abuse that. What I am trying to do, and what the amendment specifically tries to do, is to ask: will the strict legal safeguards that would be in place were the police doing it be applied universally? If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the cards, as I believe that he is, he needs to assure his constituents that they will be used for the purposes that he intends, and not abused.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

On the question of priority, would the hon. Gentleman's priority be the privacy of someone walking the streets or the fact that CCTV cameras would enable them to walk the streets safely?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the balance that we must always strike. We want both, and the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A clear principle is established in the Human Rights Act 1998, which he and his Government support, whereby breaches of privacy can take place if they are necessary and proportionate to that which we are seeking achieve. Throughout discussion of the Bill, we have tried to establish where that boundary is. It is possible to have a complete surveillance state. It is possible for CCTV cameras to scan everybody, with a record of where everybody in the country is at any particular moment. The technology will enable that. The decision for us is whether the benefit of being able to catch additional criminals outweighs the potential loss of privacy and freedom. We are approaching that debate with an open mind, and we are seeking to establish those boundaries in the new clause.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

With an eye to the clock, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that my view is that the proper interpretation of the Bill, should it become an Act, in relation to its specific purposes and the issue of proportionality, would rule out the very use of CCTV cameras and such images that he fears. They could not be used under the Act in the way that he fears, whereas they could be used in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) suggests, as he agrees that they should be.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

If nothing else, the debate has been helpful for producing that intervention from the Minister.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is precisely the kind of issue that we should have discussed in full, so that we would understand the answers? Those of us who are in favour of identity cards now find ourselves progressively wanting to vote against the Bill, simply because we have not had the time to discuss these issues, and our constituents deserve an answer to those questions.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to continue progressing towards wanting to vote against this Bill. He is right in saying that, as that is precisely what we have found. As we have explored these issues, we have found more and more implications that have not necessarily been considered. We are asking people to buy into this scheme with their own money—for a family to take part in the scheme, they will have to put their hands in their pockets and pay several hundred pounds. With all the promises made, we do not really understand the full implications. That is what we have been trying to tease out, and we still do not have all the answers. The Minister has given some kind of assurance.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we welcome what the Minister has said, but is this a Pepper v. Hart situation? The Minister, who commands considerable respect in all parts of the House, has said something helpful, but I am not sure that what he has said is in the Bill.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It would be useful to have a further 20 minutes to discuss this issue of fundamental importance, about which a number of us feel strongly. Instead, we have 20 seconds, which I will give to the Minister to allow him to do his best or worst.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I feel that I must speak to the Government amendments, which are responsive to issues raised in Committee. When clause 22 was debated, I undertook further to consider some of the issues and I have proposed three Government amendments, two of which would make amendment No. 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), redundant. Government amendments Nos. 53 and 55 restrict the bodies to whom information can be provided without consent to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act—

It being half-past Four o'clock Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

New clause 3 disagreed to.

It being after half-past Four o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Clause 5 — Applications Relating to Entries in Register

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his point of order relates to the Division?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could tell us what we are voting on. Amendment No. 44 does not appear on the list of amendments to be considered.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

The sequence of voting is correct. The amendment was under discussion in a previous debate.

Clause 4 — Designation of Documents for Purposes of Registration etc.

Clause 22 — Power to Authorise Other Uses of Information

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, no Member is allowed to criticise the Chairman's choice of speaker or amendment, but is that not, in effect, what has just happened in terms of the Government's restriction of time motion? Nine amendments, duly selected by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means, were down for debate, in order, yet as a result of the timetable motion we have not even been allowed to start that debate. The timetable motion is so restrictive that the Minister did not even have time to introduce them—[Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I cannot hear. The hon. Member will continue with his point of order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Those key amendments affect Scotland and Wales. The Minister, who represents Kilmarnock and Loudoun, has arranged for them not to be discussed. Is not that an abuse not just of the House and its procedures but of the Chair? Given that no hon. Member would be allowed to do that, why should the Government be allowed to do it?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

The Chair is in no way responsible for the timetable and the programme motion. I am afraid, therefore, that we must follow the programme agreed by the House.

Clause 28 — Identity Documents for the Purposes of S. 27

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 25, line 11, at end insert 'or'.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58 to 60 and 75 to 78.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

During debate in Committee, I undertook to look again at the legal status of the counterpart driving licence, which forms part of the definition of a UK driving licence in clause 28. The clause lists the identity documents to which the clause 27 offences of possessing false identity documents apply. Doubts were raised at the time about whether the counterpart—that is, the paper part of a photographic card driving licence—should be considered an identity document.

On 3 February, I wrote to the Chair of the Committee with the results of my consideration, which I will briefly summarise. Both the photocard licence and the counterpart have to be produced to the police and courts in certain circumstances relating to road traffic offences. Many people of course still hold valid paper driving licences that incorporate the counterpart. However, the Road Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to create an electronic driving record that will be available to the police. The legislation includes a provision to remove references to the counterpart in existing legislation. It is anticipated that the Bill, if enacted, would not come into force until about 2007 or 2008.

In view of the intention to abolish the counterpart licence, I have decided that we should simplify the definition of a UK driving licence by removing it from clause 28(3)(c) in respect of that offence. I therefore invite the House to agree to the amendment.

Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60 bring the commissioner and his staff within the remit of the clause 29 offence of unauthorised disclosure of information. Disclosures made as part of the commissioner's functions will not be caught by the offence, but clearly it would be unacceptable for the commissioner's staff to make unauthorised disclosures of information to which they had access as a result of their employment. I see no reason why such behaviour should not be criminalised. It is therefore right that the clause 29 offence should be extended in the way proposed in Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60, and I invite the House to accept them.

Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 restructure the offence in clause 31 of tampering with the register and Government amendment No. 77 is a technical amendment which replaces "is" with "may be". It is not intended to be a substantial change. The effect of amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 is to make it clearer that it is a defence to a charge under this clause to have an honest and reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that the modification made to the register was authorised. The way in which a prosecution under clause 31 would work is as follows. The prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant caused a modification of the register and that the modification was unauthorised. "Unauthorised" is a term defined in subsection (5); it is an objective concept.

It would be a defence for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that, notwithstanding the lack of objective authority, he held a reasonable subjective belief that the modification was authorised. I consider that the amendments structure the offence in a clearer way, and I urge hon. Members to support them.

I have nothing further to add on this group of amendments and I commend them to the House.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the Minister. There were times in Committee when it seemed that we were making no progress and that nothing at all was being given by the Minister. Therefore, much of what he has just said meets with our approval, especially about amendment No. 57, which relates to clause 28 and the driving licence. It strikes me as a helpful and sensible way forward. I suggest that our amendment No. 41 would have been clearer, simpler and probably easier than Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60, which achieve the same end.

Everything that the Minister says about so-called whistleblowers and public interest disclosures makes a great deal of sense. We dwelt on that quite long enough in Committee to show how important it was. I broadly welcome what he has said.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments. This is an example of constructive Committee work. We had to go through the clauses to which these amendments relate fairly quickly. It would have been good to spend a little more time on them in Committee. The issues that we picked up are ones that the Government have accepted.

I raised the issue of the counterpart driving licence as much as anything so that I could highlight the ridiculous system for getting a replacement driving licence. If one loses the whole licence, it is considerably easier to get a replacement than if one loses one part of it. The Minister has told us today that there is a broader solution to that, which will filter its way through to the provisions in the Bill, and has tabled amendments for that purpose. That is entirely welcome.

The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) raised the point about whistleblowing or public interest disclosure. We feel that it is an important one. People should be able to report abuses of the system. We felt we had good reason for that because there have been abuses of other systems such as the police national computer, and they have resulted in prosecutions. Fortunately, they are few and far between, but when they occur it is important that no one feels legally constrained in making allegations if they are justified.

Both sets of amendments are thoroughly welcome and non-contentious. I hazard to suggest that if we had longer in Committee we could have made even more helpful suggestions to improve a Bill that the Liberal Democrats do not want to see go through, but wish to do what they can to make it less bad.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I wish to take a few more minutes of the House's time to put on record how grateful I am to the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for their constructive response. As this may be the last opportunity that I have to speak to the Bill in the House—it may not; we do not know—I wish to say that I appreciate the constructive way in which the Committee conducted most of its work. I greatly appreciated the atmosphere in which its work was done, even when I did not think that significant progress was being made—and that was a comparatively short period.

The Government amendments contain examples of the Government listening to constructive criticism and responding, and I hope that that response has improved the Bill. I am particularly proud of the Bill for the paucity of Government amendments that had to be introduced unprompted by the Committee. That is a credit to the officials and the draftsmanship of the Bill, as well as the pre-legislative scrutiny that it received.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he is speaking. He may remember that he offered a bet to each of us who served on the Committee that the Government would introduce fewer amendments than could be counted on the fingers of one hand. We thought that each of us would win a bottle of champagne if the number exceeded three or four. I wonder whether he can help us.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. Part of what he remembers is correct, but we will need to check the Official Report to find out whether his memory is comprehensive. I think that I made a rash prediction that a smaller number than this very small number of Government amendments would be introduced. I should not have underestimated the persuasive powers of the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I hope that the Minister will accept in a positive spirit that the scale of what is required from his pocket should be roughly in proportion to the scale by which the Government have exceeded the number of amendments that he originally envisaged introducing. On my mathematics, the Government have introduced no fewer than 12 amendments. In other words, they have introduced four times as many as he had in mind. That seems to suggest that, ethically, he should buy at least four bottles of champagne for the members of the Opposition Front-Bench team.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Given the history of Government amendments under Governments of all colours and the fact that there are only 12 Government amendments to a Bill with 45 clauses and two schedules, perhaps I should suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the drinks should be on him.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 25, line 13, leave out from '(S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1))' to end of line 15.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 29 — Unauthorised Disclosure of Information

Clause 31 — Tampering with the Register etc.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I begin, on behalf of the Government, by thanking all those who have worked hard to bring the Bill to this stage. I associate myself entirely with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration in commending the work of the Joint Committee and hon. Members from all parties who contributed to that. I thank officials in the Home Office for the consistent and coherent work that they have done over a long time. I also thank the staff of the House for their work to bring the Bill to this stage.

The time has now come for the House to agree that we need the benefits and safeguards that an identity card system will provide both to individuals, who will be able to prove their identities securely and reliably, and in the wider public interest. Rather than seeing identity cards as a threat to civil liberties, most people now regard them as essential to safeguard our civil liberties.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

My right hon. Friend says that an advantage of the scheme is that it will allow people to secure their identity. However, we do not know about the form or accuracy of the biometrics that the Government will demand, or how secure the database will be, so how can he have such confidence before the assessment work has been done?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

An assessment is under way on the different forms of biometrics that could be used, such as fingerprints, iris examinations and photographs. I am confident that, as in many countries throughout the world, the biometric regime that we establish will provide the security that people rightly look for.

The Bill has been given proper scrutiny. Indeed, in preparation for the legislation, we started a six-month public consultation exercise in 2002.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will not give way at the moment.

The Home Affairs Committee started an inquiry in 2003, and there was further consultation on a draft Bill in 2004. Changes have been made to the Bill, and I assure the House that I shall continue to listen to, and act on, constructive comments on plans for delivering the identity card scheme after this enabling Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. It is our intention that the first ID cards will be issued in 2008, and there will be further opportunities between now and then for the House to examine the detailed provisions to be set out in secondary legislation.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

How can the Home Secretary claim that the Bill has been given proper scrutiny when seven amendments, including all those specifically relating to Scotland and Wales, were not debated in Committee or on Report as a result of the Government's programme motion?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can claim that the Bill has been given proper scrutiny for exactly the reasons that I set out a moment ago. There has been a long-standing debate about the issues, and a range of discussions on the specific matters that have been taken forward has been held in the Chamber and in Committee.

The simple fact is that the possession of a clear, unequivocal and unique form of identity in the shape of a card that is linked to a database holding biometrics will offer clear benefits to us all. Such benefits include the prevention of terrorist activity, the proper control of immigration and illegal working, help for the more efficient and effective provision of public services, and specific measures to deal with crime. That is why recent surveys show that 80 per cent. of the public support the introduction of identity cards.

Biometrics are being developed around the world to improve the security and reliability of identity documents, including fingerprint biometrics on visas and our own biometric passports with a facial image biometric that will be introduced in about a year's time. The scheme will not create threats to privacy or change the way in which we live our lives. We have never proposed a scheme under which it would be compulsory to carry a card.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I want to pin down the Secretary of State on the question of terrorism. Will he explain exactly how a voluntary identity card will protect us against terrorism? If identity cards are to become compulsory in 10 years, does he think that the war on terror will still be being fought in 2015?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We dealt with that on Second Reading, but let me go back to the core points. There is no guarantee that any scheme—identity cards or anything else—will be able to deal with and eliminate the terrorist threat. There is no silver bullet to solve the problem. However, identity theft and fraud represent a significant modus operandi for those involved in terrorism, serious and organised crime, people trafficking and drug dealing. The fact that we will have an identity card scheme will give us the capacity to attack the problem that would not otherwise exist. It is true that a compulsory card would give us more power to attack the problem than a voluntary card, but it is also true that a voluntary card gives us more capacity to attack the problem than we have at present. I think most people acknowledge that that is true.

It is, moreover, the case that ID cards will help in tackling fraud and will save tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. The Government have proceeded in a measured way by consulting on the principles and, most recently, on the draft legislation. The Bill sets out a clear legal framework for the scheme. It provides a means for everyone legally resident in the country to assert their right to be here and to help them gain access to the services to which they are entitled. It will help preserve national security and assist the work of law enforcement. It will enable the public to have the ID card system that they say they want.

Those are the reasons why people in all parties have supported the legislation. In an article in The Daily Telegraph on 20 December 2004, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, said:

"I have listened to the police and security service chiefs. They have told me that ID cards can and will help their efforts to protect the lives of British citizens against terrorist acts. How can I disregard that? We must protect our citizen in every way, and in my judgment that includes ID cards."

In that same article of a couple of months ago or less, he went on to write:

"In my first speech as Leader of the Opposition, I would not oppose Government policy just for the sake of opposition. It is wrong to sacrifice the national interest for political expediency."

I applauded those remarks at the time and wish that they had been carried through. They reflected previous remarks also by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On 23 September 2001, he wrote in the News of the World:

"Britain is the easiest country in western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem, there is one obvious remedy: identity cards."

Even earlier, in 1994, at the Conservative party conference, he said:

"In time, carrying your ID card would seem as natural as carrying a credit card is at the moment."

Perhaps that is why the 1997 Conservative party manifesto had a commitment to introduce ID cards.

I find it utterly extraordinary that the Opposition have decided to abstain on this vital issue, affecting the future of the nation.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I can assure the Home Secretary that a number of Conservative Members have no intention of abstaining. We voted against the Bill on Second Reading and have every intention of doing so this evening, because his proposal is a serious invasion of the civil liberties of the people of this country.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

To be candid, the hon. Gentleman has more to say for his position than his Front-Bench colleagues. The fact is that some people—he is one of them, and some of my Labour colleagues agree with him—have issues of principle with ID cards and find it difficult to support them for the reason that he identified.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Will my right hon. Friend distinguish between the opportunist position of the Conservative party and those of us who oppose ID cards in principle but would change our minds—certainly I would, without the slightest hesitation—if we thought that they would help in the fight against international terrorism? I hope he recognises that although my opposition is based on principle, it would change were I so persuaded.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I accept that distinction, which I have sought to make, including in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee earlier this week. Some people, for reasons that I respect but with which I do not agree, think that ID cards pose such a threat to our civil liberties that it is necessary to oppose them. Those people exist on both sides of the House. They are entitled to take that position to a vote and to carry it through.

My point is different, however. The Government and, in my opinion, the Opposition have to assess, when considering national security, precisely the balance of issues, as described by my hon. Friend, that arise from ID cards. The Government have made that assessment and believe that the ID card is in the interest of the country. The Leader of the Opposition made that same assessment and came to the conclusions that I quoted, but he has now decided to abstain—not to vote against, not to vote in favour—on this key national issue, and abstention is not an honourable position. I believe there is a reason—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be very careful about impugning the honour of any other right hon. or hon. Member.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House. I was not intending to impugn the honour, in the parliamentary sense, of the Opposition or of anyone else. I withdraw that word at your request.

It is not defensible, however, for an Opposition party or a Government party to abstain on an issue of this sort. There is a clear reason for the abstention. It is that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who I am delighted to see in his place—he has forgone his chance to be at the shadow Cabinet meeting in Manchester with the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps to undermine the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position even further—has been clear about his scepticism of ID cards in a variety of different ways. The truth is that he has rolled over his leader and reached an abstention position. That is the reality. I say that that is not defensible.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I may be able to help my right hon. Friend. My Conservative opponent in my constituency was until recently the press spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition. He says that his position is that he is opposed to ID cards in principle but that if they are required for international travel he might be persuaded otherwise. Does my right hon. Friend hope that we can yet persuade the Opposition to do a second U-turn?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall be even more candid than I was earlier. I have that hope. I ask the Opposition to reconsider their position. The position of abstention is not defensible, in my view, for a serious political party. It has an implication that is of meaning. When the other place considers the proposed legislation, if there is not agreement from the official Opposition there are real issues about whether the Bill can be brought into effect in this Session, were a dissolution to be sought. The normal wash-up issues would arise, but a decision of the Conservative party to oppose the Bill in the other place would lead to a delay in carrying forward this important measure for the security of the country.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I voted for and spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading? I attended all the debates on the Bill to seek to continue that support. I have to tell him that the way in which he treated the House—the failure to enable me to ask a number of questions on key issues and the time given, which did not allow his junior Minister to respond to many of the debates—has led me to believe that indeed we should act differently, and I shall vote against the Bill.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Those right hon. and hon. Members who come to the view that they must cast their vote against, either for the reasons just given by the right hon. Gentleman or by others, are taking a position that I can understand, although I do not agree with it. I cannot understand those who say, "We shall abstain on this key issue that is facing the country." I believe that it is a matter of internal politics within the main Opposition party and a betrayal of the interests of the country. If, in the final event, we are not able to carry through the proposed legislation in this Session, we will know clearly that that is because of the decision taken by the Opposition—their decision to put peace within their party ahead of the national interest.

I commend the Bill to the House.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

So much for the constructive and open debate on liberty and freedom and on security of the state that the Home Secretary was so keen to tell us we would have when we talked about identity cards and house arrest, an issue on which he is in even more trouble.I join him, at least in one respect, in thanking those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report. At the same time, I sympathise with them in what must have been the most frustrating process of their political lives.

The Bill attempts to strike a balance involving a number of extremely serious issues: individual privacy, the relationship of the citizen and the state versus security, prevention of fraud, control of immigration and a number of other serious issues. That is why I set some tests for the Bill on Second Reading. I did not just want to test individual practicalities but to establish the balance between those principles and the Bill's competence to achieve some of the things that the Home Secretary talked about. A competent Bill would do what he said and that would, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, have a significant effect in improving security. It would make a minimum intrusion into the liberty and privacy of the individual, and there would be strong safeguards where such intrusions proved necessary. An incompetent Bill would have a weak or non-existent impact on security, the prevention of fraud and the control of immigration. It would prove highly expensive and too intrusive into liberties, and would provide few effective safeguards for those liberties.

The point of those five tests is to establish, as I said, the balance or imbalance between those serious principles which matter, as the Home Secretary rightly said, and the competence or incompetence of the proposal. Having read all the Hansard reports of the Committee and listened to today's debate, which I attended when I could, I do not think that we have had a real or persuasive answer to any of the tests. It is not only our questions that remain unanswered. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said on page five of its report on the Bill:

"Explanatory notes to the Bill have been published. They do not, however, contain any explanation of the Government's reasons for believing the Bill to be compatible with the Convention rights."

The next part is important:

"We consider the absence of such an explanation to be deeply unsatisfactory in a Bill which is concerned throughout with issues of personal privacy, and with the delicate balances to be struck between individual rights to private life and the protection of the community."

That is not the stated view of the Conservative party but of the important and distinguished all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are not the only ones to have reached the conclusion that we have had a dreadfully inadequate set of answers to an important set of questions as well as dreadfully inadequate time in which to debate those questions.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

The hon. Gentleman has not been here all day, so he is not qualified to comment on the Bill, as he lacks the information or attendance record to do so.

The first test in that important series of tests deals with clarity of purpose. That matters, because it has implications for every other aspect of the Bill. As I said at the outset I, like the hon. Member for Walsall, would be persuaded as a sceptic to support the measure if it had the aim of dealing with terrorism. We tried to include that aim in the Bill, but we failed because the Government refused to do so. We tried to make the priorities explicit, but Ministers refused. Foreign travellers, particularly from the European Union, can come here under EU rules without identification for three months, which means that the Bill is quite inadequate for use as an anti-terrorism measure, unless we have a way of dealing with that problem. The common travel area is another problem, as is the issue of Ireland, which I shall address in a moment. Those issues may be soluble, but there has not been a single attempt to answer our questions. If identity cards are an anti-terrorism measure, it should be made compulsory to carry them, otherwise they will not work. I do not want to have such a compulsory card in this country. As has been said, we do not want to hear our policemen saying, "Papers please, citizen". However, there has been not been any attempt to answer the problem.

The Bill could have been used to tackle illegal working but before we introduce a draconian measure we should try everything else first. For several years under this Government, under legislation that the Conservatives passed to make the employment of illegal immigrant workers a crime, there was one successful conviction a year. Only after the tragedy at Morecambe bay and the brave campaign of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith)—she is a Labour Member, but I am happy to give her credit—and, I am afraid, a campaign by my party on the failure of Government policy that led to the departure of a Minister, have we gone from one conviction a year to well over 600 operations a year against employers of illegal immigrant workers. That is what must be done first; instead of throwing away liberties, the Government should do their job.

On benefit fraud, we have again not been told all. The Home Secretary told us that the provisions will save us tens of millions of pounds; the cost of the scheme may be tens of billions of pounds. I hope that he is never Chancellor, because with that sort of return on capital, the Government will go bankrupt very quickly.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Black Wednesday.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

Those claims have been discounted recently, I notice, but I am happy to recognise the single success of the Government's freedom of information programme so far.

The primary problem is not concealment of identity, but concealment of circumstance, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State for Social Security, was only too well aware during his review of the issue during the 1990s.

We have had no answers. On illegal immigration, which was raised on Report today, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made the very good point that nine tenths of the issue is dealt with by the asylum identity card—a registered card. So we have 90 per cent. of the solution for 1 per cent. of the grief.

My point to the Government is that those questions could have been answered in Committee, but no attempt was made to give an answer. Why? It is hard to understand why, unless the Government do not believe their own case or their supposed reasons for the ID card. That is very worrying, and it is more worrying in many ways than other points that I shall raise in a moment.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

The right hon. Gentleman says that his position is consistent: the Conservative party supports ID cards, but on condition that these questions are answered. He says that it would be possible to answer them, but he feels that the Government have not done so. Does that mean that a Conservative Government would answer their own questions and introduce ID cards?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

The hon. Gentleman should not put words in my mouth. If I wanted someone to rearticulate my views, I would not pick him.

What have we heard today? We have heard from the Home Secretary—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that this issue shows that the Tory party is "soft on crime, soft on immigration, soft on terror." We will let the public decide the plausibility of that proposal. In many ways, I would worry more about being called stupid on crime, stupid on immigration and stupid on terror, which is the risk if we do not get the matter right. That is the point: we must get it right. It is a question not of being pro or anti a particular matter, but of getting the issue right.

I have to say that this is a very poor start to the Home Secretary's serious debate on liberty and security, because this issue is one of the key components of that debate; indeed, perhaps it is the most important one. Let us go on to the second test, which concerns technology.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Is there any chance of anyone else speaking in this debate?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I beg my hon. Friend's pardon; I shall be as quick as I can.

The second test is important, and I shall quote the Home Affairs Committee, which said that 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."

Again, we put that point into an amendment, which the Government turned down. Not only the Home Affairs Committee, but Privacy International and the Association for Payment Clearing Services have raised concerns.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

rose—

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

No, I will not give way because I am pressed for time.

The next issue is the high value of the database, which will be an extremely large target that will attract attack. Putting aside the weaknesses on biometrics, the Government have not even tried to answer how they will prevent those attacks, which will destroy the system.

Test three concerns cost, which has gone from £1.2 billion to £3.5 billion to £5.5 billion. Conventional wisdom puts the overall cost somewhere between £10 billion and £20 billion. Bart Vansevenant, the director of the organisation that runs Belgium's ID card system, has said that

"the amount of people you catch will not be worth the price of the infrastructure . . . If you look at this from a distance and look at the goal, I'm afraid a lot of money will be wasted and the real cost will be much higher than any of the figures currently suggested."

How will the Government control the cost? They do not have a good track record. Would that money be better spent on trying to stop illegal immigration, terrorism and benefit fraud?

The final issue concerns civil liberties and privacy. In the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), this is the "largest change in relationship between the individual and the state". Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has said:

"There are huge questions about access to the national identity register: who has access to it, for what sorts of purposes, and how is that information to be used".

As the debate has progressed, it has become increasingly apparent that many organisations—more than we thought—will have access to the database, which means that the scope for unauthorised access will be unmanageable. There is even the possibility that the data must be shared with other countries such as Ireland, because of the common travel area.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

The Home Secretary introduced a new concept in his winding-up speech, during which he would not take an intervention. He said that his card will enable us to "assert the right to be here". I do not know what that means. Is he telling my constituents and the people of Britain that they have no right to be here unless they assert it through his means of an ID card?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

My hon. Friend makes the same point as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. ID cards involve a completely new view of citizenship. Being a subject of the Crown is a right, which it is not for the Government to give or take away.

The Bill deals with massively important issues, and we have adopted a constructive approach. The Government have denied us time for debate and answers to proper questions, and they have even delayed the response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This House has had no chance to consider the Bill, but the Home Secretary promised a serious and constructive debate on security and human rights.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

rose—

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I will not give way because I am about to finish. I heard what the Minister had to say earlier, and I thought it a weak response to the issue.

The Government have denied debate and treated this House with contempt. I will recommend that my hon. Friends in the other place commend the Bill to a Joint Committee to answer the unanswered questions. Until that point, I cannot recommend that my hon. Friends should vote for the Bill.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who just made the speech that he wanted to make on Second Reading, but was not allowed to—his speech was better late than never and it was a pleasure to hear it tonight. He was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament and he knows a lot about systems and what can go wrong with them, so the warning that he has issued again tonight is appropriate.

The Liberal Democrat position is based on both principle and practice. At various points, it has been put to us that those two ideas are contradictory and that one must oppose the Bill on the grounds of either principle or practice. However, some policies are so flawed and so offensive that one can oppose them on the grounds of both principle and practice, and tonight's debate is such an occasion.

The Minister has challenged us a number of times to discuss the issues of principle, and I thank him for those challenges, which were appropriate. I boil the matter down to the extent to which one values privacy. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights concerns privacy. It states that states have the right to breach the right to privacy, where such a breach is necessary and proportional to the end that they are trying to achieve. That clearly shows that there is no absolute right to privacy and that it can be breached under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, a threshold needs to be set. The Liberal Democrat view is that the Minister's ID card proposals do not meet that threshold, and that the benefits he suggests—if they can be realised—are not sufficient to outweigh the disbenefits, in terms of the cost to the privacy of citizens of the United Kingdom.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off this subject, can he tell the House which of the 21 out of 25 members of the European Union that are social democracies are also breaching that article of the European convention on human rights—some of them with compulsory ID card schemes that require people to carry them?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Minister certificated the Bill as being compatible with the European convention on human rights. There are elements that may be compatible, but there is a variation in the threshold that one may apply. There is a political difference here between Liberal Democrat and Labour Members and, indeed, between Conservative Front Benchers, because we set the threshold at a different level. That is a political judgment; both a legal and a political judgment needs to be made in this respect.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister was covered by the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which states that

"an identity card containing only a person's name, sex, date and place of birth, current address, and the name of their spouse, does not in itself raise issues of the right to private life under Article 8 . . . Neither does the obligation to hold or carry such a card engage Article 8."

Nevertheless, the Committee went on to make serious criticisms of the Government's proposals.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Lady is right to remind us that the scheme being put forward is not necessarily comparable to ID card systems in other countries and goes a lot further. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the Home Secretary's unfortunate turn of phrase when he said that the cards will allow people to assert their right to be in the United Kingdom.

The Government are essentially proposing to put us all on a criminal intelligence database and to treat us all as potential suspects. That creates a fundamental change in the relationship between state and citizen. The scope of the database that the Government propose is far more comprehensive than any that has been suggested elsewhere. Indeed, the Minister has said at various points that the scheme that he is putting forward is bigger and more complex than anyone else's. He said that with a certain note of pride, and then with a slightly hysterical look of fear as we came to consider the implications of doing something more comprehensive than is to be found anywhere else.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Another paradox, and therefore a failure to justify the scheme, is that whereas British citizens—people who have never had to prove to the state their right to be here—will have to have the cards, people who come here with no right to be here will not. That seems to be one of those ridiculous examples that identifies the fundamental flaws.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

My hon. Friend's intervention is helpful.

I should like to nail a red herring, if one can nail a herring, in relation to whether one has to carry the cards compulsorily. We debated that in Committee. Most of us carry our irises and fingers wherever we go. The point about being on the database is that people can be checked against it wherever they go—whether they have their ID card with them is immaterial. The fundamental question is the extent to which the benefits derived in terms of catching people involved with terrorism and crime—something with which we agree—are so great as to justify holding all that data, and presumably using it and checking it regularly. Are those benefits worth the disbenefits of a citizen having to pay, having to go through the inconvenience, and having the potential loss of privacy? We come to a different judgment from the Government, and have consistently done so throughout proceedings on the Bill.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case against the Bill. He mentioned inconvenience. My constituents, many of whom live on islands, will be faced with great inconvenience if they are forced to go to Glasgow to get biometrics taken for their ID cards. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the Home Office is considering a mobile facility, but that will take ages and it will cost a huge amount to go round the highlands and islands. The Government have not answered those questions at all.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

My hon. Friend helpfully moves me on to the significant practical considerations. The Government have tried to write off or trivialise the matter. They have talked down the costs and suggested that they will be less than they are, but whatever happens, they will be several billion pounds more than zero. They have talked down the costs and the inconvenience. It could cost several hundred pounds for a family of four adults in a remote area of Scotland who simply want to renew their passports to go on holiday by the time they have travelled to a centre, had the biometrics taken and paid for the documents. That is a significant change from the current position, and the Government have not made enough of it.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman's party now supports the policy of biometrics in passports.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Minister knows that only facial biometrics, which can be taken from a photograph, are required for a passport. That is different from the proposals for irises and fingerprints.

I know that some hon. Members support identity cards but I urge all hon. Members, whatever their views on the cards, to vote against the Bill. The scheme that the Bill presents is simply not ready. If we proceeded with an identity card scheme, we should start by going ahead with some sort of passport biometric—we are told that we must do that for international reasons—but at a much lower level than the Government suggest. We should test the technology for several years to ascertain how it works.

We should move on to getting our NHS medical records database right because that gives immediate benefits to the citizen and would allow us to establish whether we could securely give access to systems at multiple points of contact with our public services. We should then get our national insurance records system right and ensure that there is one number per person in the country so that we can establish whether we are genuinely competent to run such identification regimes. We need to take those steps first and demonstrate that we can fulfil all those tasks before we consider an identity card scheme.

If the Government approached us in four or five years, we could have a reasoned debate about the matter. Even the Government say that the card will be pointless. In a couple of years, they will tell people to pay money and go through all the hassle to get their passports for something that is functionally pointless because a passport is good enough; an identity card as well would be unnecessary. The system and the scheme may change in the intervening period. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

Even if hon. Members support identity cards, they should seriously consider whether they want to support the Bill. It is clearly being introduced for political reasons. It is outrageous of the Home Secretary to say that, if the Conservatives vote against something that will not be effected for several years, it makes them the friends of the terrorists. That accusation is normally made against us. It is an absurd assertion.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will my hon. Friend give way one more time?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

No. If hon. Members believe that the Bill does not pass the tests of proportionality and necessity and that too much uncertainty remains about exactly what we are being asked to buy and how much it will cost; and if hon. Members believe that any additional money for which Parliament asks from citizens could be better spent on other measures to achieve the same objectives, I urge them to vote against the Bill.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Opposition spokesman criticised the Government—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I can already sense that it is not a point of order but a point of debate.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I shall let the hon. Member try again, but I hope that he will not take up too much time.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that new clause 2 was not selected by the Speaker and that that is the reason why it was not debated?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The record will show that. This particular occupant of the Chair does not have such recall, but I am sure that the record will show whether that is correct.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. My position has always been clear. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and the more I hear about it, the less I like it. I shall vote against it again this evening.

I agree with one point that the Home Secretary made. I do not agree with much that he said about the measure but he was right about the Tory Front-Bench position. It is pathetic not to be able to reach a decision about whether to vote for or against such an important measure on Third Reading. We have had a limited time for debate this afternoon, but what are the reasons for that? The usual Front-Bench channels made agreements to discuss the measure on a Thursday, when there is one less hour for debate, so those on the Tory Front Bench are shedding crocodile tears.

Listening to the debates on some of the amendments this afternoon, I felt as though I was listening to discussions about angels on pinheads, because, however we amend the Bill, we cannot make it acceptable. What it sets out to do is fundamentally objectionable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised a host of objections to it, and I have just had a brief chance to read through the Government's response to them. It does not really answer them.

On Second Reading, we debated issues such as whether the cards would become compulsory. I am absolutely sure that it will become compulsory to have this card, because the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that this was the first step towards compulsion. We also discussed disclosure to service providers, the police and people in the private sector, and the audit trail that will exist. The real problem with this measure will be the register, rather than having to carry a card.

The public's view on this will change. At the moment, we might find 80 per cent. of people saying that they support the measure, but once they realise that they are going to have to have these things, their view will change. Once the next, short step is taken, as I believe it undoubtedly will be, and carrying the card becomes compulsory, public opinion will certainly shift. We are going down a very dangerous road.

Everyone here knows which people will be the most likely to be asked to produce their card when it becomes compulsory to carry one. All the evidence from every European country that has cards—including those where they are voluntary—shows that the people who are most often asked to produce their card are from minority ethnic communities. To pretend, as the Government did in their race relations assessment, that this measure will actually improve race relations, strikes me as absurd.

I do not like enabling legislation of this kind. A mass of detail remains to be introduced in secondary legislation, which means that it will never be properly debated in this place. Of course, we cannot amend secondary legislation, so whatever form it takes, we shall just have to take it or leave it. I am also unconvinced that the Home Office can produce information technology infrastructure that will work, which could perhaps be the saving grace in all this. This concept is fundamentally flawed in principle, and we should not be going down this road.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I entirely agree with the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Indeed, he made his points with a great clarity that I could not surpass. I shall confine myself to speaking for just a few minutes.

It is not right to say that the Bill has been properly debated. The Home Secretary is wrong about that. Had he been present during the Report stage, he would have appreciated that fact. He has only to look at early-day motion 684, which has been signed by many of his hon. Friends, to see what was omitted in Committee.

I am perfectly willing to accept that there are some benefits to be gained from identification cards. The question is: how do they weigh in the balance with the disadvantages? I agree entirely that the money involved in this provision could be spent very much better in dealing with its stated objectives differently. I am extremely sceptical about the ability of the technology to deliver, and, if it fails, very serious injustice could result. I question whether the measures will address the questions of terrorism or serious fraud, because a high proportion of such cases rest on questions not of concealed identity but of concealed circumstances or concealed intentions.

On matters of principle, I shall confine myself to two points. First, I believe that this represents a huge extension of statism. We are changing the relationship between the individual and the state, and we should not do that without a really compelling reason.

Secondly, I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Inevitably, what will happen down the track if this policy is to be made effective is that the citizen will have to carry and produce an identity card on demand. He is entirely right that that will bear down most oppressively on the ethnic minority communities.

I have been in the House long enough to remember the old sus laws and what rows they caused. I do not wish to create a situation in which the ordinary citizen can be arrested for not carrying a card. That is the inevitable consequence of that which we do today. It is wrong in principle. I hope that my party will change its mind and vote against this Bill.

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

I want to speak in favour of the Bill. It is supported overwhelmingly by more than 90 per cent. of my constituents in Hodge Hill. They will be surprised and disappointed to hear about the Liberal Democrat and Conservative position tonight. Not too long ago, Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members voted in favour of a ten-minute Bill supporting the principle of ID cards. They will also remember that more than a decade ago, the Leader of the Opposition, as he is now, said to his party conference:

"In time, carrying an ID card would seem as natural as carrying a credit card."

My constituents will be particularly perplexed to hear the Liberal Democrat position that this money would be best spent on police, because this is not public money. This is money raised from individual contributions. No one in the House would seriously propose that one should finance the police by passing a hat around in the community and hiring as many police officers as one could afford from what is left in the pot. That is the implication, however, of the Liberal Democrat policy in this area.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us what the Prime Minister said about ID cards at the same time?

Liam Byrne (Labour, Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

Can I remind the hon. Gentleman what his colleague the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said in the police revenue debate last week? He said that his answer was

"to relate the policing of an area directly to the amount that people pay to support that policing."—[Official Report, 2 February 2005; Vol.430, c. 885.]

He was unable to refute the charge that that would end up with rich communities hiring more police while the rest of us were left in the lurch.

People in Hodge Hill see three clear reasons why this Bill deserves their support: it is a fast track to a fairer deal in public services; it is the best means that we have for tackling illegal immigration; and it is another spoke in the wheel for tackling global terrorism.

Many Members will have read the report of the 9/11 commission and will have seen, like me, the conclusion:

"For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack."

The report continued:

"We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by . . . authorities."

That is exactly the kind of development that ID cards will allow, and that is why the proposal deserves commendation from both sides of the House.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I shall vote in principle against the Bill tonight. I shall do so because it fails to meet the four tests enunciated excellently by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. It will not protect civil liberties, it will not work to curb terrorism, it will not be cost-effective and I have serious doubts as to whether the Home Office is in any event capable of implementing it within any kind of meaningful time frame.

I am proud that my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Gainsborough, Harry Crookshank, when Postmaster General, four months after the Conservatives won the 1951 election, abolished ID cards. He came to the House and said that the Conservative Government believe that

"it is no longer necessary to require the public to possess and produce an identity card, or to notify change of address for National Registration purposes".—[Official Report, 21 February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 415.]

That was a popular policy. Our policy of getting a grip and asking questions about the identity card is also right.

That abolition of ID cards in 1951 came on the back of the case of Clarence Willcock—[Interruption.] He was a Liberal; quite right. He was stopped in the street, his card was demanded by the police and he refused to produce it. Lord Chief Justice Goddard said that ID cards were an "annoyance" and

"tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers".

We believed then, and I believe now, that ID cards are appropriate only in wartime.

I do not want to live in a "Your papers, please" society. One reason why ID cards were abolished in 1951 was that people remembered the cry in wartime Europe, "Ihre Papieren, bitte!" We do not want that sort of society here, and that is what will happen. As night follows day, the police will start to demand that people produce their ID cards. That is why I shall vote, in principle, against the Bill.

Mention has been made of my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. If this Bill becomes an Act and it actually happens—we know that the chance of ID cards actually happening is very remote—there will be numerous PAC reports, showing that it is way out of budget. The initial estimate was £1.3 billion, then £3.1 billion and now £5 billion. When is it going to stop? The card will not curb terrorism or stop illegal immigrants. What it will do is cost us a lot of money and fundamentally attack our civil liberties. I urge the House to reject it.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

It is normal practice for the Opposition to complain about the lack of parliamentary time. We did so when we were in opposition, but on this occasion, I agree that inadequate time has been allotted for such an important measure. It should not have been crowded in on a Thursday and there should have been far greater examination of the detail. If I may say so, I know that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the allocation of time, but we should have had at least two days. I genuinely regret that, irrespective of one's views, inadequate time has been allotted to examine the measure on Report.

I remain unpersuaded that ID cards are needed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—if he is listening—referred to a number of countries, including fellow members of the European Union, that have identity cards, but those countries have exactly the same the problems that we have. They face the same problems of terrorism, as we have seen in Madrid, corruption, illegal working and so forth. No argument has yet been put forward to explain how identity cards, biometric or otherwise, will resolve the problems that we, in common with other European countries that have such cards, face.

Yes, identity cards may be popular at the moment, as has been said. For all I know, it may be that 80 per cent. of the population are in favour, but high expectation is the reason for that. People believe at this stage that the cards will help to resolve the problems of illegal working, illegal immigration and all the rest of it. I believe that when people realise, as they are bound to do, that the cards offer no panacea, their expectations will drop a great deal. Undoubtedly, one question that some people will ask is, as with child support legislation, "What examination was given to the Identity Cards Bill as it went through Parliament?" They will ask how much time was allotted to examine it in full detail.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

rose—

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I shall continue, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

As to costs, I agree—it has to be said, it is usually on very rare occasions—with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Whatever the estimated cost now, it will prove to be much more at the end of it all.

I know that other Members want to speak, so I shall finish by saying that I am going to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I remain uneasy. I believe that the Bill will lead to an infringement of civil liberties. As I said in an intervention earlier, if I believed that it could be an effective tool against international terrorism—I am the last person to underestimate the terrorist threat—I would simply enter the Aye Lobby and vote accordingly. I am not so persuaded. I am uneasy because I feel that we are going down a wrong path. I may be proved wrong and the Government may be proved right, but at present, I remain uneasy about the unnecessary infringement of civil liberties. I believe that we can live without identity cards as we have done for more than half a century. For all those reasons, I simply cannot support the measure. The only option is to vote against it.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Government say that identity cards are necessary. William Pitt, as long ago as 1783, said:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Moreover, the Labour party has not always enunciated this position:

"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory identity cards, as the Tory right demands, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities."

So said the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, at the 1995 Labour party conference. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) seriously thinks that he advances the calibre of the argument by quoting what was said by other people in the past, he will learn in this place that two can play at that game.

I am interested in a more serious debate. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration know that I am very ready to pay tribute to the Government when I think that they are right. However, we should be unremitting in our criticism of them when they are wrong. Today, hon. Members from all the different political traditions have explained eloquently that the Government are wrong.

The Government's arguments have shown no sureness of touch. They have shifted their position constantly—one minute, it is a question of reducing the threat from terrorists, the next it is about reducing illegal immigration, and the next it is about reducing benefit fraud. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), took the biscuit when he asserted 18 months ago that the merit of the introduction of identity cards—eventually to become compulsory—was that they would enable us to assert our "sense of belonging".

Many people in this country feel a sense of alienation, from the Government or their local community, or both. I have yet to meet a single constituent in Buckingham who has said to me, "John, I feel a terrible inability to assert my sense of belonging because I do not possess an identity card."

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Does my hon. Friend agree that even those of us who believe in identity cards and who have argued for them for years cannot support this Bill, as the Government have not even allowed Ministers enough time to explain their case and respond to any of our debates? That is why I feel that I must vote against the Bill. It has nothing to do with identity cards, but with the abuse of this House on an important constitutional matter.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My right hon. Friend is right. In politics, as in life as a whole, self-knowledge is a valuable thing. The Home Secretary has gravely embarrassed himself by his behaviour. If he is not aware of that simple fact, he needs to go away for a bit of therapeutic reconditioning.

The arguments against the Bill are powerful. First, it involves a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, to the disadvantage of the citizen. Secondly, as many hon. Members have explained, it is virtually certain that there will be a growth in function creep. If that were not the case, why do no fewer than 25 out of the Bill's 45 clauses provide for order-making powers? The Bill is littered with phrases such as "the Secretary of State may at any time decide", "the Secretary of State may by order", "the Secretary of State may as he thinks fit", or "regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide." That is not acceptable.

There is a real problem to do with discrimination, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) powerfully explained. After the recent improvement in race relations, we risk taking a retrograde step. The House should take care to resist any idea of putting a match to gunpowder.

The argument to do with cost has been made, but I shall conclude with the argument about public opinion. The Government have propagated a very downmarket line of argument. We all quote polls when it suits us, but I remind the House that we are elected representatives. I am not a robot, a sheep or a button to be pressed. I have a responsibility to look at the issues, study the legislation, identify the arguments and make a judgment. It is risible to contend that we need simply say, "Oh, the opinion polls show 80 per cent. in favour." Everyone knows that there was mass support in Australia for the introduction of identity cards, but people there recognised the drawbacks when they saw the real implications. They knew the impracticalities, they appreciated the threats to their liberty and they turned against the proposal.

People in this country will turn against the proposal too, and against the Home Secretary and he will richly deserve the hostility of the public when that happens. He will not be laughing—he will need to take cover. I shall vote against Third Reading.

Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)

I was one of those who voted for the Bill with considerable reservations on Second Reading in the hope that the Committee stage and today's Third Reading would resolve them. However, the more I have heard today and the more I study the Bill, the more my reservations, far from being resolved, have been aggravated. I was looking for a tightly drawn Bill with plenty of checks and balances, the right for individuals to access information, the right to prompt redress from the commissioner, and a good, strong commissioner.

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration attempted, nobly, to try to address some of those problems—

It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].