Identity Cards Bill

Public Bill Committee, 12 July 2005.

Standing Committee D

Identity Cards Bill

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Copies of the programme motion, which was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee last Thursday, are available in the Room. I remind the Committee that the debate on the motion may continue for up to half an hour.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee recommends that the programme order of the House [28th June 2005] should be amended by substituting ''21st July'' for ''19th July'';

(2) the Order of the Committee of 5th July be amended by the addition of the following subparagraph to paragraph (1)—

''(f) at 9.15 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 21st July;''

(3) the Order of the Committe of 5th July be further amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (3)—

''(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the following Table.

TABLE ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1,Clauses 4 and 54.05 p.m. on Tuesday 12th July Clauses 6 to 109.20 a.m. on Thursday 14th July Clauses 11 to 131.05 p.m. on Thursday 14th July Clauses 14 to 1810.35 a.m. on Tuesday 19th July Remaining proceedings6.00 p.m. on Thursday 21st July

This motion seeks to revise the original order, because we have somewhat reluctantly accepted that we are not making enough progress on the Bill, and there needs to be more discipline in the timetable for debates. At the start of our proceedings, we said clearly that we did not want to force the pace of debate and that all our deliberations would have to be seen in the context of the debate now being three years old. The consultation paper was issued in 2002. The Bill, or one similar to it, has been ''pre-leg'' scrutinised, if that is the appropriate phrase, and examined through all its Commons stages. We are not discussing new material. The previous Bill was dispatched in eight Committee sittings. If we were to carry on as we are now, having used 40 per cent. of the allotted time in Committee to debate two clauses, we would be here until Christmas if there were no such motion.

The motion will do two things. First, it will introduce two further sittings and amend the out date to 21 July. Even in the context of discussing a similar Bill in only eight sittings, there will be potential for what is essentially the same Bill to be discussed in up to 14 sittings. We are relaxed about that additional time, but we cannot use it at the lamentable pace of our deliberations thus far.

We have dealt with barely two out of 45 clauses and two schedules. We have concluded debates on 35 amendments, and even including the group of amendments that we were debating when the Committee adjourned on Thursday, I reckon that we have covered 52 amendments out of a total of 211 amendments that have been tabled, leaving a further 159 amendments to be discussed. That is simply not good enough. We are happy to introduce more time formally in respect of the programme motion, but also, as I said earlier, with additional sittings at the least on Tuesdays and, if we need them, on subsequent Wednesdays. However, we can do that only if sense and discipline are brought into our deliberations.

Secondly, the motion will introduce knives. They will allow us to conclude our sitting this morning, having discussed the remaining elements of clause 3, schedule 1 and clauses 4 and 5. The knives will then be put in when we consider it appropriate in common with the table in the programme motion.

I tabled the motion merely in the interests of the Committee, and no more. The Bill is important, but it has been around the block since 2004. A similar Bill was subject to full Commons proceedings. I remind the Committee that it was dispatched in eight sittings. We are now offering up to 14 sittings for the Bill currently under discussion, but in that context, there must be knives. I commend the motion to the Committee in generous terms and in the hope that it will help to focus our deliberations and bring a bit of discipline into them; the fact that we have spent 40 per cent. of our time on two and a half clauses is not good enough, regardless of one's views of the Bill.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for the gentle way in which he introduced the motion, but I do not agree with a word that he said. He asked for discipline. Well, Mr. Hood, I think that you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Gale, would both agree that we have not been ill-disciplined during the proceedings. There has been no interruption from a Minister or the Government Whip to say that the Opposition have been wasting time and prolonging debate for the sake of it. Although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary attempted at one stage to suggest that a wrecking amendment had been tabled, I was able to correct him with the backing of Mr. Gale. No such amendment had been tabled—and if one had, it certainly would not have been selected.

As far as procedure and what has appeared on the amendment paper are concerned, there can be no criticism from the Government.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

With respect, I do not think that anyone who heard the first stage of our proceedings and the very extended discussions of different ways in which people could be dead could possibly have said that time was not being wasted.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I was certainly not dead during our first discussions and I do not remember, alive as I was, an extended discussion of how people could be dead. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is unworthy. I see that he has tabled some amendments that we will come to later in our proceedings, and I hope that we shall have adequate time to discuss them. I am sure that he would be most disappointed if we did not have that time.

The Minister said that this debate was three years old, but that is hardly the point. Lots of things of interest to the public that affect public policy and how we deal with legislation in this House are not new ideas. Very little that this Government have thought of has been a new idea, and all items of legislation, particularly at the Home Office, take time to gestate. We have to realise that this is a new Bill in a new Parliament and a new Standing Committee. We are perfectly entitled to fulfil our duties as Members of Parliament and members of this Committee to scrutinise this legislation. Although it is not incorrect for the Minister to say that this Bill is a descendant of one that has previously been discussed, that is beside the point.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is here as a Parliamentary Private Secretary or an intervener. Either way, I shall listen to her.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am grateful as a Committee member to be given the opportunity to debate this matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving way.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was making a point about the history of this Bill. One would hope that members of a new Committee in a new Parliament could look at both the pre-legislative scrutiny and the previous Committee proceedings, of which I was a part, take something from them and, having built on that experience, expedite proceedings now.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

We have done both those things. The hon. Lady reminds me of one of her parliamentary colleagues, who turned to me in the Tea Room after the 1997 election when the Labour Government were returned with a majority of 140 or 145 seats—I cannot remember the precise figure—and said, ''I cannot understand why we need to have debates at all. We have just been elected with a massive majority. Our entire manifesto should simply be turned into legislation without debate.'' I am afraid that I nearly choked in my tea, but there we are.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

It may sound immodest to say so, but there are two new Conservative Committee members, and colleagues from other parties have not had their chance to debate the issues. Why should those hon. Members simply read what others have said in debates, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) suggested? Are they not here to debate these matters for themselves?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is deeply boring to be a Member of the Government party in Committee, because such Members are not encouraged to intervene. The hon. Member for Colne Valley is an exception; she has been a hugely interesting contributor to our debates, as my hon. Friends will agree. No doubt she will wish to intervene on many other occasions, particularly to scrutinise the detail of the legislation and cross-examine the Ministers as they seek to advance the Government's policy. I look forward to hearing her, knives or no knives.

The Minister said that we had used 40 per cent. of our time dealing with not quite three clauses, and he is right. I am afraid that that is not our fault, however, but that of the Government. They decided the timetable, and we are merely creatures of that; we must operate within the timetable that they set.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have a minor correction to make: the timetable has been agreed through the usual channels. It is not a Government-imposed timetable. The usual channels agreed 10 sittings and that is the end of the story.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Far be it for me to suggest that the Minister is misleading himself, but that line was attempted on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made it clear in an intervention on his opposite number—I cannot remember whether it was made at the Dispatch Box or from a sedentary position, but I was next to him at the time—that there is no such agreement. We all know what the phrase ''the usual channels'' means. It means that the Government say, ''This is what we are doing. Take it or leave it'', and we simply have to do what the Government insist.

Let us not be naïve about this: the Government control the agenda of the House of Commons. The Executive sit in, and on, the House of Commons. I do not complain about that. When we are in government we will no doubt do things that are deeply disobliging to the Labour Opposition. Right now, I am in the Opposition and Labour Members are in government. They have to make the case for the extension or restriction of the time that we have to debate this issue—end of story. We have used 40 per cent. of the time that the Government suggested to Parliament that we should have. That is fair enough. However, that is their problem and they have been hoist by their own petard.

The Government have a choice. They could allow the Bill to be debated properly and to receive the proper scrutiny that it deserves. That may mean that we run beyond the end of the summer term. There is no problem with that, because this is an enabling Bill, which provides for 60 regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, and in practice the consequences of its enactment cannot take effect until 2007–08. As I understand it, nothing in the Bill will happen for a good many years yet. There is no particular hurry to rush the Bill through its Committee stage by the end of the summer term.

In any event, the Government are hoist by their own petard. They could face up to the fact that the Bill, as knifed and guillotined, will not have received proper debate. We might be out of Committee by 21 July—I make no complaint about the extra day—having, in the Government's words, considered every clause and every schedule. However, we know that the reality is that we shall not have done so. Alternatively, we could stick to the 21 July date and face the reality of getting only halfway through the Bill. The Government can choose between one unsatisfactory outcome and another. They cannot claim on 21 July or when we get back to Report in October that the Bill has been properly scrutinised in Committee. Making such a claim would be presenting an entirely false case. They must realise that that is the fact of the matter.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Yes, of course. I hope that the hon. Lady's career is advancing well.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he will allow me to make an observation as a new Member. Would it not be better if we used this time debating the clauses?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Lady might be a new Member, but she does not advance a new argument. I assure her that if she serves on many other Committees, she will find that the Government find debate inconvenient. It is not unusual for Government Members to say, ''Rather than complaining about the knives and the guillotine, wouldn't it be a better idea just to get on with the debate?'' I assure her that in a Bill with 45 clauses and two schedules, taking half an hour to expose the weakness of the Government's case on the knifing and guillotining policy is time well spent. It may be inconvenient, and I am sorry about that.

Judging by the hon. Lady's contribution to the previous few sittings, I expect that she is itching to say just as much over the next few. I apologise to her, but my job is not to please the Government or her; it is to do what I can to improve the legislation, to ensure that it is properly scrutinised and to defend the rights of Parliament against the Executive.

The Minister told us that his motion was in the Committee's interests. Frankly, that is a secondary point. The question of what is in the interests of good legislation and of the general public whom we represent in this House is a primary point. I am unconvinced that the knives will achieve anything other than butchered scrutiny that produces inept legislation. Although I am delighted that we can sit on 21 July, I fear that the Government have wholly mismanaged the Bill's programme and that when it leaves Committee we will be dissatisfied because we as parliamentarians will not have done a good job for our constituents.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I wonder whether I am the only Committee member who finds the hon. and learned Gentleman's description of the usual channels so profoundly depressing. If I understood him correctly, he told us that the function of the usual channels was to ensure that the Government got their own way all the time, and that that was all right because if the Conservatives were in government they would do the same. That suggests that our purpose is not to engage in proper argument but merely to rehearse positions determined only by which political side we are on. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right about that, it was depressing to hear.

We have not made dramatic progress with this legislation. That is because the meat of the Bill is in the first three clauses—in the creation of the database, and the construction of information that will be registrable. The time that we have spent on the consideration of those clauses has not been time wasted. That goes to the heart of my concern about the timetable motion. I am worried about the inclusion of knives. If we had started off with a timetable motion that included knives, we would not have had some of the useful debates that we have had. A good example of that is the debate that was had on rebuttable or conclusive presumptions; it was a classic of the Committee debate genre, and, because of when it occurred, I suspect that it would not have taken place because the knife would have fallen at a much earlier stage.

I am grateful to the Government for making extra time available; that is necessary. However, unfortunately, I will be unable to support the timetable motion because of the inclusion of the knives; as a matter of principle, I believe that they are not helpful or conducive to good debate.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

I had no intention of speaking. In common with many Labour Committee members, I wish to speak to other clauses, and if we were to continue in the current way I would be unable to speak to some of them. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) might be picking sides, but I am here to represent my constituents and the people of the country, and to speak for those who cannot speak here today. In my own humble way, I want to look after people who have a disability, or are elderly, or who might not be able to understand what is happening in respect of this Bill today. That is my job. The hon. Gentleman might think that I have chosen a side, but I happen to be a member of the Labour party and I am here to speak for those people. I take great exception to someone saying that I do not do so.

We have discussed this matter before. I sat on the Committee that dealt with the previous Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was a victim of his own Front-Bench colleagues in debates on that earlier Bill, when they proceeded in countless sittings to discuss the same clauses that we have spoken on so far in this Committee. I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it appears that his colleagues are doing the same thing to him.

I and other Members wish to speak on other clauses, and I fear that, if we introduce knives, discussion of them might be cut out. However, the Bill should be dealt with in the period that we want; it is important for this country to get the legislation on to the statute book. I blame Opposition members for the waste of time. I want them to go and look at themselves in the mirror and realise what they may have done to people who need our representation today. It is all very well for the Opposition to turn around and blame the Government for everything, and to blame our Front Bench for introducing these measures, but if the Opposition had treated the arguments properly, and had made their points and speeches succinctly, this programme motion would not be before us today.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, which clearly come from the heart, and for the sympathy that he expresses; I can see that it is quickly turning into empathy.

I suffered throughout the previous consideration of the Bill, and I take exception to the Minister's comments about lack of discipline. If he thinks that he sees lack of discipline here, what on earth did he see during the Bill's previous passage through Committee? Then, there were constant interventions from all parties. Those in the Chair had to make the point very clearly that we were digressing and I seem to remember the Minister's predecessor making a speech that went on for one hour and forty-something minutes—a very lengthy speech that was probably not necessary. Certainly, the Minister is speaking very far from the point when he complains about a lack of discipline.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) touched on an important point: we are here not necessarily—and certainly not first of all—to represent our parties. We are here to represent the people who elected us. The hon. Gentleman feels strongly, as he should do, about people with disabilities and those who will have physical difficulty complying with the Bill, but there are so many other considerations. I feel desperately strongly about clause 8, for instance. The workings of the card itself are something that I wish to debate in detail.

So far, we have talked at length about the register. That is fine, but that is a completely separate and discrete argument from that on the issue of the cards. I have heard so many Members on the Labour Benches tell me how much support the register and cards enjoy among their constituents. The hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke extremely lucidly last week about the expressions of sympathy for the issue in south Yorkshire. However, I am afraid that I cannot reflect such a feeling in north Nottinghamshire. Perhaps we both live in bubbles and are inured to the true feeling of our constituents; I do not know. But I would like the opportunity to discuss what my constituents feel about the subject, and the fact that they do not wish to pay perhaps several hundred pounds—let us find out the exact amount in debate—for the cards.

That is why I do not want knives to be introduced, and why I wish to continue using disciplined debate to find out about those things that affect our constituents deeply. I resent the use of knives, and the fact that I and many other hon. Members sat here during the previous Committee sittings hearing flannel and tosh talked by a number of people. That actually prevented us from talking about the important issues. I do not believe that anything that we have said so far is ill disciplined or improper. We may have been able to indulge in a certain amount of light-heartedness—I think that that is good—but the fact remains that the events of last week add a new focus to the Bill. Those events give us a duty to remember exactly where that focus lies.

I welcome the additional time that the Government have given us, but as for the idea of introducing knives to our proceedings, if parts of the Bill go undebated, we are mis-serving not just our constituents but our country.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I shall try to keep my remarks especially brief if we are to get through the debate on the motion in the time specified.

I take what the hon. Gentleman says at face value, but it is fair to say that although the role of the Opposition is to oppose, it is also to understand the mood of the House. It is very difficult to understand the mood of the House. It is fair to say that I have some misgivings about some parts of the Bill, but Committee members may never hear those; we shall never get through to them unless there is some discipline among the Opposition.

I hope that the Opposition will see the value of the knives so that we can get through this Bill and hear from both sides of the House. I shall try to represent the views and misgivings of Labour Members. So far there has been no chance to do so because we have taken so long to go such a little way along the path of getting through the Bill. I hope that we shall speed up a little bit; then, perhaps, the knives will be unnecessary. However, unless the Opposition hear very clearly what is now being said, I fear that our path will be slow and rocky. There should be a lot more discipline on all sides.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I shall be brief, Mr. Hood. I was not on the last Committee and could not contribute to the debate on the ID card when the issue was initially introduced. I did not have the honour of hearing the hon. Member for Colne Valley during the previous Committee. However, it is important that this time there are three Committee members with counter-terrorism experience; one was on the previous Committee, but two were not. We also have with us a very learned Member who understands the law and how it works in court.

Yes, our discussions have taken time, but some clauses at the beginning of the Bill are more important than some later ones, so why should they not be debated at length as they come up so that their importance is reflected? So far, during all the hours of discussion about which the Government complain, how many points have they conceded? How many points have they listened to and done something about? Not one—they have dismissed them as if they counted for nothing, although many people have strong feelings about them.

I apologise that I was not here earlier, but I had to wait for a Labour Member to step aside to allow me to attend the Committee in the new Parliament. There are people with experience who have points to contribute, and introducing knives to the Committee will damage that process. Let us remember that the Government could put a programme motion before the House and ask for consideration to span the recess. That is in their power, but I wonder whether Labour Committee members will support that.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, although we can have discussions and points can be made, there is no point in having five inputs from his side, all saying the same thing but involving a different story?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps we should have just one Conservative Committee member to make our arguments. Would that be more convenient for the Government? We can glance around the Room and see how many Labour Committee members have been eager to contribute with amendments. I cannot see many amendments tabled by them on the amendment paper, although I know that a few would like to make proposals.

We look forward to some of those amendments, including that of the hon. Gentleman, but he should understand that although his amendment comes later, it may be as important as the amendments that we tabled on clauses at the beginning of the Bill. Therefore, I do not think that knives are constructive in this debate, nor, given the impact of ID cards, will it benefit any of us to rush this through.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.

Clause 3 - Information recorded in Register

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 130, in clause 3, page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (5).

No. 131, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out subsection (6).

No. 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out 'consistent with' and insert 'necessary for'.

No. 132, in clause 3, page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (7).

No. 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 13, leave out from 'order' to 'unless' in line 15 and insert 'under this section'.

No. 188, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out from second 'provision' to 'unless' in line 15 and insert

'that the Secretary is authorised to make by this section'.

No. 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 16, at end add—

'(8) Particulars relating to disclosure of information about an individual from the Register which falls within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 must be retained in that individual's entry in the Register if that disclosure did not have the consent of that individual.

(9) In the case of particulars which are contained in personal data as a result of the requirement specified in subsection (8), the Information Commissioner shall, following consultation with relevant persons including the Commissioner established under this Act, publish criteria which specify the circumstances when such particulars can be removed from the Register.'.

No. 26, in clause 3, page 4, line 16, at end add—

'(8) No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision;

(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal;

(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and

(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.

No. 28, in schedule 1, page 40, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

No. 29, in schedule 1, page 40, line 30, at end insert

'and his ID card number, which shall be the same'.

No. 30, in schedule 1, page 40, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

No. 31, in schedule 1, page 41, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (l).

No. 32, in schedule 1, page 41, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (m).

No. 33, in schedule 1, page 42, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (g).

No. 34, in schedule 1, page 43, leave out lines 1 to 9.

No. 118, in clause 43, page 37, line 5, at end insert—

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

No. 119, in clause 43, page 37, line 11, at end insert—

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

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I was drawing my remarks to a close at the end of the last sitting. It is important that the Committee recognise that amendment No. 34 is intended to tie down the Government on the purpose of the Bill. It was said that the database will be used to verify the identity of an individual presenting an ID card and that it will exist for that purpose alone. It will carry a certain amount of information, as described in clause 1, but it will also hold footprint information on credit reference and so forth. That will show the pattern of people's lives and behaviour in a way that goes beyond the purpose of the register according to how the Government originally introduced it.

The Minister said that only in limited circumstances will certain organisations or agencies be allowed to look at that extra footprint information. He assured us that they will not be allowed to browse through that information, but nothing in the Bill, or in the other relevant Acts that I have looked at, prescribes that focused purpose of those agencies by telling them, ''You can't browse through that information, but you must request it only on very specific issues.'' Such a statement does not exist; that is in the gift of the Home Secretary.

Clause 19, which addresses the other allowed uses of the register, says that the

''provision of information is authorised by this section where it is''

to ''the Security Service'', the ''Secret Intelligence Service'', GCHQ and the ''Serious Organised Crime Agency''. They will be allowed to look through the information if that is for the purposes of their function.

It is important to cross-reference with the Security Service Act 1989 to discover what is the purpose of the Security Service. Section 1 of that Act was amended in 1996, but subsection (3), which was not amended, states:

''It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom''.

That is a very general description. When the Labour party was in opposition, I remember that it accused the security services of using that function so as to listen to and monitor strike leaders during the miners' strike. I say to Members with misgivings that that Act and this Bill authorise the security services to look at information relevant under paragraph 9 of schedule 1. That is one of the functions provided.

Let us consider GCHQ's functions, as described in the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Section 3(1)(a) states that one of its function is

''to monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions and to obtain and provide information derived from or related to such emissions or equipment and from encrypted material''.

The point I am making is that those functions are widely drawn in these Acts. Therefore, a powerful individual in the guise of the Home Secretary is involved with the security services. He has the ability to authorise people to look at the information. In some cases, he is almost prevented from stopping them looking at it because they are allowed to do so by the very nature of the Acts that put them in place—the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Security Service Act 1989.

Therefore, if the Minister wants to put safeguards on the information, the best way to do so might be to remove the footprint purpose of the register—to remove it recording all the questions put to it—such that it still serves its purpose and still verifies the individual and their card against the database. Alternatively, he could come to this Committee or to the House with more detail on the times when he will allow those agencies or public authorities mentioned in clause 19 access to that information.

When, exactly, can those organisations have the information? I am not talking in terms of each case or just their general function. I am asking for what purpose, and when, can they do that. This should be done to safeguard people's civil liberties in that environment and to allow them to understand the situation. The Minister could add to the list limited circumstances in which other people will also be able to have access to the information.

This issue is the crux of the matter, which is why it is important to spend time on it. We are moving from the database being used for verification to its holding more than that. It will hold data on people's behaviour, traits and pattern. The Minister might want to come forward and say, ''No, we need it because it is about counter-terrorism. We make advantage from it.'' However, he should make that case, not hide it behind the central database of a register for verification. It is more than that. This is where the concerns about civil liberties lie.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Let me deal first with the lead amendment. I will then address some of, but not all, the subsequent amendments. Clause 3(4) provides that information

''may continue to be recorded in the Register for so long as it is consistent with the statutory purposes for it to be so recorded.''

Amendment No. 22, which we dealt with some time ago, would take out the words ''consistent with'' and replace them with the words ''necessary for''. Clause 3(6) empowers the Secretary of State to make an order adding to the information that may be recorded on the register where he considers, again, that it will be ''consistent with'' the statutory purposes to do so. Amendment No. 23 would change that test to one of ''necessary for'' statutory purposes.

One can only assume that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is of the view that the amendments would impose a higher test than the one that is in the Bill for the retention of existing information and the addition of further information. One also assumes that he seeks consistency with the fifth data protection principle, which states:

''Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.''

The second of the two statutory purposes—we always return to those—is in clause 1(3)(b). It is to provide

''a secure and reliable method for registrable facts about . . . individuals to be ascertained or verified wherever that is necessary in the public interest.''

The test in clause 3 of ''consistent with'' the statutory purposes must therefore be read in the light of the necessity test that is built into the statutory purposes. The net result provides no less protection than would a double necessity test. Furthermore, it is not inconsistent with the fifth data protection principle.

In other words, as I have said on previous occasions, one always has to return to the building blocks that permeate clauses 1, 2 and 3. The necessity test that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks is in clause 1(3) rather than in clause 3.

Amendment No. 26, tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would require a super-affirmative resolution for any orders amending schedule 1, whether they added or removed information. Amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132, tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would require further primary legislation if the schedule ever needed modification, as they would remove the possibility of modifying the schedule by secondary legislation.

Two further amendments, Nos. 24 and 188, would make any orders either adding information to or removing it from the schedule subject to affirmative orders. That would not be an effective use of parliamentary time. There is already suitable scrutiny to safeguard people's privacy with a balance of negative and affirmative resolution procedures and the requirement that information may be added only if it is consistent with the statutory purposes.

The statutory purposes are not there for fun or just to make the Bill's first three clauses consistent. They are a real test and everything that flows from them needs to be seen in that regard. We shall resist those initial amendments. Although I understand where they are coming from, we do not agree with them.

As for the footprint—the tail end of paragraph 9 of schedule 1—I do not agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). With due apology, he was again using sloppy language. He talked about a credit reference. There will be no record on the database of someone applying for a credit reference. As paragraph 9 states, entries will record when there has been an attempt to verify. The hon. Gentleman talked about identifying people's traits and other elements.

Mr. Wallace rose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall not give way for the moment. The hon. Gentleman's argument is simply hot air and not sustained by the Bill in its language. His other points about previous legislation are not terribly relevant because the Bill must be seen in the context of the statutory purposes that I have outlined. For all that he said about prior Acts of Parliament that establish security services or otherwise and that bring them into the open, that does not matter other than in the context of the statutory purposes under the Bill.

I am sure that what I am about to say is the wrong interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it could really be about trying to limit the efficacy and efficiency of those services. I am sure that that is not what he wants to do. Functions are widely drawn deliberately because of the task and functions that we ask those services to undertake, and that is entirely appropriate.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Of course, I concede the credit reference point, but I want to refer to the footprint made each time people present information for a public service, which they are required to produce, and when they are stopped by the police, register with a GP or attend a hospital and have their details verified. Each time a Minister changes which public services require identification to be established before a service is delivered and the remit widens, the footprint will be there.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

At the risk of boring the Committee, I must pull the hon. Gentleman up on his language again. Nowhere in the Bill is there a provision to be stopped by the police. So will he please not use language or ascribe provisions to the Bill that simply do not exist? Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that the security services could look through the register. Again, that is not strictly correct. The Bill does not allow anyone to look through the register. We must get our language right.

The powers under clause 9 will provide information to the security and intelligence services when they request it from the register. It is like any other element in the verification process. There is not licence in the Bill for anyone to browse, fish or go through the register at length or in any way, shape or form. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will desist from using poorly informed examples or sloppy language to ascribe matters to the Bill that are simply not there.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

There is. Perhaps the Minister was being sloppy in his language by leaving out ''in line with their functions''. The Acts that set out functions, to which I have alluded, allow the security services to request the information in line with their functions. The functions are not specific, so the request could be in line with the function, so it will be order for the Secretary of State to request all information on individuals in a certain part of London. That will be in line with the functions. We could argue about whether that was browsing, focusing or whatever, but it is in line with their functions. The Minister left out ''in line with their functions''.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is actually the next line on my bit of paper, but that is by the by. We could not, by any terms, say that the provision allowed browsing. When the hon. Gentleman referred to earlier legislation, I said very clearly that we were putting on a legislative footing that which was not on such a footing before—that is, the provisions relating to the security services. Everything in the Bill stems from clause 1, so whatever any other legislation says when ascribing functions to the security services—or any other organisation, state or otherwise—all that they can do in relation to the register is in the context of the statutory purposes of the Bill. That is the reference point: those statutory purposes, not any legislation that created an organisation in the first place. Everything in the Bill flows from statutory purposes.

As I was saying before I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene, the powers in clause 19 are to provide information. They are not a licence to go fishing or browsing; they are to provide information to the security and intelligence services when they request any information from the register that is needed to carry out the agency's functions—so, yes, he is right there—in terms of the statutory purposes of the Bill, and no more. It says that on the face of the Bill, right at the start. Clause 1 says what the Bill is about. All the powers and functions in the other 44 clauses that flow from clause 1 stem from statutory purposes.

Two things can happen in Committee: someone alights on a clause and does not read it in the context of the overall Bill—an easy mistake for any Member to make, experienced or otherwise—or someone alights on a reference from another piece of legislation, and looks at the Bill in the context of the old legislation and does not see the wider picture involving the new legislation. There is no facility in the Bill to allow police to stop people and ask for the production of their ID card, and there is certainly no licence for anyone to go fishing or browsing in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

To dwell on what was said on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I take the points made about affirmative versus negative procedure, super-affirmative procedure, and using primary legislation rather than anything else to alter schedule 1, but I simply do not agree.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Before the Minister moves on to my amendment, and following on from the point raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, the Minister is right that there is no power to browse the register, but he must be aware that it is quite possible that, with a minimum of information, the security services could undertake a fishing expedition. I draw a parallel with the granting of warrants. In order to get a warrant for the security services to search a house, reasonable grounds for seeking the warrant have to be shown. Where is the ''reasonable grounds'' protection in this Bill? Who makes sure that the security services, or indeed any other service, is not using the power to obtain information without proper cause?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In the first instance, the Secretary of State, as I understand it. But if that is not the case, I shall certainly come back on the issue.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's points about process and how to change schedule 1, but I simply do not agree with them. We think that schedule 1 is fairly comprehensive, and do not want to add or take away from it. In light of all the other safeguards in the Bill—again, it should be seen simply in its own terms—we think that the procedures in place at secondary level are appropriate.

On the necessity test that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough seeks under amendments Nos. 22 and 23, we argue that that is simply unnecessary, because clause 1 talks about what is necessary for the statutory purposes. That, and the point that we made about ''consistent with'', is the appropriate double lock that he seeks, rather than pursuing amendments Nos. 22 and 23. In that context, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for his arguments, but he has not wholly satisfied me. I fear that quite a lot needs to be done to reassure Conservative Committee members that what we have argued for is incorrect, mistaken or generally misplaced.

I shall start by paraphrasing a remark made by the Minister just now. He said that there was no power in the Bill to allow the police to stop people and demand their identity cards. That is broadly what he said, although I make it clear that I am not using his exact words. He is entirely right. If you look through the Bill from clause 1 to clause 45, Mr. Hood, you will not find any power given to a police officer to stop someone in the street and demand his identity card.

However, that police officer would not be using the Identity Cards Act to do that, but other Acts of Parliament that this Government have passed during the past few years, and possibly the common law. He will stop someone and ask, ''What are you up to? I have a reasonable belief that you are carrying drugs and that you are a criminal of some sort.'' He will then ask, ''Have you got your identity card on you? If you can show me that, I may be the better satisfied as to your bone fides.''

Let us not fool ourselves that this Bill provides the police with the power to stop and search; it does not need to. However, what we have been arguing and suggesting is that the Bill provides an excuse—a pretext—for the identity card and the information contained in the register that underlies it to become part of a routine process. That is not only access creep, but function creep, and the Government need to understand that we are concerned about that.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Clause 18(1)(b) states that it is unlawful for any person

''to make it a condition of doing anything in relation to an individual that the individual establishes his identity by the production of an ID card''.

It would therefore be unlawful for an officer to say, ''I will look on your behaviour more favourably if you can show me an ID card.''

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 18 carefully, he will see that it states:

''It shall be unlawful in cases not falling within subsection (2)''.

He needs to bear that in mind. He may honestly and genuinely believe in what he says, but if he does, I think him naive. If he thinks that the police will not make use of the identity card system and the data register to help them to be useful to the public—

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Why not?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Under-Secretary asks, ''Why not?'' Well then, let us not pretend that this is not about access creep and function creep. We have agreed on that. At last the Committee has produced something of value—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

Order. I thought that I had made it clear earlier in our discussion of the Bill that I would not tolerate Front Benchers chatting to each other across the Committee. If anyone on the Front Bench wants to catch the eye of the person on their feet, they should do so by intervention. I hope that they will help me by not interjecting in debates in such a way in future.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

If the Under-Secretary wants to intervene, he can do so on his feet. I shall sit down while he intervenes.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I apologise, Mr. Hood, for having made an intervention in that way.

A moment ago, the hon. and learned Gentleman questioned whether we had any interest in making the register and the cards useful to the police. I refer him to clause 1(4)(b), which states that the Bill is

''for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime''.

How on earth could the structures that we are creating not be of use to the police? Surely that is at the very heart of the Bill.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Of course they will be useful to the police. That is why the police will use the pretext.

The two Ministers need to have a chat outside. On the one hand, the Minister of State says that there is no power in the Bill that allows the police to stop and search to check identity and so forth; that is a paraphrase, not his exact words. He is right. The Under-Secretary asks, ''Well, what would be wrong with that anyhow?'' He is right too.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I am afraid that I did not say that. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a general statement about our intention to make these systems useful to the police to help them in their job. I referred him back to clause 1, which says that the scheme is about

''the prevention or detection of crime''.

That is entirely different from saying that the police will be given powers across the board to stop and search, and to demand production of a person's identity card. I hope that he understands that distinction.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Perhaps we are having a conversation at cross purposes. I agree with the Minister of State that there is no power in the Bill to allow the police to stop people and say, ''Let's see your identity card''. That may yet come; we have not seen what the 60 regulations will say.

The argument I am making to the Committee simply flows from the Under-Secretary's sedentary intervention, ''Why not? What's wrong with that?'' This system will create a pretext for the police to stop people who currently are allowed to walk across the street without having to demonstrate who they are and that they have an innocent purpose. Of course, they will not say, ''I am stopping you because I have a power under the Identity Cards Bill.'' They will say, ''I am stopping you because I have the reasonable excuse that you are a criminal.'' That may coincide with one of the statutory purposes, but let us not fool ourselves: the Bill, if enacted, will, by virtue of clause 1 and all the other clauses that we have discussed, lead to function creep and to access creep into the register.

The Minister may have a fond hope that that is simply not true, but I predict that over the next 10 or so years there will be a measurable increase in police activity as a consequence of the Bill. They will rely upon things such as the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the common law, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the various anti-terrorist legislation that we have passed—or will pass—this year. Let us not fool ourselves that the Bill will do anything other than add to the pretext that the police will have for requiring people to show their identity cards.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall, but the argument in which I have just been engaging is nothing of a diversion from the main thrust of the clauses. If the hon. Gentleman still wishes to intervene, I do not want to prevent him from doing so.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman arguing that the police will have too many powers to stop people under other Acts or that if they are appropriately stopping people, it is desirable that it should be difficult for them to identify who they are talking to?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not think I am saying either of those things.

Let us move on, because I am in danger of being deflected by the Under-Secretary.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

My hon. and learned Friend is having his time wasted.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I would never say that I am having my time wasted by Ministers, because I admire all that they have to do as Ministers of the Crown. If interrupting me is what they wish to do, I am here to be intervened on.

The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), whose admonition during the earlier debate I accept, were far from convinced in relation to how they anticipated their arguments being dealt with. I believe that the hon. Member for Stroud was correct when he expressed, before we resumed this morning, his concerns about the width of schedule 1. I am not sure that he has received any words of comfort in response to his request for closer definitions in schedule 1.

The hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) have intervened both today and in the earlier debate. I am grateful to them for doing so, because it has helped us to tease out some points that it was necessary to tease out. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has made a significant contribution to our debate on this aspect of the Bill.

I want to make it clear that in calling for a Division on amendment No. 22, I am using it simply as a device by which I can express my opinion—or ask the Committee to express its opinion—about some subsequent amendments relating to clause 3. I accept that amendment No. 22 is not the be-all and end-all of our debate; it just happens to be the first amendment in the group. So, I want the Government to understand that when I press it to a Division, I will be using it to introduce a Division on some more important subsequent amendments that we have discussed.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

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

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 4, page 4, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 207, in clause 4, page 4, line 25, leave out

'otherwise than by virtue of provision so made'.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Clause 4 deals with the designation of documents for the purposes of registration and other unspecified purposes. Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 would affect subsection (2). At the moment, the clause reads:

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

(2) The only documents that may be the subject of an order designating a description of documents for the purposes of this Act are—

(a) documents that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of provision made by or under an enactment; or

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

Subsection (3) deals with the manner in which the orders are to be made.

I wish to register my usual complaint about the powers given to the Secretary of State to make orders that we have not yet seen. I shall bank that argument as one that will recur, which it does with particular force under the clause. What documents under subsection (2) do the Government have in mind? What is their description? What is their category or class? It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking. Short of compulsion, the principal means of creating an incentive to register is through designated documents, so the definition of which documents may be designated needs to be tied down.

At present, the category of documents is so broad or undefined that it could refer to a television licence, a fishing licence or another sort of promissory licence. Which documents will a person have the power or duty to issue by virtue of a provision under an enactment? What Acts will be involved? What earlier provisions define the category of document?

The question that must follow is which parties, be they human beings or institutions of the state, or perhaps not of the state, will have the power or duty to issue the documents? Do the Government intend the statutory order that will come into force at some stage—we know not when—to give power to local authorities, quangos or private organisations to introduce themselves to the identity card system by becoming issuers of documents that will then be designated for the purposes of registration?

It follows that amendment No. 207, which would delete the words

''otherwise than by virtue of provision so made''

under subsection (2)(b), must go if the Committee accepts my arguments about subsection (2)(a). It is one thing to have a Secretary of State designating through an unknown statutory instrument particular documents as coming within the necessary category, but quite another for unknown people or institutions to have that power over unknown documents. I urge the Minister to help me to understand what he is about.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I wish to follow on from what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I am worried about the width and breadth of the unknown documents under clause 4. I am worried especially about the ability of local authorities to introduce documents, given the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It is now more understandable how that the provisions of the Act might be enacted in national emergencies. Given what happened recently, it is much clearer how, in the event of a catastrophe occurring in a discrete part of the world, local authorities might suddenly be given much greater powers and that they might wish to introduce documents to assist them with identity and the general clear-up in the aftermath of a disaster that might then be considered documents to be designated for the purposes of registration. I would be grateful if the Minister cleared that point up for me. I hope that it is not too abstruse; I think it important, given our lengthy deliberations during the passage of the Civil Contingencies Bill, and also given how the subsequent Act might affect those documents.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I seek further clarification from the Minister on the relationship between clauses 3 and 4, and therefore on schedule 1. As I said in the previous debate, schedule 1 is far too widely drawn. What documents that could form a constituent part of the register are we expecting the ordinary person to bring forward?

Without trying to rerun the previous debate, I should say that there is one issue about what is on the register and a second about how people are asked to add to what is on the register. Later, we shall no doubt consider how people might take things off the register. However, I wish to get much greater clarification on the relationship of those different parts of the legislation, and, dare I say it, to chide the Minister.

We are making things terribly and unnecessarily complicated. As I said, I have a problem not with the principle of ID cards, but with the practice. If I read clause 4 correctly, it puts the onus on the individual to provide more and more information that could then go on the register. Will the Minister at least clarify why that is necessary? Why can we not simplify the process so that people can bring forward documents, as they do in banks? Banks, however, are unduly complicated in asking for a number of pieces of information. If we had ID cards, banks might benefit from a simplification of that process.

To me, clause 4 is ladling it on thick and needs to be streamlined. If we had had a vote on schedule 1, we might have been able to do some of that streamlining. Clause 4 is overcomplicated and needs clarification.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

May I start by responding to the contribution from my hon. Friend? Absolutely nothing in clause 4 adds any documentation or data to those already predefined in schedule 1. Clause 4 is about the mechanism for individuals to apply for an ID card when applying for a designated document, and no more than that. It is, if I may put it this way, the piggy-back clause that says, as we have said time and again, that we will start implementing this system by adding ID cards as part of a package when people receive biometric passports from 2008 onwards.

We can do that only if, via clause 4, the biometric passport is designated as an appropriate document to hook up with the ID card. This is not about building a system that would introduce an entirely stand-alone ID card system. That might be perfectly appropriate, but we have decided that it is not the way we want to go. However, I repeat that clause 4 bears no relation to adding to, subtracting from or doing anything to what is already predefined in schedule 1. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Why do we not make the biometric passport the basis of the ID card?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As we have said elsewhere, that is our additional intention. What I was about to say—at the risk of boring the Committee—was that this is enabling legislation. There may well be other more appropriate documents that could equally be so designated and form part of the implementation of the scheme. The issue has been debated, and it might well be the case that driving licences are another appropriate designated document that can assist in the implementation of the scheme. We are not simply saying, ''Here is a national register and here are the parameters for an ID card associated with that register; it will be introduced only on the back of the introduction of the second-generation biometric passports from 2008 onwards.''

We have said elsewhere, outwith the legislation, that this is the way in which we are minded to go. We want to draw it as broadly as possible, and that is deliberate because there might well be other routes. When the time comes for substantive implementation of the scheme, there might be provision for the issue of stand-alone ID cards—for example where, even if both driving licences and passports were designated documents, someone, for perfectly valid reasons, were never in their life to want either of those documents. Therefore, I make no apologies for this being drawn broadly.

Let me put this matter in context. Clause 4(2) is drafted in such a way as to cover two different types of document that we might wish to designate. Subsection (2)(a) covers any document issued under an enactment. That would allow us to include documents such as residents permits issued under immigration powers to foreign nationals, or—the point we were just debating—driving licences issued under the Road Traffic Acts. Subsection (2)(b) covers documents issued by a Minister not under any enactment or law, but under royal prerogative. Passports are one such document; they are not issued by any enactment of this place. That explains why we need both elements of this measure.

I entirely understand why Members desire to know more precisely how the designation powers in clause 4 could be used, but the amendments would create an unwelcome limitation on how those powers might be used in future. I repeat that the Government's intention under clause 4 is to designate British passports issued to UK residents aged 16 or over, so that an ID card would be issued alongside the passport as a package with the implementation of the second generation of biometric passports. It is no secret that we intend to designate residents permits issued to foreign nationals resident in the UK for more than 3 months, so that the residents permit will also become valid as an ID card. We also intend to issue stand- alone ID cards, but that will be done under clause 8 rather than by using the designation power. However, as we have always made clear, this is enabling legislation designed to allow for the possibility of designating other official documents in future, either as documents alongside which an ID card would be issued or as documents which could be treated as an ID card.

Taking out the reference to documents issued ''under an enactment'' would mean that it would not be possible to designate documents not issued by a Minister of the Crown. We have no plans to do that at this stage, but we should leave open the possibility of doing so in future, should it be required to link the registration and issuing of a card to the application for an official document under an Act of Parliament by a public authority other than a Government Department. Let me give an example to illustrate that. The Home Office is responsible for legislation on firearms—everyone accepts that—but not for the issue of licences, which is the responsibility of the police. Thus, if we were to decide to designate a firearms or shotgun certificate, which might well be appropriate, so that anyone applying for such a document would have to register and obtain an ID card if they had not already done so, we would need to use the powers outlined in subsection (2)(a). We must take into account all the kinds of document that we might at least consider it appropriate to designate. I think that people would agree that taking the firearms certificate route might well be a way to capture people who are not necessarily captured by the driving licence or passport routes; that might be worth exploring.

It is important to remember that every attempt to designate a document for these purposes comes back via an order, so this is not the be all and end all. I take the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough about Christmas trees, 60 regulations and all those elements; those points are perfectly fair, but this is where we are with the Bill. We will return to such issues.

Each designation order under the clause will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure, so we are not talking about something that will be done without opportunity for proper debate and scrutiny. In sum, the amendments would remove the possibility of designating any document not issued by a Department, even if there were a strong case for doing so and if it was a document, such as the firearms certificate, which was the responsibility of the Home Office but not issued by that Department.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I do not know whether the Minister was about to finish; I think that he probably was. Could he make reference to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and say how it might be affected?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The provisions simply will not impact on the 2004 Act in any way, as I understand it. I was in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister when that Act began its progress—at least, that was where the Act started; I have no idea where it ended up. [Interruption.] Via which Department, I meant. I shall ignore sedentary comments in future, in line with your earlier exhortation, Mr. Hood.

The 2004 Act has a specific set of purposes and powers for particular circumstances. Some way down the line, when the system is in place, there may well be some link-over between this Bill and the 2004 Act in the case of an emergency involving authorities, whether local, regional or national, for the statutory purposes of the Bill. But in normal circumstances—for which the Civil Contingencies Act is clearly not designed—the overlap between the two is minimal..

Several hon. Members rose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newark and then the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I was being inattentive; I hope that the Minister will forgive me.

I am very interested in this point. What I say is not intended to be antagonistic in any way; I merely want to assist. I had the privilege of sitting on the Committee that considered the Civil Contingencies Bill, and there were many vague points in it. I think that the Minister sees what I am driving at. It would be enormously helpful if he could provide some guidance on what would happen if a state of emergency was declared under the 2004 Act; perhaps he could do so later, in writing. I appreciate that there is no precedent for such a situation, but any guidance would be of enormous assistance to me.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If there is anything further to say in writing, then of course I shall write, but the starting position is simply this: in some years, well down the line, in a civil emergency of any description—local, regional or national—and within the context of the statutory purposes of the Bill and the equivalent elements in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, there may well be some interplay between the two. Now, in the context of two separate and distinct pieces of legislation, I do not think that there is quite the interplay that the hon. Gentleman suggests. But if the situation is otherwise, I will certainly come back on the subject in writing.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I, too, served on the Committee considering the Civil Contingencies Bill, but privilege is not quite the word that I would use to describe the experience. My recollection is that, in the four schedules to that Act, there is fairly significant provision for information sharing among certain Government agencies. I do not expect the Minister to answer my point now, but perhaps he could consider it and write to Members of the Committee. To what extent is there potential, because of those information-sharing provisions, for a widening of scope in terms of access to the information held on the database?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall say again what I said to the hon. Member for Newark: if it is within the context of the statutory purposes of this Bill, which I hope will eventually be an Act, there may well be uses to which this Bill could be put from a civil contingencies perspective. But that will not allow people to browse or fish or so on. All the other arguments that we have already rehearsed would apply, too. Everyone can see how there could be some utilisation of the register and the data therein in the context of a national, regional or local emergency. If there is more to say on the matter, and on the points that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about data sharing, I will happily write to the Committee.

I was deeply worried by a comment made earlier by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He seemed to take great enjoyment from the debate we had about rebuttable versus conclusive presumption, which I am sure did not last too long but felt like it did. If he enjoyed it as much as he implied, I would urge him to get out more.

I take the points made by a range of hon. Gentlemen. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that this matter is not about adding to schedule 1 and its breadth and width. We can return to some of the points that he made when we consider clause 5(3), which is about the documentation needed when registering in the first instance.

While I understand what the amendments seek to do, they are far too narrow and far too restrictive on what is enabling legislation. For the interplay and differences that I have suggested between documents under enactment, documents by royal prerogative and documents that another produces in relation to the police and firearms, rather than ultimate responsibility being with the Home Office, we would prefer the degree of flexibility implied by clause 4 as it stands. I ask the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud. We need to know more about what is intended by schedule 1 and by the sorts of documents that are to be designated, either under the royal prerogative or under some enactment by virtue of clause 4. My concern is that we are legislating in ignorance. Having heard the Minister, what concerns me even more is that he is bringing forward a Bill without any real idea about the sorts of documents that he will ask us in due course, under the statutory instrument and the order-making powers, to designate.

I will not divide the Committee, but in exchange for not doing so, I urge the Minister to provide us with a public list of the sort of documents involved between now and consideration on Report, although I do not expect him to say social security document A, B, C and D, fishing licence, driving licence and so on. That would give us a general idea of what he thinks he is doing. Knowing the Minister as I do, I suspect that he is not entirely happy with the way in which the clause is crafted. I think he would like to help us a lot more than he is able to do at the moment. The summer recess will intervene. I suspect that by October he will find it within his powers and grace to return to us on Report with a slightly fuller picture of what the Government hope to do under clause 4. I know that he wants to help the House to do its best with this legislation. I will leave things there, in the strong and happy knowledge that come October he will have a little list. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Applications relating to entries in Register

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in clause 5, page 4, line 39, leave out 'must' and insert

'may, if the applicant so chooses'.

We move on to the more practical applications of the database. We get into the meat of things and how identity cards will impact on the daily lives of our constituents. If the amendment were accepted, subsection (2) would read ''Where an application to be issued with a designated document is made by an individual, the application may, if the applicant so chooses do one of the following''. At present, the way in which the Government have matters drafted means that when a person applies for a designed document—the passport, as the Minister has helpfully told us—he receives the identity card and his details become part of the identity card register as a result of that application.

The obvious effect of my amendment would be to end the element of compulsion. The hon. Gentleman and others have rightly made great play of the fact that the scheme is not yet compulsory. I suggest that the inclusion of ''must'' goes a long way towards the introduction of compulsion by stealth. We now live in an age when many more people have passports than would have been the case previously. Indeed, passports are used for a wide range of purposes other than foreign travel. By necessity, people will become holders of identity cards. They will become part of the identity register.

The Government extol the virtues of choice in the provision of health and education. It is a new orthodoxy that is sometimes difficult to challenge these days. If the identity card scheme is as good as the Minister claims, and if it has all the manifold benefits that he has spoken about, people will wish to have identity cards and compulsion will not be necessary. It is as simple as that.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I support the hon. Gentleman's amendment because it has far greater implications than we might realise. Subsection (2) does not deal with an application to be registered, but an application to apply for a designated document. We have just discovered that we do not know what the designated documents are; they could well be any document that the Secretary of State lights upon during the next two or three years. That is why it is all the more important that, by October, we have been given a list by the Minister. We are discussing an application to be issued with a designated document.

I hope that I am not exaggerating matters, but my fear is that, under the system that we are allowing blindly to grip us, next time the hon. Gentleman applies at Lerwick post office for a television licence, a fishing licence, a game licence or any other licence, if that is a designated document he will have to undertake all that is required under subsection (2). Can the Committee imagine the increase in bureaucracy that will flow from the provision to go through the simple process of obtaining, let us say, a television licence? I am not sure that the Government intend such a process, but if it is what they intend, perhaps they would be good enough to tell us. The hon. Gentleman has opened up a little oyster and I hope that the Minister can explain what precisely we ought to be seeing or, more to the point, what the Government intend by the provision.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not making light of the amendment. It has opened up a fair debate, but at every stage of proceedings in Committee entirely erroneous amendments are tabled that suggest ''must'' should be inserted for ''may'' or ''may'' should be inserted for ''shall'', and so on. If I were being uncharitable—which I never am—I would suggest that amendment No. 144 was a wrecking amendment. However, it is in order and on the amendment paper. It is not a wrecking amendment, but that would be the import of its acceptance. We made it clear, in the first instance, that we will introduce and implement identity cards along with a range of documents duly designated, which is what clause 4 is all about.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough was right that this element of clause 5 is not about either the application to go on the register or the application for an ID card; it is about the application for a designated document. First and foremost, we need to ask ourselves why we have designated documents. We have done that to assist in the roll-out—if I can abuse the Committee by using that term—and implementation of the scheme. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we make provision in clause 5 to say, ''On application from such a date for such a designated document, you will have to get an ID card as well.'' That is the premise on which the implementation is based—it is partial implementation, rather than full and compulsory implementation from day one. That is one of the key building blocks with which we seek to implement the scheme. Therefore, subsection (2) should contain no wild or stunning revelations.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not suppose that there are any stunning or wild revelations. I want to know why the Government are being so reticent about telling us what the designated documents are. With regard to the general argument about access and function creep, why do they not come clean at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill and say, ''Right, the ID card system and register need to compulsory. Let's get on with it?'' They should just tell us that this is compulsory, rather than do that by a side wind and say, ''It is not really compulsory, but when you go to get your fishing licence, or whatever, you will have to do what is said in clause 4.''

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is entirely wrong. While I ruminate over the summer—happily, for at least three weeks in France, although, unhappily, probably next to an empty swimming pool, given the droughts—about whether to produce this list, I can say with a high degree of certainty that fishing licences will not be on it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I will make a note of that.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Yes, make a note of that.

I can say that the biometric passports of 2008 will certainly be included, and that Criminal Records Bureau letters might be—there are discussions to be had on that—and that a variety of other documents will also be considered. I will seriously consider this matter, and I may well return to the Committee with a little list—as it has been described.

Let us nail the other canard. It comes in one of two forms. The one that is easier to dispose of is that it will be compulsory to carry an ID card. We have been there; nothing in any part of the Bill suggests that, but it is still hawked around by those who wish to detract from the Bill. That is fine; they have the right to do that. The other form that it comes in is that somehow the Government have tried to bring in compulsion on the register by the back door. As the Bill clearly illustrates, that will be introduced by the front door; we have made no attempt to disguise that compulsion, in terms of registering on the national register, is the end game for the Bill. That must be the case. We have also said that partial and steady implementation building up to compulsion—to be on the register, not to carry the card—is the most appropriate route to take, especially given everything that people have said about the great size and complexity of the scheme. We have clearly stated that we should build up to that by utilising designated documents. That is all that clause 5(2) provides for.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right that the distinction between ''must'' versus ''may'' is important in this instance—although, sometimes, and invariably when the argument about it is introduced by the Liberal Democrats, it is not important. Designating the document means that, for that document, from a subsequent date the individual concerned will get a package of that designated document and the ID card. That makes sense to me.

We have said—the Financial Times carried the story a couple of weeks ago as if it were a shock, horror revelation—that from next year, with phase one of the introduction of biometric passports, some 4 million people will have to be interviewed and have their biometrics taken by the UK Passport Service. Everybody knew that about a year earlier, but somehow that was news to the Financial Times. Given that the processes and a lot of the data involved are exactly the same for passports and for ID card registration, it makes perfect sense for that to be the first designated document, and part of the partial implementation of the scheme. However, it does not make a great deal of sense if it becomes ''may'' rather than ''must''. The amendment is entirely fair, and I can understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled it, but it causes a very slight hole in the implementation plan outlined in earlier consultation documents about the partial, and eventual universal, roll-out of the scheme.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Could it be that a lack of specificity is needed in clause 4 because, while the biometric passport is useful for the Government's purposes in that it brings people into the identity card system register, not everybody wants a passport. I think that some 30 per cent. of the UK population—or perhaps it is 3 million; the figure 3 is involved—does not currently have a passport. Perhaps the Government will have to fill the gap with the unspecified designated documents.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an entirely fair point. It is 20 per cent. of the population who never have had and never will have a passport—where the ''3'' comes from I do not know, but I am sure that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, it is in there somewhere. That is why there will have to be further debates about what to do with that 20 per cent. Perhaps we will designate other documents. If we designate driving licences as well, we might bump it up a bit—a Venn diagram showing those who have both and those who do not will cover about 90 per cent. of the population. We have made no secret of the fact that registration on the database will ultimately be compulsory—we want universal coverage. That means two things: it might be appropriate to designate other documents, and it might be that the designation of such documents means a faster coverage of the entire population.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The Minister said that there is a desire for universal coverage—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is in the Bill.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

We have been groping for that. Would it not be helpful to spell it out again?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman should not imitate the Financial Times. This is not revelatory. It might be—although I should be astonished if it were the case—that the hon. Gentleman has only just noticed that; it was discussed in the previous Bill Committee. There is provision throughout the Bill for what might prevail when registration is compulsory. That is not there in idle speculation because the parliamentary counsel ran out of time and decided to add a few more references in case we went down that route. The ultimate goal has never been anything other than that.

However, the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that one document—whether a passport or anything else—will not be suitable to cover everybody. That is why the drafting is broad, but with the caveat that any document required to be designated will come back to this House and will be so designated subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. It is not for us to invent whatever we want—dog licences, TV licences or anything else that the hon. and learned Gentleman might suggest—and process it through the Home Office meat grinder. Anything that we say should be designated for the purposes of the Act will come back to this House to be designated. In that context, I would ask the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

With your permission, Mr. Hood, might I make a brief second contribution? I am fascinated by what the Minister said and, rather than having my concerns allayed, I am increasingly concerned by the way in which he is responding to the amendment. I know that the Minister is boxed in; he has been presented with a Bill that is not his. He arrived as the new Minister of State at the Home Office and was told, ''Right, your No. 1 duty is to get this Bill through.'' That is fair enough and I do not attach any personal blame to the Minister. However, he is the representative of the Government and it is right that we should express our alarm at how this is coming forward. I am very concerned—I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland shares my concern—that the more we probe into this issue with these innocent sounding amendments, the more we discover the total lack of preparedness at the Home Office.

The Home Office says that this Bill has been round the houses once before, that it had pre-legislative scrutiny and that it has been through a Standing Committee. Why, then, have these issues not been dealt with? Why have answers not been provided, given the number of times that this issue must have been thought about?

I do not know what official has responsibility for driving this area of policy in the Department. However, surely he or she must have been appointed by virtue of their expertise in identity card systems and of their experience of being seconded to other countries where identity cards and registers have been prepared. Surely someone heading up this process is advising the Minister that such problems are to be anticipated.

I am concerned that, although the Minister is doing his level best as the political head of this Committee, we are not getting the sorts of answers that we would expect about this Bill and that process. Both should have received further thought. I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland's reaction is the same as or similar to mine.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Yes, I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Like him, I have found precious little that is reassuring in this debate. As a former civil servant, albeit only briefly, I suspect that there may be an element of naivety in the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of how people get jobs in the civil service and what expertise they bring. However, I do not know the background of the team that has been advising the Minister, so I shall not pursue that point.

As one who instinctively dislikes this whole project, I hope and pray that driving licences become designated documents. Everything that I have learned about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency during my working life—before I entered Parliament and subsequently—leads me to think that, given its efficiency, if it got its sticky little mitts on this scheme, it would take 48 hours before the whole thing was turned into reverse. That would be the most effective way of undermining the implementation of the ID card scheme that I could possibly hope for.

The Minister said that there were no wild or stunning revelations; he has rarely spoken a truer word, and the lack of such revelations concerns me most. We do not know what documents other than passports will be designated, nor what the implications will be for everyday application. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the next time I went to Lerwick post office to get my television licence. As I said at the start, that gets to the heart of how the Bill will impact on the daily lives of our constituents.

The hon. and learned Gentleman picked a very good example. I shall also come on to this point when we discuss the next group of amendments, if we get there. What would be the situation if we made television licences, for example, designated documents? Such documents are widely available at post offices. Will Lerwick post office have all the equipment necessary for the acquisition of biometric information?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I can help the hon. Gentleman on that question. A few days ago, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions to various Departments of State asking about the cost of installing scanners or readers, and what preparatory work had been done. Invariably, the answer was ''None''. They had absolutely no idea what they would have to pay, nor whether they would have to install the readers in all their various offices. The Treasury has not done that work either.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That lack of preparation strikes at the heart of the matter.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a good point, if the Committee will excuse the pun. Clearly, the point that he makes is about going into a post office. Unless there will be a piece of equipment that can recognise the person who is applying for the driving licence or whatever, this particular aspect of the Bill will be nonsensical. Is it not staggering that no preparation has gone into that, and that there is no understanding of the costs involved?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It is staggering, and it is all the more staggering when one considers, as others have observed, that we are second time around the course on this matter. If the House of Lords had acquiesced before the general election, the Government had got their way and the Bill were now an Act, we would not be discussing it, but how many unanswered questions would there still be?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. There is a project under way, which the Home Office has called Project Iris. It is trialling iris readers at 10 locations throughout the country. The running costs for the 10 points are £27.8 million, so while it is of course a pilot, that is some allusion to the cost.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am aware of Project Iris, and of other projects that have been undertaken and other reports that the Home Office has conducted. It all brings us back to the point that the Government are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. That is not a canard. The Minister is clearly practising for his holidays already. A pig in a poke is the one important aspect of the Bill that impacts directly on our constituents, and that is why at this stage we are entitled to more information than the Minister has given us.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I take the latter point about more information at this stage, but I should say, while mixing contributions, that it is a pig in a poke with at least 60 regulatory power-making elements that will return in some form or other for due parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman said that, had the Lords acquiesced and had we had time before the general election, the Bill would be off and away; however, that is not entirely accurate. Those order-making powers are important, and they are a key element of the process.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

With respect to the Minister, my point was entirely accurate, though we would now be seeing something of the size and nature of the pig that was emerging from the poke. That has worked that metaphor as far as we can reasonably expect it to go.

Given that we are discussing the Bill second time around; given that we are still not getting any of the detail; given that the provision involves the practical application of the Bill, as it will impact on the lives of our constituents; and given that we have still had no proper answers, I seek to insist on this amendment, and to test the Committee's opinion of it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 133, in clause 5, page 5, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Lanark and Hamilton East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 134, in clause 5, page 5, line 16, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 46, in clause 9, page 8, line 32, after 'allow', insert 'all of'.

No. 165, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 166, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 174, in clause 14, page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 175, in clause 14, page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 should be read together, as should amendments Nos. 165 and 166 and Nos. 174 and 175, as the same principle is read across different parts of the Bill. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall refer principally to amendments Nos. 133 and 134, and I ask hon. Members to accept that the same effect would be read across from the rest of the group. Amendment No. 46 stands in the names of Conservative Members, and I shall leave them to deal with it.

The purpose of the amendment is to explore in some detail the use, as intended by the Government, of the biometric data that will be gathered for the purposes of the Bill. From a practical point of view, that use is quite important because both the way in which data are used and the complexity of that use will have significant cost implications. As we all know, the cost of implementing the scheme causes significant concern to an increasing number of people.

Amendment No. 133 would delete paragraph (b) of subsection (5), while amendment No. 134 would leave the reference to fingerprints in that paragraph but remove the reference to biometric information. The two amendments are obviously not compatible, but as they are probing in nature, they can be considered together.

The expression

''other biometric information about himself''

causes me some concern. We know from the schedules that that will include iris and face recognition biometric information. The Minister has continued to defend the argument that schedule 1 should be amendable by statutory instrument only, so we also know that it would be possible to add other biometric information, presumably including such things as DNA. It would be fairly straightforward for him to add such definitions, as it would merely involve introducing a statutory instrument. I find that quite concerning.

There are substantial considerations about practical application. How many places will be made available for the recording of such information? I declare my constituency interest in that regard. How will the process be made to work for people in the remoter parts of the country, by which I mean those that are remote from London? Does the Minister intend that we should have an office in Orkney and one in Shetland? I should hope so. Otherwise a significant cost for my constituents will be attached to obtaining a designated document. There was talk at one point of a mobile unit travelling to parts of the country that are more difficult to reach. I think that that would also be unacceptable. One does not always know when one may want to obtain a designated document such as a passport, if that is what we are considering. If it so happens that one of my constituents in Shetland needs a passport at short notice when the mobile unit happens to be in the Western Isles, it will be of no use to them.

What criteria will the Government use in establishing the areas that will be served in that way? Will there be a general rule? I think I heard a suggestion about those living within 45 minutes' journey of a centre. On a good day, with a following wind, 45 minutes might take some of my constituents to Bergen. Will we have facilities in the consulate there? This issue seems to strike at the heart of the Bill. There are cost implications, and I have a particular concern, as a constituency MP, that when the question of cutting costs arises, provision will diminish in areas such as the one that I represent, simply for the convenience of the Government, who will want to maintain costs for the scheme at a lower level.

I am raising an important practical question to which there has so far been no answer. There may be other points to be raised, but I want to keep the debate tightly focused at this stage.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said makes a huge amount of sense to Conservative Members. In particular, those of us with rural constituencies where people are more widely spread out may feel the need to question the Government, especially about mobile units and the specified time and place at which people would attend, as well as about the practical provisions in clause 5, such as when and where to be photographed and have fingerprints taken or

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

My principal aim, however, is to speak to amendment No. 46, which falls sensibly and conveniently under clause 9, which is entitled:

''Renewal of ID cards for those compulsorily registered''.

The amendment would ensure that clause 9(4)(b) required the relevant person to allow ''all of''

''his fingerprints, and other biometric information about himself, to be taken and recorded''.

I want to talk first about fingerprinting and secondly about biometric information.

There has been criticism on all sides, but particularly from the Government, of the London School of Economics document, ''The Identity Project''. I do not want to quote matters of principle involved, however; they may come up later. I will focus on the specific examples that the document discusses concerning fingerprints and their reliability in the context initially of the register, and later of the card. Some good points are made. For instance, the document states:

''The GAO report concluded that the fingerprints of about 2 to 5 percent of people cannot be captured 'because the fingerprints are dirty or have become dry or worn from age, extensive manual labour, or exposure to corrosive chemicals'.''

Later on, there were suggestions that refuseniks as far as the register and the card are concerned could willingly damage their fingerprints by taking up a pumice stone and setting to work. That is not an agreeable prospect, as I am sure hon. Members would agree, but it can be done. Anybody who has sanded a piece of oak or hardwood knows that at the end their hands feel agreeably smooth. They will run them over the hands of their spouse and he or she will say, ''What smooth hands you've got''. I will go no further, Mr. Hood, but that is what I am told by colleagues.

The point is that it might seem that a fingerprint is not only unique, which clearly it is, but indestructible, which it is not. It can be worn off. In the same way in which one can file a nail, one can pumice away one's fingerprints. On top of that, if people are skilled enough, they can fit false fingerprints. I gather that that has been pioneered—if that is putting my finger on the right phrase—in Russia and Ukraine by some of the serious and organised crime agencies there.

Much more worryingly, the report that I mentioned went on to say:

''People who had recently used hand cream created serious problems for the fingerprint readers''.

A number of the people currently in this Room will have used hand cream this morning. Perhaps they have popped out for a quick comfort break to stick on a bit of hand cream—I do not know. I do not wish to be silly about this issue, but it is possible that innocent activities will create great difficulties for fingerprinting. Similarly, there could be a problem involving those with

''particularly hard or calloused skin, such as chefs, gardeners and labourers.''

It is interesting that the error rates in fingerprinting are both significant and poorly understood. The report said that, according to the fingerprint verification competition 2004—a recent review of available systems—

''only a handful of products achieved an equal error rate of under 3 per cent., and most were much worse. Furthermore, it would be hazardous and risky for governments to lock their core infrastructure into a single proprietary product while both attack and defence are evolving rapidly.''

I will move on from there and illustrate the point. Following the Madrid bombings on 11 March 2004, the Spanish national police managed to lift a fingerprint from an unexploded bomb. Three highly skilled FBI fingerprint experts declared that Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield's prints were a match to the crime scene sample. American officials described the match as ''absolutely incontrovertible'' and as a ''bingo match''. As a former US soldier, Mayfield's fingerprints were on the national fingerprint system. He was imprisoned for two weeks. However, the fingerprint was not his. According to one law professor:

''The Mayfield misidentification also reveals the danger that extraneous knowledge might influence experts' evaluations. If any of those FBI fingerprint examiners who confidently declared the match already knew that Mayfield was himself a convert to Islam who had once represented a convicted Taliban sympathizer in a child custody dispute, this knowledge may have subconsciously primed them to ''see'' the match.''

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a fingerprint check would normally be made to verify whether he or someone else is who they claim to be? Although, as we know, it is always possible that a fingerprint will match someone somewhere else in the world, the probability that it will be the particular person whom someone is attempting to impersonate is negligible.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

That is exactly the point that I have talked about with the Mayfield example. People may ''see the match''. The situation that the hon. Gentleman refers to is extremely unlikely. The point of the amendment is that if indeed we are to use fingerprints, we should use all of them, rather than one. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, who is another Nottinghamshire Member, I might add. I am not an expert and I would have to be convinced, but I think that that would clear up any possibility of misidentification.

I talk about fingerprints at some length simply because I want to ask the Minister whether he is content that this is a properly tested system. I repeat that both the defence and the attack on fingerprints as a means of identification are still developing. The more that we intend to use fingerprints as a means of identification, an anti-crime measure or whatever, the more criminals and ne'er-do-wells will try to improve their ability to erase or counterfeit them. So the first question for the Minister is whether he is content that we know enough about fingerprint technology, and the technology of faking or eradicating, to use it at the moment.

Secondly, if the Minister is content that we do know enough, or if he says, ''Who knows, but it is the best thing that we have at the moment in conjunction with other biometric knowledge'', then I would probably accept that. However, in that case, would it not be sensible to amend the Bill so that all fingerprints—all 10 dabs—are used, rather than the customary one on the left hand and one on the right hand? As someone who has had his fingerprints taken many times, I think that that is clearly something on which we need to concentrate, because the old system, under which one print was taken on each hand, has changed dramatically. Attack and defence is evolving, and I hope that he will make it very clear how that piece of biometric information would function.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I want briefly to follow on from where the hon. Gentleman left off, and to take up the other part of the issue: the

''other biometric information about himself, to be taken and recorded''

mentioned in clause 5(5)(b). Why can we not specify what the other biometric information is? Quite simply, this is enabling legislation, and we either know what that other biometric information is, and so should be able to specify it, or do not know, and so should not have reference to it in the Bill.

The issue is partly about cost, but it is also about the logistics of how we use the new technology. To my mind, we are talking about fingerprints and facial and iris recognition. If we are serious about the Bill and how we are to cost the implications of ID cards, we should either spell that out in the Bill or accept that we cannot legislate on it as yet and not spell it out. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to give me clarification on whether that information can be captured at this time, made meaningful in the legislation and made distinct.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a telling point, just as I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. I remind the Committee that Leicester, which is the nearest big city to my constituency of Harborough, was one of the five cities that trialled the Home Office testing that was carried out in relation to the ID scheme. I am afraid that the results of the fingerprint tests in that city were not very happy for the Government. Of the 772 people who submitted their fingerprints in Leicester, 642, or 83.16 per cent., were identified correctly, and that is the lowest rate of any test centre in the United Kingdom. That is a failure rate of almost 17 per cent. in matching the individual to the fingerprint. The test centre also threw up problems with eye identification, with the second poorest verification rates of the five centres throughout the country.

Leicester has an ethnic minority population, predominantly of Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani extraction, of about 30 to 35 per cent. One of the points that was made forcefully, not least by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), was that the system would create problems for ethnic minorities, not only because of the process, but because of the recognition failures that will follow. We can understand that in respect of those who are less experienced in fingerprints. Other biometric information shows that those who have a cataract operation cannot properly use the iris scan system. Those who have an eye disease cannot necessarily use it. The biometric system will throw up plenty of built-in faults.

I return to schedule 1 and a point about which the hon. Member for Stroud reminds us from time to time. The photograph will simply be of the head and shoulders. I referred to that at our previous sitting. For facial recognition, the Government must be fairly clear that they want a picture of someone's face, not the back of his head.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I have certain worries about people and access when being called to give their fingerprints or to attend a retina test. During our proceedings on the previous Bill, we had some help from the Minister. He allayed some of my fears when he said that he was discussing with the Royal National Institute of the Blind and disability rights groups the accessibility of such facilities to people with disabilities. We must think of the aged and consider how they will deal with such requirements. Can the Minister again allay my fears about such matters?

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The impact of subsection (5)(b) will be huge. It is requesting a database of more than 60 million entries. That is large, and, at our previous sitting, I asked the Minister about the size of the individual file that would be held on it. I look forward to his providing that information. I hope that he will use the opportunity today to let us know exactly how much information will be placed on the database, from fingerprints and other biometric information, that will have an impact on the file size and say how large a database we shall have.

Let us consider some of the other databases for which the Government have been responsible. The latest, the NHS database, as well as the air traffic control system database have suffered because of their size and the difficulties in providing information to the people who are supposed to being using it. The more information that we place on the identification card or on the register, the more people we will require to gather the information. Will the Minister explain the size of the staff that would be required nationally to make the system work?

There are also cost implications. I challenge the Minister to come up with an upper figure and say how much is the maximum projected cost that the Government would be willing to spend on the project? I ask because the original cost of the NHS database was £6.2 billion, and it has spiralled to £20.3 billion. The probation service database started at £85 billion, then increased to £120 billion before it was scrapped. The air traffic control system database increased from £35 billion to £630 billion. Those are huge jumps from starting costs to the final package.

When we debated such matters for the first time in the Chamber, we learned that there are several gaps in the information provided by the Government about how matters will work in practice. Without all the information, it is difficult for us to place a figure on matters. The sum of £5 billion has been suggested, but all sorts of figures have been mentioned. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether there is a maximum figure.

We are clearly not the first country to go down the road of considering ID cards and biometric data. Will the Minister let us know what research there has been and what lessons he has learned from considering other systems? I understand, for example, that China has thrown out the use of some of the biometric information-gathering processes because of cost and accuracy. It would be useful to know whether a yardstick, precedent or system already exists that we can point to and say, ''Yes, this is what we would like and what we would like to work in the United Kingdom.''

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I rise not to question the idea that biometrics should be part of the ID card system, because I am aware of the Government's commitment to the European passport and the agreement to include biometrics. I was reassured by the Minister's comments—in the previous sitting, I think—that DNA could not be included unless that was specifically part of the Bill. He said that there would have to be separate legislation. He will probably repeat that point later.

Perhaps I should declare an interest. Until recently, I was part of the Government's Qinetiq and was involved in the e-borders initiative and in some of the evidence on biometrics given to the Select Committee before the election. Knowing the Minister's dislike of the LSE report, perhaps it is best if I take my references from the report of the Home Affairs Committee.

The real question reflects the views of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about rural issues and about people travelling from far away. Before I came to the House, I represented part of north-east Scotland in the Scottish Parliament. There were very large rural areas to cover. When people go to register or to become involved in the system, there may be an awful lot of mileage to cover.

I question the maturity of the biometrics being proposed and, therefore, the viability of the Bill, for now. I understand, in part, why the Government do not want to tie down specific biometrics in a prescriptive form, because the reading of biometrics is not particularly mature. It is changing all the time. We may find in a year's time that another type of biometric can come to the fore. The Government do not want to be hemmed in, but that in itself raises the question why there is so much urgency to have the Bill now.

Iris recognition is currently a very expensive method of determining identification. Although I know that Project Iris has a lot more to it than just 10 units around the country, it is still a £28 million project and even if a fraction of that was the cost of a reader, that could be £28,000. That is a lot of money per reader. That is not because the Minister has gone out and bought the most expensive readers; it is because the technology is not mature.

In the past, I often took initial technologies and tried to make them mature for the marketplace. It is an expensive and volatile process. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out the problems with fingerprints and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out the problems with iris recognition. I question whether we are doing this too early. I know that the Minister will say that this is enabling legislation and that we can keep it in our back pocket and then start using it. However, the nature of these things is that it will not happen that way. We will start by going down the path of one of biometric; we are already committed to a number of them for passports.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has pointed out, the cost implications every time we change a system in any Government project—every time we decide, for example, that we are not going to have a signature, but are going to have a fingerprint—are such that costs are massively magnified. The changing of the spec is a problem. I have only to quote from the report, which stated that the delay in the pilot run by the UK Passport Service was because it was subject to

''a series of hardware, software and ergonomic problems''.

Imagine the ergonomic problems if one had to go to a post office in Lerwick or somewhere else to take part in that process.

I am not saying the biometrics should be cut, because we shall need them if we are to have ID cards. However, I am not sure that we are at the right stage to have them, because they have not been tried and tested and the cost has not been properly assessed. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about the DNA, as he has done before.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Amendments Nos. 133 and 165 seek to remove the power to require individuals to provide biometric information. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised some valid points about access for his constituents, which I shall deal with in a moment. I shall start with the principle, and why we believe it right to link the scheme to the capture of biometric information. Amendments Nos. 134 and 166 would limit the power so that only fingerprint biometrics are required. Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 would prevent biometric information from being verified using the register, even when it is done with the consent of the individual—for example, when opening a bank account.

The amendments go to the heart of our scheme. As the Committee knows, the scheme is based on the premise of using a biometric identifier. The reason for going down that path—this links to points raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre—is that it will prevent the use of multiple identities. One of the core values of the biometric system is that it will prevent the same person from registering and acquiring multiple documents in different names. The use of a biometric will prevent that; it means that one person will be able to register for one passport or other document.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The Minister makes a valid point. If things were as simple as that, it would make sense. Unfortunately, the biometrics are not up to such a technical strength as to guarantee that the details on the card are those of the person whose biometrics have been captured. We sense that when the card is used, the information may have changed or that there might be a discrepancy between the person being checked and the information originally captured some months or even years ago. If the system was foolproof, it would be a different ballgame, but it is not and we cannot rely on it.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman has to understand that we propose a highly secure enrolment process to ensure that people applying for documents such as passports or identity cards are who they say they are and that they are the holder of a unique biometric. People talk about the complications that will be caused by the Bill, but the material difference, bearing in mind that large databases already exist, is that the Bill links the personal data held on the system and the biometric. We believe that the creation of that linkage between the data—facts and figures such as an address and a date of birth—and the personal biometric will provide the high standard of identity verification that will bring many benefits.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said that the technology is in its infancy, but I refute that. The FBI automatic fingerprint identification system has some 47 million fingerprint records. Hon. Members will know that, as a matter of course, the US immigration authorities take biometric fingerprint scans of people entering the country. That is a huge database. The US Department of Defence has a biometric database of about 22 million records. Those systems are already in use, and we think it right and prudent to take advantage of them.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland questioned the phrase ''other biometric information'', as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. A clear explanation of the terminology used in the Bill can be found in clause 43. Biometric information is defined as

''data about . . . external characteristics, including, in particular, the features of an iris or any other part of the eye''.

Our intention is to have flexibility, so that a range of external biometrics can be used.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 5 - Applications relating to entries in Register

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 134, in clause 5, page 5, line 16, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 46, in clause 9, page 8, line 32, after 'allow', insert 'all of'.

No. 165, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 166, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 174, in clause 14, page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 175, in clause 14, page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

As I was saying, the amendment would severely limit the benefits of the scheme and represent serious threats to its security.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) legitimately raised concerns about how his constituents would be able to get to enrolment centres and what would happen if they needed a passport in an emergency. We have said that the aim is to have about 70 enrolment centres throughout the country and it of course behoves us to ensure that they are fairly spread, thereby giving people ease of access. We are also considering the possibility of a mobile enrolment facility, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned people who require emergency passports, but there would not necessarily be a change for his constituents. People have to apply in person for an emergency passport at one of seven UK Passport Service offices, so the process should not necessarily change, although it may take longer for them to enrol.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) raised other points about access and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) tabled an amendment addressing similar issues, although it has not been possible to consider it in the time that we have for clause 5. I assure them both that the Government fully recognise that special practices will have to be adopted to cater for the wide variety of special needs that people with disabilities have. During the UK Passport Service trial that the Government arranged, we were keen to listen to the concerns of people with disabilities and we have worked closely with organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West touched on. I assure him that we shall continue to do that. Our aim is to ensure that the enrolment process is as responsive as possible to people with disabilities or particular needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe tabled three amendments setting it out that reasonable provision must be made to assist those who produce medical certification showing that they are unable to comply with the normal procedures relating to registration. I understand his concerns in tabling those amendments and I am grateful to him for allowing me to put my assurances on the record. His amendments address the need for the scheme to be flexible enough to cater for the variety of situations that may make it difficult for people to comply with the requirement to enrol.

I assure my hon. Friend that that flexibility already exists in the Bill. The Secretary of State is under a duty to act reasonably, to ensure sensitivity to the wide variety of special needs that people have—because of medical reasons, for instance—and to make appropriate provision to deal with those needs. The scheme will be fully compatible with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We are confident that the scheme as conceived will take care of those points.

Amendment No. 46 would require all fingerprints to be taken. I understand why the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) tabled it, but I assure him that it is unnecessary. Under the Bill as it is drafted, the Secretary of State can take all 10 fingerprints. In fact, it is possible to take 13 biometrics—the fingerprint readings, two irises and one facial biometric. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, amendment No. 46 is not necessary.

I pick up the point that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) raised about fingerprint technology. Let me assure him about that. The biometric trial was not a trial of the technology.

It being five minutes past Four o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [5 July], as amended, [this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The Committee will be aware of the intention to sit after supper. There is likely to be a Division on the Floor of the House at 7 o'clock. I had intended to allow an hour for Members to have supper. Clearly, a series of Divisions would eat into that hour to an almost intolerable and impossible extent. Therefore, at this stage I propose that the Committee will sit at 8.15 pm, or 15 minutes after the start of the second Division if there is one. I hope that that is clear.

Clause 6 - Power of Secretary of State to require registration

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 6, page 5, line 34, at end insert ''without reasonable excuse''.

I hope that the purpose of the amendment is self-evident. Subsection (4) states:

''An individual who—

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

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

The amendment simply proposes that after the reference to the ''individual who'' we insert the phrase ''without reasonable excuse''.

There will be people who contravene such obligations and requirements imposed on them, but who have a reasonable excuse for doing so. For instance, how does someone who is terminally ill register? Will they be available? Do they have a reasonable excuse to contravene a requirement or obligation? Yes, I suspect that they do. What about people who are abroad at the time—perhaps not on holiday, but working abroad for long periods, or working offshore? I am also thinking of soldiers, sailors and aircraftmen on operational tours of duty, particularly Territorials who are often called up at short notice and, as we have seen over the past two or three years, who often have very little time in which to put their personal matters in order before being required to join the colours? There will be situations in which they clearly contravene an obligation or a requirement, but I suggest that they might have a reasonable excuse.

What about those who are not of sound mind? What about those who are being looked after by others because they cannot look after themselves? What about those who need to have everything done for them? When the notice of contravention of the obligation or requirement arrives for such people, will they know what to do? How will that be served upon them? Do such people not have reasonable excuse? If they do not, we should take note of the bottom of subsection (4), which states that they

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

I am sure that a Territorial called up to serve in Iraq would be delighted to pay £2,500 for not having a reasonable excuse for being absent—and someone who is not in full possession of their faculties might be equally delighted. What about those who cannot pay? I wonder how many of the people who commit these crimes will be in a position to pay this sum.

Similarly, perhaps the Minister will give some thought to approaching the problem from the other end of the spectrum. I mentioned refuseniks earlier, but what about the fabulously rich refusenik—the drug dealer who deals in, and lives on, ready money? He or she has no desire to become involved in providing information to the national register or, heaven forfend, to carry an identity card.

If one can regularly afford £2,500, how often will one be fined that sum? How many times can someone be done for this particular offence? I appreciate that that is approaching the problem from a slightly different angle, but I am interested to hear how the Minister intends to deal with those who seem to have an excuse and those who want to make an excuse.

Surely a test of reasonableness should be imposed to ensure that we have a list, or something else against which one can test the legislation, that determines whether an excuse is reasonable and that might give someone extra time to pay this sum, or that determines that someone will not be fined in certain circumstances. I appreciate that such a list may not be exhaustive—it would be an incredibly clever and lucky person who could come up with such a list—but that simple amendment would help to make things clearer and, by definition, make the measure much more reasonable.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. A few moments ago, I spoke gibberish when I told the Committee what we were going to do. That proves that one is unlikely to be challenged if one says something assertively enough.

There will be a Division at 7 pm, so the Committee will sit at 8.15 pm. If there are two Divisions at 7 pm, the Committee will sit at 8.30 pm. I hope that that is clear.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I shall take your advice, Mr. Gale, about saying things with sufficient certainty that they will not be challenged.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman would find it easier to be that certain if he happened to be sitting in this Chair.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

There was bound to be a catch.

There is a great deal to be said for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newark. I say that because, read as a whole, subsection (4) does not allow the authorities any discretion in the imposition of these civil penalties. The expression is ''An individual who'' meets the conditions in paragraph (a) or (b), and

''shall be liable to a civil penalty''.

If the power was permissive and allowed a civil penalty to be imposed, the question of a reasonable excuse would not be quite so pressing, but the Bill does not give that discretion. From a procedural point of view, the question whether the excuse was reasonable would still be thrown back on the person seeking to rely on it, so there would be no particular prejudice in that regard so far as the administrative authorities were concerned.

The obligation seems to be particularly strict. In this morning's sitting, an example was given of some of the problems that can affect my constituency. Travel within my constituency, as well as to and from it, can be problematic. I am frequently booked to fly to one of the outer isles in Orkney or Shetland, only to find that there are no flights that day because of fog, a storm, or whatever the particular season happens to produce. If one turns that on its head, the residents of Fair Isle have no scope if they are told that they must report to the van that happens to be visiting Lerwick on a particular day in order to provide their biometric details. Presumably the fact that Fair Isle is fog-bound, as it frequently is, would be a reasonable excuse, but there is no provision in the Bill, how will they be able to rely on it? What discretion is there?

This is a fairly sensible and minor amendment that could in no way be regarded as wrecking. I hope that the Minister will give it a fair wind.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall follow on briefly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said. We have opened up the interesting question of discretion. Of course, the Government have wrapped this up as a civil penalty. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a criminal penalty, and we do not need to worry about the points that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about discretion. No doubt a civilised arrangement will be arrived at, whereby if one has made a mistake or it is not one's fault, a civil servant who has responsibility for the conduct of this bit of Government policy will, if feeling benign, let one off. We cannot make legislation on the basis that we hope that people will behave in particular ways at particular times. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made clear, subsection (4) refers to

''An individual who . . . contravenes an obligation imposed on him by provision made under subsections (2) and (3), or contravenes a requirement imposed on him''.

It is clear where the burden of performance is; it is with the citizen. I hope that the Minister can disabuse me of the impression that the burden of proving innocence is upon the individual and the burden of demonstrating that he should not pay the penalty is upon the individual, and that it is merely for the Government to assert. That is not a proper way to go about such things.

The other matter is of less importance, but worth flagging up, is the standard of proof that will be required, either by the citizen to discharge the onus put on him or on the Government, or by whoever is seeking to impose the penalty, to prove the case that he wishes to prove. Few cases are decided upon on the burden of proof. However, it is important that we should be clear before the Bill becomes an Act what the Government intend. I assume, since this measure deals with civil penalties, that the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probability. The Government are setting themselves a lower standard of proof than might be required if they were trying to extract the fine via the summary procedure in the magistrates court.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Clause 6(4) provides that a person who contravenes a requirement relating to registration shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £2,500. Amendment No. 36 limits the circumstances in which liability would arise to those in which the individual concerned does not have a reasonable excuse. If I heard correctly during the debate on the programme motion this morning, I sensed a feeling of defeatism among Opposition Members who thought that the Government were not listening to them. To show what a caring, sharing, listening Government we are, I am going to prove that we do listen. When the Bill was debated earlier this year, the hon. Member for Newark asked the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), to reconsider this point, and he gave a commitment to do so. I refer the Committee to clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36 and, particularly in respect of the amendment, to clause 34(1)(b), which says:

''A person to whom a notice under section 33 has been given may give notice to the Secretary of State that he objects to the penalty on one or more of the following grounds—. . . that the circumstances of the contravention in respect of which he is liable make the imposition of a penalty unreasonable.''

That is one of the changes that has been made to the Bill. It is conceived in that way rather than in the way that the hon. Member for Newark suggests because it is important to understand the nature of the civil penalty regime laid out in the Bill. Liability arises as a consequence of the individual not taking an action. If the test were at the beginning and the Secretary of State had to consider at that point whether the requirement was contravened without reasonable excuse, the process would be different and the Secretary of State would be required to undertake an investigation and carry out a trial-like process. That would be at odds with the principle of a civil penalty. I should add that the aim of the penalty regime is not to raise revenue but to encourage enrolment in the scheme; that is all that we want to secure.

The civil penalty regime is fair and reasonable because the opportunity to raise reasonable excuses by way of objection to the Secretary of State is straightforward and cheap for the individual, who does not have to take the matter to a court, although the process is backed up by a right of appeal to a court. The levy of the penalty must be considered in light of the Secretary of State's duty to act reasonably: his general obligation to discharge his duties in a reasonable way. If the Secretary of State were aware prior to the imposition of a penalty that the individual concerned had a reasonable excuse, it would be reasonable not to impose the penalty in the first place.

As we shall see later when we consider it in detail, clause 36 sets out a code of practice for the operation of the civil penalty scheme that underpins the Bill. It sets out how the Secretary of State should consider a notice of objection under clause 34, which has been strengthened in light of the representations of the hon. Member for Newark during the last Committee and should take account of his concerns although it achieves them by a slightly different method. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that some people will be terminally ill or away with the armed forces. Those would, of course, be extremely reasonable grounds for not complying with an order to register; the Secretary of State, being a reasonable man, would take that into account under clause 34(1)(b).

I move on to the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland who questioned the use of the word ''shall'' and asked whether the system should be discretionary. Under the regime laid out in clauses 34 to 36, which we shall look at in more detail in due course, the Secretary of State has discretion about the size of any such penalty and about whether, on objection or complaint, a person should be liable to that penalty. The Secretary of State may impose a penalty but does not have to, having regard to reasonableness and all the circumstances. The penalty is not fixed but at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

With those reassurances, I hope that Opposition Members will concede that we have acted reasonably and that the Bill has been strengthened as a result of the assurance given to the hon. Member for Newark.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Minister may have missed my slight contribution to the debate. Will he deal with the points that I raised?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I believe that I have been dealing with the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman; I understood that he was reinforcing the points raised by the hon. Member for Newark. I was outlining how the regime will pick up the points about which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were concerned: a test of reasonableness can be applied when somebody has an objection to being asked to register on the scheme. That is explicitly captured in clause 34(1)(b). I do not know whether that covers the hon. and learned Gentleman's point; I think that it does.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am not sure that the Minister has quite gathered my points. I shall make them again in relation to the next set of amendments. Perhaps he can have another go then.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I do not want to labour the point, but the hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about burden of proof, and the scheme that we have outlined is a civil scheme, so the burden of proof is civil. It is not intended to be a criminal penalty or to work in that way. The court procedure—the procedure by which someone would object to the levying of a penalty against them—is set out in clause 35. If the matter could not be resolved at the earliest stage, that recourse is open, but we make it quite explicit that we believe that the civil scheme is the right mechanism to underpin this part of the Bill. We do not believe that people should have a criminal record for failing to comply with it.

We believe that the mechanism should be cheap, effective and simple all round, and if people have reasonable grounds for not complying with the request to enrol—a request that I would argue is reasonable, given that they will have had plenty of opportunity to hear about the date and that they will have been notified—the Secretary of State can take on board their reasonable excuse. Ultimately, the matter could still go to court.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities, and we believe that that is as it should be. It would not be right to clog up the criminal courts with such cases. The measure is required simply to encourage people to enrol, rather than to penalise them or to raise revenue.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister says that the Government do not want to clog up the criminal courts. Is that an indication that he anticipates that there will be a large number of such cases?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Not necessarily; perhaps the hon. Gentleman is reading more into my words than I intended. The point is that I do not believe that such cases would be an appropriate use of court time. The matter would be more properly dealt with by a civil route, through the process that begins with the notice to register. A simple breach of that notice will trigger a penalty under the Bill. At that point, it would be for the individual to write to the Secretary of State laying out reasonable grounds for having failed to register. Of course, the person could pay the penalty and accept that he or she should have registered, but he or she could lay out the reasons why he or she did not do so. If the intention was to register straight away, and if the person did have reasonable grounds, one hopes that that would be the end of the matter, but ultimately a person could take the case to a civil court who did not believe that the Secretary of State had recognised that their excuse was reasonable. That could be tested in a court.

That is the proper process to use, although it is backed up by what, at the end of the day, could be quite a serious fine. So, there is an incentive to register. We are about to get on to that in more detail. We think that we have the right system to underpin the Bill, and that is something that the hon. Member for Newark asked for in the previous sitting.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I have two questions. First, £2,500—the maximum amount—is a lot of money. Does the Minister have any idea what a standard fine would be for, say, someone who deliberately does not want to be on the register and is willing to test the system? Secondly, if someone decides that he or she wishes to pay the fine, would those details go on the system? If someone pays a fine, can that person avoid registering, or will the person eventually be dragged to the register location to have details taken?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman asked about a standard fine, but that is not the kind of system that is conceived. We are talking about up to a maximum of £2,500. I hope that he will accept that the purpose of the amount, which is not insignificant, is that we want to give people a clear incentive to register with the scheme. If and when it is the law of the land to join the scheme, people should abide by that law. Of course, the Bill has to go through this place first, but if it does, people will be required to register, and failure to do so could incur a significant penalty.

There is discretion to ensure that the fines are used proportionately. I do not believe that it would be the intention to use the maximum fine all the time. The fine would be proportionate to the refusal to register.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

A significant number of people, mostly homeless, have already come out clearly saying that they do not want to participate in, or have anything to do with, identity cards. That is why I was enquiring how much the fine would be. Imposing a fine of £2,500 would affect their way of life considerably, because it is unlikely that they would have that amount of money.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I allowed the first question and answer because I thought that we might dispose of the matter fairly quickly, but we are actually now moving into the next group of amendments. It might be a good idea to return and deal with the current group, and we shall discuss those issues, if they still exist, in a few moments.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. We shall come on to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I assure him that nobody is going to be dragged—he used that phrase—to have biometrics taken. That is not the basis on which the scheme is envisaged. There will be no dragging of anybody anywhere to take anything. It is a scheme that will work by gradual encouragement. The hon. Gentleman mentioned vulnerable groups, but we have the potential within the Bill to make special provision for people in vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or the homeless. That discretion is in the system. The package of measures is reasonable, and on that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I thank the Minister for his eminently reasonable approach and explanation. We shall attempt to be reasonable as well. The last sitting of the Bill, which many of us in this Room will remember, was marked by ill-humour, unpleasantness and extreme tedium, and I am so pleased that the Minister has been able to point out that, however small our achievements were with the last Bill, this is an achievement. It is not a party political achievement, but one that, if the Bill makes it into an Act, will make it a better Act. To that end, I am satisfied with the fact that we have the code of practice on penalties in clause 36. I was going to challenge the Minister on why we could not have the same amendment introduced here to clause 6, with the wording ''without reasonable excuse''. His explanation is extremely lucid. I hardly dare say the words, Mr. Gale, but I am now completely satisfied with what the Minister said. I am extremely grateful to him, and to his and the other Minister's predecessor, who listened to our points during the last debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 5, line 40, leave out 'civil'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 5, line 40, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£1,000'.

No. 136, in page 5, line 40, leave out '£2500' and insert '£50'.

No. 146, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'civil'.

No. 137, in page 5, line 44, leave out '£1000' and insert '£50'.

No. 39, in page 5, line 45, leave out '£1,000' and insert '£500'.

No. 40, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (6).

No. 41, in page 6, line 4, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£1,000'.

No. 138, in page 6, line 4, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£50'.

No. 147, in page 6, line 8, at end insert—

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

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I want to make it clear that the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark is limited to the answer that he received to the amendment to which he was speaking. For my part, since the Minister has taken us on to clauses 33, 34, 35, and 36, which I was going to come on to in relation to this group of amendments, many questions remain to be answered. I am with my hon. Friend in so far as the Minister provided some sort of explanation to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend.

We are now discussing the appropriateness of the civil penalty regime and the size of the penalties that that regime will impose. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have tabled different amendments, but in essence, they deal with the same issue: what is the appropriate size of the penalty? The Government, in their Bill, say that £2,500 is appropriate, and between us, the two Opposition parties have put down other figures.

I do not lightly dismiss the administrative advantage of having a civil penalty system. It saves the Government a lot of money and saves the criminal courts system the burden of having to deal with what one might describe as a ticketing process. I assume that the Government are trying to set up the equivalent of a parking ticket system for failures under this area of the Bill.

If there is any greater area of dissatisfaction among the driving public apart from speed cameras, where there is no discretion, it is the administration of the parking system, particularly in London. I know that the Minister of State, who represents a London constituency, and the Government Whip will be only too aware of the huge amount of dissatisfaction that has emerged over the past few years as the parking ticket system in this country has been farmed out to private agencies. The driver who believes he is innocent of every offence has to go through every conceivable hurdle in order to establish his innocence under the parking ticket system. We are building for ourselves another, but more expensive, sort of car parking ticket system.

The Minister, whether wittingly or unwittingly, slipped into the case that I am about to make, but as far as the citizen or the European convention on human rights is concerned there is no difference between a civil penalty and a criminal penalty; both are penalties and impose disobliging obligations on the respondent to the notice. I imagine that the first person to be caught under clause 6 for failing to obey an obligation placed on him by the Secretary of State under one of these, as yet unseen, orders, will write out a cheque for £2,500 or some division thereof. Frankly, he will not care whether he has been fined by a magistrates court or a Crown court or whether the money has been extracted from him under some form of civil process. He will be concerned with the £2,500 sum.

We are fooling ourselves if we think that we are setting up a nice friendly system. We are talking about coercion driven by money and the extraction of money from the individual in which the individual has to establish, albeit on the civil standard, that he is free of the obligation imposed on him by the Secretary of State. The situation gets worse, because the Secretary of State decides what the obligation is, whether the individual has passed or failed the test and whether he is satisfied by the individual's explanation. Then, of course, the Secretary of State decides at what level the civil penalty should be imposed.

I am not sure that that is a fair system, even though the Minister said, with disarming candour, ''We think that this a fair system.'' He may think lots of things, but that does not necessarily prove the underlying assertion in his statement. I think it is an unfair system. Does that make it any different? We will learn from experience that the public will be increasingly dissatisfied for a number of reasons. First, because they are required compulsorily to register. Secondly, because they are increasingly required as a matter of routine—I accept, that that is not as a matter of legal obligation—to carry identity cards to explain themselves. I am talking about what will happen in practice and not about what the Bill says.

The Minister may not accept my inference from all that is in the Bill and all that has been said by the Government during our deliberations here and on the Floor of the House, but I assure him that as a matter of practice people will increasingly carry the identity card because it will save trouble: it will save them having to go through various hoops, explaining themselves and so on. Of course, the Government will then get trapped into the flash-and-go false security of allowing the identity card to be the one and only document that proves bona fides and identity. I am afraid that we will reap that whirlwind in due course.

One cannot look at the amendments without doing as the Minister invited us to do and considering the provisions that set out the regime in clause 33 and those following it. If one considers those provisions, the position gets worse. Throughout the process, the Secretary of State will make the decisions. He will be the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. It is to his benefit—I use the term impersonally—that the system is being established.

When we object to having been penalised under that ersatz system, what are we to do? We are to go to the county court. I do not know when the Minister last went to a county court, but they are not always easy places to get to following the closure of a huge number in England and Wales. In earlier debates the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark exposed the difficulties that would be felt not only by disabled people and others with impairments, but those in far-flung communities—in rural seats or in island seats such as the hon. Gentleman's. They will not find it easy to make their objection heard if they have to go to the county court or, I presume, to the sheriff's court in Scotland. It is a practical difficulty that I do not think the Government have got their head round, if listening to the Minister a moment ago is any indication of how far their thinking has gone.

We are also concerned not only about physical access, but about the ability to appear at the county court. It was always said, I think by Lord Birkenhead, Lord Chancellor in the 1920s, that the courts of England are open to all, like the doors of the Ritz. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I was trying to listen to what the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) was saying. I wanted her to correct me if I had got the wrong lord.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

It was Lord Devlin who said that the law, like the Ritz hotel, is open to rich and poor alike.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I thank the hon. and learned Lady. Whether he was the originator of that comment—

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

That is probably the only contribution that I will make to this Committee.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The mere presence of the hon. and learned Lady is an adornment and her silence speaks volumes about the value of the Bill. However, I am grateful to her for correcting me.

The short point is that following the huge curtailment of legal aid in both civil and family matters, and particularly in civil matters, it is now virtually impossible to get civil legal aid. I suspect that it would be pretty well impossible to get civil legal aid to go to the county court, or the sheriff's court in Scotland, to pursue such an objection. Yet again, there is inequality and no balance of arms.

The Secretary of State has all the cards, makes all the decisions and may or may not at his own discretion let someone off or reduce the penalty. However, if that person objects, takes their objection into the formal court system and cannot afford representation, they will have to do it themselves. Otherwise, they will not be able to seek representation unless they can afford it. I am not convinced that the Government have thought that through sufficiently clearly.

I am also concerned, since the Minister drew our attention to the regime under which civil penalties will be imposed, that yet again we have not seen a vital document: the code of practice. The Minister can stand up perfectly honestly, without attempt to deceive, and say, ''Do not worry, there will be a code of practice.'' Perhaps there will be, but would it not have been better if had we seen not only the 60 powers that the Secretary of State wants for himself but the code of practice. What else is hiding in the Secretary of State's cupboard that we need to see in order to get a proper view of the Bill? What else do the Minister or the Secretary of State wish to bring forward that they have not thought of during the past three years or when the previous Bill was going through the deliberative process in this House?

I register a general dissatisfaction with the way in which the Bill has been produced. I register a particular dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have thought about clause 6, because it will lead to unfairness and unpopularity. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said on Second Reading, the Bill will be a plastic poll tax. Clause 6 gives us a good reason for saying that that assertion was true. It will lead to the failure of popular acceptance of the legislation.

By our presence here as Members of Parliament, we all accept that the Government have a majority and therefore an implied right to get its business through the House. However, there is no point in the Government exercising that right unless, to balance it, they have popular consent. I do not mean popular approval of what legislation implies or carries with it, but a general consent that the process is right and that what the Government are doing is broadly right. The Conservative Government fell foul of that in the 1980s by producing a Bill that passed Parliament—we had a majority—but that did not have popular consent. I speak of the poll tax. The present Government are doing precisely the same with the Bill.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

This morning's survey says that 65 per cent. of the population would give precisely the kind of general consent to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Does he anticipate that the Labour party will get 65 per cent. at the next election? I would welcome that.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I often find the hon. Gentleman's interventions a little difficult to follow, fascinating though they doubtless are. I have absolutely no idea what percentage of the vote the Labour party will gain in the next election in 2009 or 2010. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that dissatisfaction with the identity card system gets greater as the practical consequences emerge.

When the ID card system started, there was about 80 per cent. approval for this sort of arrangement. About a fortnight before the Bill came to Committee, an ICM poll found only 55 per cent. approval. A couple of days before Second Reading, a Populus poll found only 45 per cent. approval. I accept that most of that was based on the cost to individuals; but the cheque that one has to write to get a compulsory entitlement card is not the only cost. There are hidden costs—social, political and others. The hon. Gentleman's intervention reveals a hideous naivety, which the Government may come to regret.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

On my hon. and learned Friend's last comments, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) would find a study of the Australian experience of identity cards instructive. In theory it was hugely popular, but after explanation it became deeply unpopular.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I shall not tempt the hon. and learned Member to go down that road. He was perfectly in order in replying to an intervention, and if hon. Members do intervene they must expect a reply; but that was a response too far.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

None the less, Mr. Gale, my hon. Friend's intervention is on the record. Were I not taking part in this debate, and I were to read the Hansard report of it, I would say, ''There is a wise remark.''

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

In view of your last comments, Mr. Gale, I have decided not to intervene.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Were I to read that intervention in my leisure hours, I would say, ''There, too, is a wise remark.''

I hope that I have outlined sufficiently my concerns about that aspect of the Bill in dealing with my amendments and those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in relation to ''civil'' and about penalties. I hope that I shall not lose my political alliance with the hon. Gentleman when I deal briefly with amendment No. 147, which would insert a new subsection into the clause, making unreasonable failure to comply with a request by the Secretary of State under the clause

''a summary offence to be heard before the magistrates court with an appeal against a finding of guilt to the Crown Court.''

I was previously admonished by the hon. Gentleman for my ignorance of the Scottish legal system, and I had to go down on my knees and plead guilty to that. I suspect that he would find that his amendment would do just as well if it stopped after the words ''summary offence'', because all that follows is surely implied. A summary offence will necessarily be tried by magistrates, and there is a right of appeal to the Crown court. However, it is just as well for those who are neither English nor Scottish lawyers, nor defendants, that the details are pointed out in the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I take the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman about my amendment No. 147. I understood him to be saying that it is not necessarily wrong, but that the latter part is at least redundant. I resort, as often happens in Committee on such occasions, to saying that it is offered as a probing amendment and that, therefore, just about anything is permissible.

The amendments in the group that I have tabled are several in number—Nos. 136, 146, 137, 138 and 147—and they need to be considered as a whole. Jointly, they would remove the question of civil penalties, so that the penalty would become criminal rather than civil under amendment No. 147, the penalty for which we want to reduce to £50 instead of £2,500. They are probing amendments and I do not anticipate pressing any of them to a vote.

The issues that I want to tease out are, first, why the Government have chosen to proceed under a civil penalty regime, rather than under criminal sanctions. I do not expect too lengthy an answer from the Minister about that, because, given how the groupings have worked out, the question has already been explored in some detail. The principal advantage of pursuing a criminal rather than a civil route is, as we see it, the higher standard of proof—proof beyond reasonable doubt, rather than on the balance of probabilities—and I suggest that that would be an important safeguard for someone who could be subjected to such a penalty.

I have proposed £50 as the penalty, but it could just as easily have been £5 or £500. My intention is to establish why the Government have settled on the figure of £2,500. Does the Minister anticipate that the code of practice will establish various spines for fine levels, or will the matter be at the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State? I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough about the desirability of an early opportunity to see a draft of that code of practice.

Others have mentioned the question of drawing parallels with the poll tax, which is interesting. I would like some slight clarification. Does the Minister envisage the penalty for non-payment being recovered by civil diligence, which in Scotland still means the process of poinding and warrant sales? He may be aware—as is, I suspect, the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West—that the last time a Government introduced a poll tax, plastic or otherwise, the process of poinding and warrant sales caused considerable political excitement north of the border. I will be interested in how the politics of this proposal play out if the Government intend to proceed in the same manner.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 41 would reduce the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed under the Bill. There would be a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for a contravention of one of the requirements in subsections (2) or (3) in respect of registration, a reduction from £1,000 to £500 for a contravention of a requirement set out in subsection (6) and a reduction from £2,500 to £1,000 for each contravention of a notice requiring the person to register subsequent to a contravention by him of an initial requirement to register. I shall deal with those amendments before turning to those tabled by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough raised concerns about the location of courts and people not wishing to pay such hefty fines. The easiest way for people to deal with such concerns is to register within the time set down by Parliament. He may not like that, but if the law of the land requires people to register on the scheme, the easiest way for them to avoid all the horrendous circumstances that he laid out is simply to register and enrol themselves on the scheme. If that is too difficult and they fail to do so, and they do not have a reasonable excuse, the next easiest thing is to pay the penalty they will incur. As we have already discussed, the Secretary of State will listen to and take account of a reasonable excuse.

In introducing the amendments, the hon. and learned Gentleman barely touched on why the Opposition want to reduce the figures from £2,500 to £1,000. He expounded an extreme libertarian position and invoked speed camera martyrs and people concerned about the activities of private parking wardens to make his case, which, basically, is that there should be no such scheme or ability to enforce one. That may be his position, but it does not help us to understand the amendments.

The Government have gone for a penalty of £2,500, which will be a maximum. It will be for the Secretary of State to take into account a variety of factors in deciding on an appropriate fee to levy. Of course, such factors might include an individual's financial circumstances.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify something and thereby help the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Could the fine possibly be £50?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

That is extremely helpful, because it could. The Secretary of State has that discretion. We entirely understand the concerns that the penalties might impact disproportionately on those least able to pay, but the point is that the penalties are maximums, not fixed penalties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Lesser amounts can be paid, depending on all the circumstances, and they will be determined case by case.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough complains about the lack of a code of practice, but clause 36, which we will consider in detail later, provides in a clear way the terms of the code and how it will operate. The fact that there is a code of practice will reassure people that they will receive a fair hearing should they be in that position. We have already added the test of reasonableness, which the Secretary of State will be required to consider. That is backed up by the code of practice.

The concerns that have been raised will not arise, and the locations of courts and the geographical spread are not relevant. The courts are a last resort. People will be given every opportunity to register under the scheme, and the intention is to encourage them to do so. It is not a means of penalising them or raising revenue. Popular consent was referred to, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, the scheme has strong popular consent and I believe that some of the scare stories that have been put about have undermined the figures.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, ''Why a civil scheme?'' We touched on that when we discussed the last group of amendments. We think that that is the right way to underpin the scheme. We do not want these matters to have to be dealt with by the criminal courts—there is no need for Crown Prosecution Service or police involvement—and it would not be right to give people criminal records if they failed to comply with requests to register. We do not want to weald the threat of imprisonment for failure to pay, but we do want a scheme that is simple and easy to administer and that enables people to be registered. We do not want people to breach the law of the land; we want them to register when that becomes compulsory.

It has been said that there is a higher standard of proof in the criminal court. That is correct. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is a lawyer, and perhaps that provides him with more comfort. However, we have already placed in the Bill a code of practice and a test of reasonableness. I hope he accepts that those will enable people to put their cases properly and to be heard fairly under the system.

The maximum penalties must be high enough to act as a deterrent, so that people do not choose not to register. The amendments that would reduce the maximum penalty to £50 would render the scheme vulnerable; it would not be a serious incentive to people to comply with the law and to register.

Amendment No. 41 relates to penalties for subsequent failures to register, and amendment No. 40 would remove clause 6(6) completely. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could not impose further fines for continued failure to register. That would not be in the spirit of the scheme; it would undermine the premise of the measure, which is to give a series of positive incentives to register.

It is proper for the Secretary of State to determine what a proper fee should be, and it should be able to be repeated if people persistently fail to register. As I have said before in response to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, the easiest way to avoid all that is to obey the law of the land. That will be a matter for the Government of the day, when they consider whether to make the scheme compulsory. If the power is invoked and used, it will be fair for everybody to be required to register. It will be the will of the House that people should do so, and unless they have reasonable reasons, they will be expected to do so. I think I have touched on most points that hon. Members raised.

Amendment No. 139 would remove clause 6 from the Bill altogether, which would in effect take away the compulsion to register. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows, the Government's intention is that the scheme will be fully compulsory. [Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr. Gale. I would like to withdraw the comment about the amendment. I thought the hon. Gentleman had tabled an amendment to remove the clause altogether.

Amendment No. 147 would create a criminal offence—the summary offence of failing to comply with any requirement of clause 6. No penalty is mentioned, but even if it were a moderate one, a person who failed to comply on more than one occasion would end up with a criminal record. As I have tried to explain, it is not our intention to penalise in that way people who persistently fail to register. The aim of the regime is to encourage people to see that it is in their financial interests and in their own best interests to comply and to register with the scheme. We do not think it appropriate or sensible to give people a criminal record.

I hope that, with those remarks, I have answered some concerns set out by Opposition Members. It is not our intention to penalise or clobber people with unreasonable fines. Our intention is purely for people to be registered with the scheme as soon as is practically possible once the House has passed a compulsory scheme. In that spirit, I hope Opposition Members will not press their amendments.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Perhaps not for the first time, I shall disappoint the Minister, because I am not at all convinced by anything he has told us today. He says that it is not his intention to clobber people or give them criminal records. Well, it may not be, but that will be the effect of what he does. I can see that there is a distinction between a civil penalty and a criminal fine, although from time to time even the Minister slipped into the confusion of describing the penalties as fines. I know that he did not mean to, but that is how the penalty will be seen.

If the Minister—having studied the Bill, considered the matter quite carefully and read the notes with which he has been provided to answer these points—still calls it a fine by mistake, surely our constituents will be confused and will see the penalty of £2,500 or any subdivision of it as a fine. It is a penalty and, as I said earlier, the European convention does not draw a distinction between a criminal and a civil penalty.

I want to know, although the Minister was not able to tell me, whether the civil penalties will be registered as county court judgments if they are not paid and whether bailiffs will turn up at people's doors. I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned a Scottish process. Civil penalties, if they are not paid and are the subject of county court proceedings, will presumably become the subject of bailiff proceedings and yet again we will have the rather unattractive sight of bailiffs turning up at people's houses to take away their furniture or other belongings to demonstrate the Government's desire that people should be coerced into doing what they say. But that does not matter, of course, because the Government have ''strong popular consent'' for the measure.

I hope that that little phrase will be hung around the Minister's neck between now and the next election, because I can assure him that the measure has no strong popular consent. In so far as it ever did, it is decreasing by the day, and clauses such as this will lead to the consent disappearing to nothing.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does my hon. and learned Friend fear that, given that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly say that they will not support ID cards—even my local Labour-led council, which covers Lancaster and Morecambe, has come out against them—we may get into a situation similar to the one with the poll tax, or community charge, when there was mass refusal to take part in the system, which inevitably damaged the credibility of the whole scheme?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Minister accused me of being an extreme libertarian. I have been accused of many things in my time, but being extreme is not one of them. I certainly am not about to encourage members of Lancaster city council to do as the Clay Cross martyrs did, or other members of the Government in Scotland did, but that is an inevitable and foreseeable consequence. It may be unintended, but it will happen. Nothing the Minister has said has altered my view that the clause is the worse for being unamended. On this side of the Committee at least, we stand for the rights of the citizen and for freedom under the law. I hope that the Committee's opinion, in so far as it has been expressed, will be tested by a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Clause 7 - Procedure for orders under s. 6

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 151, in clause 7, page 7, line 3, at end add—

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

The amendment is probing and we can probably deal with it in fairly short compass. I tabled it because the clause is interesting to say the least, and I am keen to have more of the Minister's and the Government's thinking on it on record.

The procedure covers orders that contain provision for compulsory registration. It lays out a process that involves the preparation and publication of a report that sets out a proposal for it to include the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal, for the report to be laid before both Houses and for each House to have approved the proposal in the report, with or without modifications, as well as the draft order. I have read the clause short, but that will be its effect.

I stress that the amendment is effectively a probing amendment. Its terms are such that, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, the orders would be considered primary legislation. The distinction is that primary legislation requires to be certified by the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary, I think, in this case—and that the legislation is compliant with convention rights—[Interruption.]

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There are far too many conversations taking place.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. Primary legislation, however, cannot be struck down. It can be disapproved by Parliament, which is what happened with the Law Lords in respect of the detentions at Belmarsh and the anti-terrorism legislation that we dealt with towards the end of the previous Parliament.

Secondary legislation is open to challenge and the nub of the point that I want to bring to the Committee's attention is whether the clause will remain secondary legislation for the purposes of a Human Rights Act challenge? Is it something that, for example, could be struck down by a court making an order if it felt that the necessary conditions had not been met? It would be infinitely preferable that, for a scheme to include an element of compulsion as opposed to a voluntary scheme, which we currently have—nominally, least—we proceed by way of primary legislation. Clearly, the Government take a different view, and I want to the Minister to explain the thinking and reasons behind that different view.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The points that he made are another way in which to attack my worries about the 60 unseen and unheard of powers that the Secretary of State is giving himself under the Bill. There are good arguments to be voiced about the value of the amendment and the hon. Gentleman has made them.

However, I am worried that the process by which Parliament can deal with such matters will be constrained by the regime under the Bill. Not only can the courts strike down secondary legislation, so it might be thought that secondary legislation is a power that would be better for us, but, more to the point, in an emergency, Ministers can amend secondary legislation without parliamentary approval. Powers in the Human Rights Act are given to the Minister to amend legislation that, in this case, will be matters of some worry. I shall leave it at that, because I know that the general point that the hon. Gentleman made was better made by him than by me.

It is important that we never leave off discussing and putting forward our concerns about the way in which legislation increasingly empowers Ministers to do things over which we have no control. The Government find it convenient to legislate in that way, and that is a problem not just with this Bill, but with all sorts of other legislation. It is increasingly the way in which modern legislation is constructed, and it is just an enabling system for Secretaries of State to hang secondary legislation, giving themselves the power to do this, that and the other. In this Bill, it reaches the level of 60 individual powers, and I am not sure that that is a good way to run a country.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for tabling the amendment, because it is an important point. It implicitly acknowledges that although the super-affirmative procedure outlined in clause 7 is in fact secondary legislation, it is closer to primary legislation in terms of parliamentary scrutiny than other forms of secondary legislation.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough raised some concerns. The process is laid out in such detail, and, for precisely those reasons that we discussed during the debate on the previous clause, Parliament has a commanding role in passing whatever is to be passed. We recognise the seriousness of a request to the British public for people to register under the scheme. For that reason, it is right and proper that their parliamentary representatives have full opportunity to scrutinise the Government's proposals and that Parliament has the ability as laid out in the clause to amend them.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am sure that all that the Minister says is entirely true, but does he agree that under the clause 7 procedure, Parliament has no ability to amend the secondary legislation before the House? There is no guarantee that whole rafts of powers and statutory instruments will not be placed in one debate that, if the practice in this and the previous Parliament is anything to go by, will be limited to no more than 90 minutes, and, possibly, only to 45.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to clause (7)(2)(c). It talks of a procedure in which a

''report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications''.

I put it to him that that could not be clearer.

Mr. Garnier rose—

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Let me finish. It could not be clearer that the House has the opportunity to modify the proposals laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. In that way, the provision is subject to the fullest possible scrutiny, which is why I said to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it mirrors primary legislation and that it almost is primary legislation. In effect it is primary legislation, although it will still be taken under a secondary procedure.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Since the Under-Secretary is moving in my direction, I want to see whether I can push him a little further. I want him to be clear with us about the modification. If he means amendment, why does he not say amendment? Does the modification refer to the proposal, meaning one of the powers that the Secretary of State is reserving to himself, or to the report? We must be clear. The report may be modified, but it may contain within it in an unmodified or unamendable form, a proposal that is the statutory regulation. Although I believe every word the Under-Secretary says—of course I do—we must be clear about the English, and about what he means and what he intends. What he says now will be relied on by other people in due course.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. and learned Gentleman began by saying that he was glad that we were moving in his direction. The clause is in the Bill, and perhaps if he had read it carefully, he would have seen that whether it is modifications or amendments, it does not matter, the effect is absolutely—[Interruption.] Modifications is absolutely the same thing as amendments. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to tell me the difference between them, I would be interested to hear it, but the effect is the same. As the clause sets out, Parliament has the power to consider the report that the Secretary of State has laid before it. Each House will have the opportunity to approve the proposal, with or without modifications, and the order on which both Houses vote then gives effect to it, modified or not. The provisions could not be clearer.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way, because I am curious as to how a report can be modified—or, if he would prefer, amended—under current Standing Orders. Does he envisage that that would be done on a debatable resolution or would the report itself be modified, which is what the Bill seems to suggest? If that is the case, are we talking about something closer to the procedure that we undertaking here, in a Standing Committee or perhaps in a special Committee?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The proposal as outlined in the clause is for the report to be modified by the House. My understanding is that hon. Members would have the opportunity to move amendments to the text and that the House would have the opportunity to vote on those amendments. The report, as amended, would form the basis of the proposal that the House as a whole would accept or reject.

As a new Minister and a relatively new Member, I think that we are in fairly new territory in parliamentary terms. I am trying to think of parallels. I think the system that was conceived under the tuition fees Bills, in terms of raising the cap on the maximum fee that can be charged, is analogous to the mechanism proposed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will recognise that the strength of the procedure is its ability to take on board the concerns that have been expressed about the seriousness of going to a fully compulsory scheme.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way, because we have come to the nub of the matter. I cannot think of any provision in Standing Orders that would allow amendment of a report in that way. If the report comes as part of secondary legislation, the matter is quite clear. No power to amend secondary legislation is given to this House, although it is given to the other place, so what parliamentary procedure would be followed?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The Bill lays the basis on which Parliament would consider the report that was laid by the Secretary of State and from which any such order would emanate. That would be the process. There would be a debate on the content of the report and, as the Bill explicitly lays out, it is amendable. I shall have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on what the parliamentary process would be and consider his point about being absolutely clear that the procedure is fully compliant with Standing Orders.

I am pretty confident that the procedure as outlined in the Bill is consistent with the procedures of the House, the intention being—it is important to talk about the intention—that hon. Members from all parts of the House have the chance to consider and amend the proposal being put forward. We should bear in mind that the Secretary of State might put forward quite a technical proposal. It could specify a staged roll-out or implementation of registration. The proposal might be quite detailed, so the amendments could be technical.

That is the commitment that the Government have given. It would perhaps be easier not to open up the process to that level of scrutiny, but we believe that it is right to do so. The House would have the ability to accept or reject the order, as amended. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants reassurance on precisely how the House authorities would view such a process, I will get back to him on that.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Will the Under-Secretary reassure me on another point?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I will try.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Under-Secretary has laid great stress on the fact that ''modification'' is interchangeable with ''amendment''. Presumably ''modification'' was included in the Bill rather than ''amendment'' for a reason? When we debate making changes to legislation, we usually discuss amendments; the Chairman calls an amendment, and he might say that with it, it will be convenient to discuss certain other amendments. He does not call a modification, and say that with it, ''modifications of the following nature'' will be discussed. Therefore, I am suspicious—as, perhaps, is the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, but he may be more polite than I am—that ''modification'' is a weasel word that will be used in a different way from ''amendment''. Will the Under-Secretary make it clear that ''modification'' is intended to be interchangeable with ''amendment'', and if that is the case, why does he not use ''amendment''? Will he also make it clear that the ''modifications'' referred to in subsection (2)(c), which mean ''amendments'', are a power available to both Houses, because there is concern that, by the use of language, the Under-Secretary is trying to present a case that might be misconstrued in due course?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I think that I have been fairly tolerant. I will allow the Under-Secretary to answer that point, after which the hon. and learned Gentleman might feel obliged to intervene again.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I like to think of myself as a plain-speaking northerner, so I apologise if I am not making myself clear. If I have to go through this again for the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will do so. He asked me whether this would be amendable by both Houses. That is clearly and explicitly stated in subsection (2)(c), which says that

''each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications''.

That could not be clearer. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that that needs to be clarified further, I do not know how we can do that.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for allowing a further intervention. What happens if one House modifies and the other does not? What procedure is followed thereafter?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I guess that the procedure would be the same as it is now; the elected House, with primacy, would prevail. I would not want there to be any procedure other than that. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the detail of how the process would work on the Floor of the House, but from my point of view it is clear that the elected House will ultimately determine whether and how the order goes forward.

I direct the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to clause 43(1). On page 37, in line 8, ''modification'' is defined clearly as ''omission, addition or alteration''. I grant that the parliamentary word ''amendment'' is not used, but the substance of that definition is entirely the same—''addition or alteration'' is probably clearer than ''amendment''—and the effect is plain.

To offer clarification to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, let me say it is my understanding that it is conceived that the system would operate in this way: if either House is not content with the proposal as modified

''it must start the process again with a fresh report and proposal''.

That is explained in paragraph 52 of the explanatory notes to the Bill.

I now wish to turn to the substance of the amendment.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

As I am new to the House, I would like the Under-Secretary to clarify the relationship between modifying the report and how that affects the order.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

With respect, I think that we have covered that ground. The order is drawn from the report, which could be agreed as amended. That is the basis for any order on which the House votes. It is the detail of the report laid by the Secretary of State that is debated. It is amendable and modifiable. Then the House can vote on that order. That is the process as we have outlined it. Only once the report has been approved can an order be made under the affirmative procedure, which would require approval in both Houses. The report has to be approved first, before we can move on to a consideration of the order.

Before I turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I want to stress again that this is, in many ways, new territory. The process that we are outlining has been conceived to reassure Opposition Members, who have consistently raised concerns throughout the discussion of the Bill. It is intended to ensure that when the moment comes to move to compulsion—Government Members are clear that that is the point when the full benefits of the scheme will be unlocked—the House will be able fully to consider and amend any such proposal. That is the commitment that we have given.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of the compatibility of any such order with the Human Rights Act 1998. I understand the point that he is making, but his amendment would remove the power of a court to quash an order made under clause 6 on grounds of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act. I understand why he has tested us on that point, but that would be the effect. As with primary legislation, the most the court could do would be to interpret the order with regard to convention rights. It could declare the order incompatible, but it would not be able to annul it.

The reason why the Government are confident about the Bill as it stands is that we are confident that it is fully compatible with the Human Rights Act. We are also confident, and ready to be tested on it, that any order made under the Bill will equally be fully compatible with convention rights and that the powers to make subordinate legislation will be exercised in a manner compatible with those rights. Labour Members see no need to limit the court's powers in relation to the Human Rights Act and clause 6, as the amendment would do. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, given that we stand ready to be held fully accountable under the Human Rights Act for both the primary and secondary measures that emanate from this Bill.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I have no problem with withdrawing the amendment. I said initially that it was a probing amendment, and I fully accept what the Under-Secretary says about its effect. We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate but, with your leave, Mr. Gale, I would like to pursue a couple of points on the basis that it is unlikely that we will have a stand part debate. I will take your guidance on that.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman places me in a slightly difficult position because the amendment was fairly tightly drawn. The Minister chose to widen the debate, and I allowed him to do so. The debate was completely in order from that point of view. The hon. Gentleman is now winding up the debate. In effect, he is precluding any other Member from raising any other issue on the clause. Although I agree that there has been a fairly full discussion of the clause, I may decide to have a stand part debate so that I can throw that open to any other Member just in case there is something else that somebody else wishes to raise.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

In that case, I shall seek to catch your eye in a few seconds' time, Mr. Gale. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I shall be brief because we have covered the clause, but a few of the Under-Secretary's comments struck me as worthy of further comment.

When I first asked the Under-Secretary what would happen if one House approved the Bill in a modified form and the other House approved it in an unmodified form, or if they modified it in different ways, he said that he presumed that we would follow the procedure that currently pertains—namely that the will of the elected Chamber would prevail. He then said that, if that eventuality were to occur, a new report would have to be laid before Parliament. I see nothing in the Bill that suggests that that would be the procedure. I accept that it is said in the explanatory notes, but fortunately we are charged only with consideration of the Bill. The Bill will become the Act, and the explanatory notes will not.

So many issues on this point remain unresolved that I see the Government creating problem after problem for themselves. Without wishing to be picky, I do not see that there is a procedure under the terms of Standing Orders as framed that would accommodate a procedure such as the one that the Under-Secretary described. He said that it was new territory. I see immense difficulties arising.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am not sure whether, in providing that answer a moment ago, the Government applied their mind to the Parliament Act 1949. If the Lords refuse to accept a proposal contained in the report, whether modified or not, for more than the statutory time stipulated in the Parliament Act, will that Act bite or will we have to rehearse the procedure under clause 7 again and again?

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I do not know the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I suspect that nobody in the Room does. As the Under-Secretary said, the process is a novel one.

We seem to be tying ourselves in knots for no good reason. If what is wanted is a process that involves proper scrutiny of an important change to the Bill, it is always open to the Government to use the Standing Orders of the House as they exist and bring forward a piece of primary legislation. It seems to me that we are going all around the houses and risking all sorts of difficulties for no good reason. We have a perfectly adequate system.

The Under-Secretary and other Ministers know that, although primary legislation normally takes a significant time, and properly so, it does not always do so. In the last Parliament, I was involved in a number of pieces of legislation relating to Northern Ireland in which all stages in the House of Commons—at least—were gone through in a day. Often, the whole thing was done, and something formed between ourselves and the other place, in two or three days. If there is any urgency, primary legislation need not take long. When there is urgency, it is generally accepted by all parts of the House that it is necessary for matters to proceed.

We are dealing with this issue on a hot and muggy day. We will have the opportunity to return when the leaves are turning on the trees. I suggest that the Minister takes the benefit of that intervening period to consider whether more detail or specification is required on this clause. As things stand, I fear that the Committee would be remiss to let it stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, both for the reasons that he put forward and because, when we return to deal with the matter on Report, I would not lose much money if I put a bet down that we will have part of a day to discuss the remaining stages of the Bill. Perhaps we will have from 3.30 pm, subject to statements, until 9 pm. Then there will be an hour for Third Reading. That happened to the last night's Bill. I am not convinced that Parliament is allowing itself as a whole, let alone the Committee, proper scrutiny of this hugely complicated area of new legislation.

Neither Minister is entirely familiar with the territory. That is not their fault; they are new to the Department and this is a whole new area of legislation. However, not only is it new, but it will wholly alter the relationship between the individual and the state. We are advancing in a rather haphazard way. We accept in good faith the words of the Under-Secretary when he says, ''Oh well, we'll sort it out this way, or that way,'' but we are advancing in the absence of these statutory instruments, the code of practice and all the information that we, as dutiful legislators, need now in order to see whether this is a proper way forward. So I, too, am deeply sceptical about the good sense, or even the common sense, of allowing the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Happily, this clause stand part debate has been very useful. The points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are entirely fair. The short answer to his question on parliamentary procedure is that the Bill, and the passing of the Bill, will ensure that there is parliamentary procedure. However, he raised an interesting point.

As people will know, the genesis of the provisions is the fact that we regard compulsion to register as the end goal. We regard the step from voluntary to compulsory as a serious one. That is why we sought to put in the Bill a scrutiny process that would allow the House proper time to scrutinise these matters carefully, with due diligence. But what has been said raises interesting points. Not the least of those, as hon. Members will know, is the fact that the Parliament Act does not cover subordinate legislation, and so that route is out, as a safeguard.

One interpretation—I give just one—is that the super-affirmative procedure could be seen as a rather crude algorithmic loop, in which something starts here, goes there, and, modified or otherwise, comes back. If it does not get to where it was headed, it starts again, with no apparent escape from that scrutiny loop. That is an entirely fair point. We put that down the last time the Bill was determined to be helpful to the House in terms of scrutiny. I assure the Committee that we shall take back and consider those comments, albeit with the clause intact, because that is how these things work.

We will not lose sight of the points made about scrutiny, but equally we will not lose sight of the points at least implied by hon. Members about the primacy of this House over the other place. It is the balance between those two matters that we really need to achieve. If it is not apparent to all Members that that balance has been achieved, or that there is practicability to this method of scrutiny, those are serious points that we need to take back and consider. However, because of the quaint way in which this place works, I would still rather like the Committee to confirm that, for now at least, the clause can stand part of the Bill, although we do take those concerns seriously, and we will respond to them in due course.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wanted to respond to the Minister, but I thank the Minister for his offer.

I do not want to be accused of being unduly cynical, and I certainly do not wish to accuse the Minister or saying something that he did not mean, but it would be perfectly proper, and indeed our duty at this stage, to hold the whip hand, in so far as we have a Whip in our hand—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Your Whip is not here, is he?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I made that joke first.

In so far as we have any power at all, I think that it would be perfectly right for us to seek to divide the Committee to remind the House that we left this matter in a state of irresolution, if I can put it that way. If the Minister comes back on Report with a new version or a better explanation of how the Government think that they will go forward, for consideration in either this House or the other place, we will have done everybody a service, but he cannot at this stage dissuade me from seeking to divide the Committee.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I said that we needed to push the clause through, because that is how this place works, and in that context I fully understand why the Opposition will want to register opposition to the clause. I have no problem with that at all. As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier comment, I would never use the term ''unduly'' in respect of him.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I cannot remember using the word ''unduly'' either in respect of myself or anybody else. I think the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would like to say a few words.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I wish merely to place on record my appreciation of the tone and content of the Minister's comments. I remain of the view that we would be modifying an inferior system by modifying clause 7. My preference remains for amendment—or modification—by primary legislation. Accordingly, I would vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Clause 8 - Issue etc. of ID cards

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 7, line 7, after 'issued', insert 'free of charge'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 169, in clause 12, page 11, line 17, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State shall make no charge for changes to the Register required by this section.'.

No. 208, in clause 37, page 31, line 23, leave out

'for the modification of entries'.

No. 209, in page 31, line 25, leave out 'or modification'.

No. 210, in page 31, line 24, after 'issue', insert

'(but not re-issue or replacement).'.

No. 211, in page 31, line 26, after 'issue', insert

'(but not re-issue or replacement).'.

No. 186, in page 31, line 39, at end insert

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

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

This clause is one of the most important in the Bill. It moves on from the identity register and the number of procedures for orders that are set out under the previous clauses. We are now talking about the thing itself: the card that in several years time, if the Government have their way, we will all end up owning, although, apparently we will not be forced to carry it nor will anybody be able to tell us to show that we have it.

I want to start by discussing the lead amendment, which I hope, despite the innocence of its words, will point up the severity of the cards and the cost of the whole ill-thought-through scheme. The amendment would alter clause 8(1), part of which reads:

''For the purposes of this Act an ID card is a card which—

(a) is issued to an individual by the Secretary of State, or as part of or together with a designated document''.

Our amendment would mean that paragraph (a) would read ''is issued free of charge to an individual by the Secretary of State, or as part of or together with a designated document''. I hope that it goes to the heart of the questions of whether we need the card at all; if we do, how the Government intend to fund it; and the public reaction both to the character of the card and to having to ante up the sum from their pockets to afford it in the first place.

Before I dwell on the details of the card's cost, I want to talk about the opportunity cost. I have just heard an example, which I and others were considering at the weekend, of a wartime national registration identity card. It was a simple piece of cardboard on two sides. I imagine that its cost was almost nothing. Most people believe that this nation's only identity card was carried during the war and suspended shortly after it. That is absolutely right. However, it is worth considering the fact that in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, a modification was introduced to the driving licence that placed it wholly at odds with those carried in the rest of the United Kingdom. In England, one's driving licence was a perfectly simple piece of green paper. There was no photograph or biometric, to use today's phrase, on the card. However, in Northern Ireland a driving licence with a photograph was introduced—in 1978, if memory serves me right. That sticks in my mind because at the time I was a serving soldier, having completed two or three tours in Northern Ireland, and I was returning for another tour. We were told that the driving licence had been introduced with a view not to securing the future of drivers or making it easier or less easy to procure a driving licence, but to having a useful knock-on effect for the purposes of controlling terrorists.

I am sure that every Member knows the nature of Northern Ireland. It has a very dispersed population, among whom the ownership of cars per head is extremely high. On top of that, it has been identified that the use of cars was a sine qua non for the prosecution of terrorism on both sides of the political divide. Issuing an advanced driving licence made sense; it would be a very useful tool for the control of terrorism by the security forces. That licence was an extremely simple document compared with what is proposed today, although it was marginally more complex than the wartime version. I say again that it had a photograph on it.

The opportunity cost of providing that driving licence was considerable. I cannot quote sums, but other security measures had to be forgone to include this driving licence. The effect was quite simple. On a rain-soaked lane in south Armagh at 3 o'clock in the morning, if a patrol was sent forward to intercept a car as it came speeding along a lane, the soldier or policeman inspecting the card, unless they had been specifically told to the contrary, would take a cursory glance at it and say, ''On your way. You've got a card; you must be a good guy. If you're a good guy, I will detain you no longer.''

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough used the phrase ''flash and go'' the other day. I had not thought of the issue in those terms, but that licence involved precisely that. The danger of introducing an identity card, particularly for security and counter-terrorism, is that it does not become a proof of identity, but a pass. Once someone possesses such a card, particularly a complex card that has been through several biometrics iterations, it becomes, for the security worker—soldier, policeman or whoever—a pass into the inner sanctum.

We all carry similar passes to let us into the House of Commons. That is a slightly different matter because our faces are generally recognised by the excellent security staff here. None the less, it stands to reason that unless the holder is carefully looked at, the possession of a card—particularly a complex one—starts to work to the benefit of the terrorist or criminal.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is drawing on his experience in Northern Ireland, and I well understand why. However, I have to have mind to the order of the Committee. I have looked carefully at clause 8 and it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to go into Second Reading territory.

I do not wish to curtail debate and am perfectly happy to have a stand part debate now, rather than at the end of the clause, if that suits everybody. However, I cannot allow another Second Reading debate.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I shall take what you say to heart, Mr. Gale. If we have a stand part debate, I might expand on the point. I am grateful for your guidance.

I return to the opportunity cost of the card. If we charge for it, what other security measures shall we miss? I shall expand on that later, but the point of tabling the amendment is to find out what the overall cost of the card will be to the individual. We have heard all sorts of estimates. During the last iteration of the Bill, the Government estimated that it would cost somewhere in the region of £100. I shall not labour the point, but the great LSE report ''The Identity Project'' suggested that the cost would be considerably higher. Can the Government tell us what the overall cost of the scheme will be, not only to the individual but to the nation—the cost not only of the card but of the readers and the other technical equipment necessary to make the card work?

The point of the amendment is simple. By saying that the card should be issued free of charge, we are probing the Government and asking them to explain how they intend to allocate the cost. Is it their intention to charge everybody the same price, whatever that may be? I do not wish to make a point about the cost itself—whether it is £100, as the Government first suggested, or whether it will be £300 as suggested by others. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister intervening from a sedentary position. If it is going to be in the region of £100 or slightly less—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

For accuracy, £100 was never mentioned; the figure was £93. It was always clear that it would be a unit cost and that 70 per cent. of the cost would be for implementing the second generation of biometric passports. The Government never gave a figure of £100.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but he has not used the word ''canard'' for some time and I was expecting him to do so. No doubt, flights of canards will be coming over in due course. However, £93 and £100 are fairly similar sums. I have no doubt that he give a fuller explanation in due course.

I hope that the Government will be kind enough to explain whether those individuals in our constituencies who are in receipt of benefit are likely to have to pay the same price as those not in receipt of benefit. If so, how will the cost be allocated among those in a better position to pay? Are we, or are we not, going to have a sliding scale of costs? I suspect that that might be so. The energy with which the Minister intervened a few moments suggests that the Government probably have an awful lot of explaining to do on that point.

I would be most grateful if the Government would consider amendment No. 42, in which we suggest that cards should be issued free to every individual rather than people having to bear the cost of the scheme, an idea with which I disagree at all levels.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I want to speak briefly in support of the amendment. If, through the prescribed document procedure, we move to what, if nothing else, will be a system with a substantial element of compulsion, it seems to me that the element that introduces compulsion—namely, the difference between the identity card and the passport—should be free of charge. It seems to me that there is some slightly lazy thinking on the subject and that, because we charge for passports and driving licences and other documents that might be prescribable at a later date, it might be thought that an element of public money or taxation is not involved. Equally, one might point out that any number of other identity card documents are issued free of charge. For instance, it is now the Government's practice to issue national insurance cards on people's 16th birthday. That was not the practice when I was 16, but I think it is now. National health service cards are issued, and in Northern Ireland cards are issued for electoral registration purposes. There is no charge exigible for any of those cards, and that is quite right, but it rather undermines the Government's apparent assumption that a charge should be made for cards under the Bill.

The crux of one of the amendments is that, where registration is compulsory, the charge should be waived. That is eminently sensible and fair, and if the Government want to introduce the scheme without popular resistance, that is the sort of approach that they must take. The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West will recall the hay that the Labour party in Scotland made over the introduction of the poll tax. That was because a compulsory charge was levied on the basis of a registration. If we go down the same road with the Bill, I can imagine those who were previously in the Labour party and are now in the Scottish Socialist party rubbing their hands with glee at the opportunity that will be presented to them, when those who are subject to civil penalties for non-compliance discover that a procedure exists that culminates in a warrant sale for non-payment of a civil penalty. The point is essentially one of politics rather than law, but the Minister would do well to heed it.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

The hon. Gentleman must stop trying to compare the Bill with the poll tax. The money involved in the poinding in Scotland was thousands of pounds. We are not talking about thousands of pounds now. We have already heard that 80 per cent. of people carry passports, and this measure is linked to passports. People carry driving licences. People have to pay for those no matter who they are, what work they do, or whether they are in employment. If they want a passport they must pay for it. The hon. Gentleman's argument is about how much people should pay, and that is what we should debate, but the measure bears no resemblance to the poll tax. I do not see people going out in the streets because of payment for ID cards. They may do it because they do not like them, but that is a different argument. If that is the argument that the hon. Gentleman wants, I am happy to have it, but using the Bill as a mask for the poll tax and trying to compare the poll tax and ID cards does not merit consideration.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

No matter how hard I try, there are people in life whom one just cannot help. The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West seems to be one of them. I look forward to hearing him advancing that argument when Tommy Sheridan leads protests in the streets of his constituency as the first warrant sales for the imposition of civil penalties take place. I would pay good money to buy a ticket for that.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

The hon. Gentleman is making wagers now. I will make a wager that there will not be any warrant sales over ID cards. I am sorry, but that is something that is not likely to happen.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Time will tell, but the hon. Gentleman supports a Bill that involves civil penalties recoverable by civil diligence. In Scotland, notwithstanding the amendments that have been made by the Scottish Executive, that still involves poinding and warrant sale. The hon. Gentleman can explain that to his constituents when they ask him, but that is what he is supporting. He will stand or fall on that basis, and I shall watch with interest as he does so. I offer that in the spirit of helpfulness, because the Government may, at some stage, encounter popular resistance to the measure. If they do, they can at least point to the fact that they have sought to be fair in the way in which they have levied charges, which will give them some political protection. If they do not wish to avail themselves of the political protection that I offer them out of the goodness of my heart, they will be answerable for the consequences.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

As has been said, this is the kernel of the debate. I have no problem with the concept of ID cards. In fact, I should like the Government to have the courage of their convictions and say that they will be compulsory. That is the best and most honest way to proceed. There seems to be a discrepancy between public consent when the idea is put forward, and public consent when the idea is put forward and the cost is attached to it. That is what this clause is about. On the cost, when the Under-Secretary responds on the amendments, would he clarify whether we are talking about the cost of a biometric passport being a way in to the ID card? I can accept that. We pay for passports now, and it would be exceedingly generous of the Government to issue every member of the population capable of carrying one with a free passport, so I do not expect us suddenly to provide a passport gratis.

However, I will have a problem if we are talking about paying for an ID card in addition to that passport. In my simplistic view, the passport is a good way of providing ID. It is a way in which we can make a realistic charge for the use of a facility. Under the next clause, we will be discussing whether an ID card might not be voluntary for some members of the community, so I wish to be clear about the Government's intention in relation to this clause. We need to talk realistically about the true cost of the card, even if we do not have all the details. If we want popular consent, we will have to give the card free on the back of the passport, or we will have to provide it without there being a real increase in cost. Otherwise, there will be no popular consent, and the ID card will fail.

I hope that the Minister will respond now, notwithstanding the fact that we might get the opportunity to debate the matter again on clause stand part. Without putting all the details into the Bill, the Government must be clear what they intend to charge, if they intend to make a charge at all. I think that the passport is the way in—we will pay for that; but I would argue that we should not pay any more. However, I will listen to what the Government have to say.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). It is important, if we want to get popular support, not to charge individuals for the card. I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West about the cause célèbre, or the usual suspects in the Scottish Parliament, who are waiting for just such an issue.

I agree that the same sums are not involved, but there is, in a sense, a stronger ideology. I had the fortune, or misfortune, of serving with Tommy Sheridan, Dennis Canavan and some of the other characters in the Scottish Parliament. I even voted with Tommy Sheridan several times.

The Scottish Socialist party and the Green party in Scotland are queuing up to make identity cards a cause célèbre. This is the sort of thing that will attract support for their parties, which has been failing in some areas. I warn the Government that high prices and the disappearance of public support will be a very good catalyst for protest, which can end up in warrant and poinding sales, without clear guidance from the beginning on who is liable for the charge. Will there be exemptions?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.