Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill

House of Commons, 18 October 2005.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move, That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee.

Members hold many serious reservations about the Bill, and even more reservations are held by people outside the House. That is not reason in itself to recommit to a Select Committee; indeed, there is opportunity under the normal Committee and Report process for us to consider the principled reasons, but the Bill, almost more than any other, depends on the practicalities. If it does not work, if it costs vastly more than the Government say it will cost and if conclusions can be drawn about the scope of the information stored on identity cards, the enabling Bill—on repeated occasions, the Minister has stressed that it is enabling legislation—has completely different connotations and the House ought seriously to consider them.

I accept that the Standing Committee process is, in many ways, a good means of examining the detail of a Bill—line by line—but it is difficult for a Standing Committee to perform the same role in respect of this enabling Bill. The process is thus imperfect and does not allow hon. Members to consider matters in depth.

The Committee that considered the Bill certainly did not have the opportunity to examine issues in detail, many of which the Government raised following the conclusion of the 11th sitting on 21 July. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee undertook an in-depth examination, but that—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Order. There are far too many private conversations in the Chamber, which is unfair to the House.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.

The Home Affairs Committee reported on 20 July 2004—more than a year before the end of the Standing Committee process. The House has thus not had the benefit of the inquisitorial method of working that Select Committees use.

Three matters of principal concern have arisen since the end of the Standing Committee, the first of which is costs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly raised the question of costs throughout the passage of the Bill because it is critical to our understanding of what the national identity card system will mean. Some of us believe that the large investment that the Government propose would be better spent on other forms of detecting and preventing crime, but that is an aside. We need to know the Government's intentions, which were made clear only in the past few days through what the press described as a string of concessions to critics in an effort to avert a rebellion. I do not know whether a rebellion will be averted, but I do know that the House is entitled critically to examine the Government's costings. We must be assured that the costings are robust and capable of being realised. We especially need to examine the Minister's proposed arrangements to recoup funds from other Departments, which will be critical to the working of the scheme.

Secondly, we must consider something that is rather inelegantly called function creep. The Minister has been somewhat undermined by his colleagues in the Cabinet Office, because the Government's chief information officer's draft information technology strategy has been leaked over the past few days. On identity cards, it is important to note that the document reveals:

"Identity management is a subject whose time has now arrived."

It says that the Government are leading the debate on identity cards and will be using it as part of a

"suite of identity management solutions"

to enable public and private sectors to provide cost-effective electronic services. The document also says that data sharing will increase under new proposals.

Those are legitimate matters of concern for many hon. Members, so we want to find out what the Cabinet Office proposes and whether the Home Office agrees.

Thirdly, the efficacy of the proposals—their ability to do what they say they will do—is a matter of huge concern among many hon. Members. In the past few days—after the Standing Committee concluded—we found out the results of tests on the card system. The system works perfectly well—unless a person is disabled, has dark skin, has brown eyes, is bald, or is wrinkled. If someone makes the mistake of being bald and wrinkled, the system tells them that their head is upside down. If a person is a labourer, typist, or pianist, the system does not work. The system does not work if a person undertakes a voluntary change of appearance, which rules out every teenager in the country. If people make the mistake of ageing, identity card technology is not for them. In fact, it has been revealed that one in 1,000 cases result in a misidentification. As 13.5 million people a month go through British airports, there will be 13,500 misidentifications every month, which will do wonders for the queues at security checks.

The Minister's response is that multiple identifiers will cure that problem, but I draw the House's attention to the front page of today's edition of The Scotsman. It says that ID cards equal more fraud and quotes at length Mr. Jerry Fishenden, the national technology officer for Microsoft—a company one would expect to know something about the subject—who says that the identity card scheme as envisaged will result in "massive identity fraud" on a scale as yet unseen. On balance, I prefer the evidence of the Microsoft bosses to that of the Minister, but it is for a Select Committee to look in detail at the proposals. It could call Mr. Fishenden to give evidence.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not think I would be in order if I accepted an intervention, as I am giving a statement of the reasons for recommittal.

It is essential that, before the Bill leaves the House today, a Special Select Committee should have the opportunity to take evidence, examine witnesses and give the House the benefit of reasoned advice on this subject. I shall close with a quote from the Minister of State, who will tell me in a moment that he agrees with the recommittal motion and that this is a matter that should go before a Select Committee. He said that

"the arguments . . . have shifted away from civil liberties to practicalities and costs, and those are the issues we must address".

The Government must address those issues, but so must the House if it is to do its job properly. It cannot do so within the confines of Report and Third Reading as envisaged in the programme motion. The Bill must return to Committee if the House is not to divest itself of its responsibilities and leave it yet again to another place to do the job that we should be doing as the primary Chamber.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fully intend to give the motion the short shrift that it deserves. The matters of substance about which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke will be dealt with, not just by the House in our remaining time today but by the other place. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will agree, we look at things 61 times whenever matters of substance and detail come back to the House. As I have repeatedly said, this is enabling legislation.

As for the history of the proposal, the simple fact is that the Bill and the policy underlying it have probably received more consultation and scrutiny than most legislation. That started in 2002 with an initial six-month public consultation on the entitlement cards and identity fraud consultation paper. An inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee began in 2003 following publication of the Government's policy statement on the introduction of identity cards in "Identity Cards—The Next Steps" in November 2003. The draft Identity Cards Bill was published in April 2004.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not permitted to do so, for the reasons already given by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

The draft Bill was published in April 2004, and the Select Committee went on to undertake formal pre-legislative scrutiny of it, publishing its report in October 2004. We then introduced the first Identity Cards Bill in November 2004, and its Committee stage consisted of eight sittings totalling 24 hours. I know that that will not please the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but it is a normal time scale. That Bill was passed by the House in February 2005 but ran out of time in the House of Lords because of the May election. Prior to the election, there were two full Select Committee inquiries and full determination by a Standing Committee of the House. To suggest that the Bill has not been subjected to due scrutiny is nonsense.

The Bill has come back before us after due process in a Committee for 11 sittings over seven days, a total of 26 hours and six minutes. That six minutes may include the time that there were two Liberals present in Committee. For the substantive part of the debate, there were not two Liberals present, for whatever reason, yet they have the cheek to propose to the House that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee. For 90 per cent. of the time they could not be bothered to have their full complement at the Standing Committee. That is outrageous.

The Bill is very similar to the one passed in February. Because it is an enabling Bill, as I said, much more detailed work will be undertaken by the House in the usual way before the cards are introduced in 2008. It is right to put the legislation in place now so that we can start to put in hand the detailed arrangements for procurement and for building the scheme, and to establish a new agency based on UK Passport Service to be responsible for issuing ID cards. All those matters of detail will have been discussed by the House on 61 occasions, which is right and proper, given that it is enabling legislation. I am sure the House will agree that we would spend our time far better this afternoon debating the substance of the Bill, rather than a silly little motion from the Liberal Democrats.

Clause 1 — The National Identity Register

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 10, after 'others', insert 'who reasonably require proof'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

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

No. 9, in page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 2 and insert—

'(a) of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security;

(b) of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting serious crime;

(c) for the purposes of controlling illegal immigration and enforcing immigration controls; or

(d) for the purpose of securing proper provision of relevant public services.

(4A) For the purposes of subsection(4)—

"relevant public services" means the provision of—

(a) healthcare,

(b) housing,

(c) education, and

(d) social benefits;

"serious crime" means crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment.'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 10, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'prevention or'.

No. 24, in page 2, line 1, after second 'of', insert 'serious'.

No. 15, in, clause 8, page 7, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Government amendment No. 2

No. 16, in clause 8, page 7, line 12, at end insert

'and

(c) is issued for the following purposes only—

(i) to assist in preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security;

(ii) to assist the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting serious crime;

(iii) the purposes of controlling illegal immigration and enforcing immigration controls;

(iv) the purposes of securing proper provision of the following public services, namely

(a) healthcare,

(b) housing,

(c) education, and

(d) social security benefits.'.

No. 20, in clause 45, page 39, line 14, at end insert

'But an order bringing sections 8 to 10 into force may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

We have been here so many times previously, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is sharpening his knife to prepare many of the arguments that I have heard twice in Committee and on which his knife has been blunted at least once.

I hope that the group of amendments, which simply questions the purpose of the register and logically extends that questioning to the card, is reasonably straightforward. I hope that the amendments are self-explanatory but I shall speak briefly about them.

Clause 1(3)(a) reads:

"The statutory purposes are to facilitate, by the maintenance of a record of registrable facts about individuals in the United Kingdom . . . the provision of a convenient method for such individuals to prove registrable facts about themselves to others",

to which amendment No. 8 would add, "who reasonably require proof".

Amendment No. 9 makes a considerable addition to the provisions, and is logically followed by amendment No. 16, which would amend part of the register and the card referred to later in the Bill. Amendment No. 9 would delete paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 1(4), and would add a new paragraph (a) that something is necessary in the public interest if it is:

"of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security".

Everyone can read the amendment for themselves, but I would like to point out that it also proposes the addition of the words:

"For the purposes of subsection (4)—

'relevant public services' means the provision of—

(a) healthcare,

(b) housing,

(c) education, and

(d) social benefits;

'serious crime' means crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment.'."

Except for the last line, that provision is almost the same as amendment No. 16, which relates to identity cards rather than to the register of facts. I hope that amendment No. 6 is also fairly clear. It simply proposes to delete the reference to national security in clause 1(4)(a).

The purpose of the amendments is to question in detail precisely why we are setting about this extremely difficult, demanding and intrusive piece of legislation. We have already heard the contradictory explanations for the purpose of the register and the card. For instance, on 3 July 2002, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who was then Home Secretary, said:

"I accept that it is important that we do not pretend that an entitlement card would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism".

Later, however, in answer to a question from another Member of Parliament, he said that he would not rule out the possibility of

"their substantial contribution to countering terrorism".—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 231, 236.]

I hope that the Minister will explain how those statements now stack up, after the relatively short space of three years. In the light of the events of 7 and 21 July, can the former Home Secretary's opinions be reconciled with the Minister's adapted view of the register and the card?

In December 2004, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside told Parliament that the security services had advised him that 35 per cent. of terrorists used false identification. The general secretary of Interpol, Ron Noble, told the House of Lords Home Affairs Committee that all terrorist incidents involved the use of a false passport. However, when he was challenged about that claim, he was unable to present evidence to support it. In 2004, Privacy International published the findings of the only research ever conducted into the relationship between identity cards and terrorism. It found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the cards could combat terrorist threats. Its report stated:

"The presence of an identity card is not recognised by analysts as a meaningful or significant component in anti-terrorism strategies."

The events of 7 and 21 July obviously brought this issue into much closer focus. I thought it instructive that the current Home Secretary pointed out at the time that even if identity cards had been used, they would have made absolutely no difference to the events of those two days, which the Minister and I both remember clearly, as we were in Committee on at least one of those days.

If this card is designed to combat terrorism, how can it do so against the sort of terrorist that we saw operating in this country in July? This country has tried identity cards previously in the shape of specialist driving licences, as issued in Northern Ireland. They were never broadcast as such, but they were a distinct attempt to try to contain terrorism using a form of identity card. They failed—I can vouch for that, as I was there at the time. The great benefit to us 10, 20 or 30 years ago was that those terrorists with whom we were dealing were identifiable, as many of the families involved had been engaged in terrorism for years, so it was a fair bet that a son or daughter born to a particular family might have subversive views. That is not so with the new brand of terrorist.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In relation to Northern Ireland, I agree that there have been attempts at introducing one form of identification or another down the years. Does he agree that were there any evidence whatever to suggest that formal identification methodologies had been effective in Northern Ireland, the Government would have provided it, yet there has not been a single occasion on which they have been able to do so in the entire history of the identity cards debate?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that it was my experience that this quasi-identity card—which was issued first in the mid-1970s, I think—had a converse effect to that which the Government sought. As he will remember, anybody who had such a card or driving licence on their person had a pass, which, if shown to police or soldiers, gave them free passage. So, it had precisely the opposite effect to that which was intended. If the cards had worked in Ulster, why was their further use not developed? Why was biometric information not added to those cards when that experiment was tried? Empirically, the experiment failed to control terrorism, and I believe that it will do so again. From the mouths of Ministers, including the Home Secretary, it is acknowledged that identity cards would not have affected how "clean skins" operate inside this country.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I accept that identity cards would not prevent a particular incident from taking place. However, their use and a register would make it much easier to identify people using multiple identities subsequently, and would therefore aid their capture and reduce the global pool of would-be terrorists.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

That is a fair point. If that is the case, however, first, let us confirm that the biometrics and technology will work to allow that to happen. Secondly, why did the Home Secretary say in July that identity cards would not have affected the two sets of attacks? I do not know. Conceivably, if the card can be made to work, if the biometrics are feasible, and if it comes in at a reasonable cost, there may be something in it. I see nothing at the moment that suggests that it would work, however.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

I cannot recall the Home Secretary's exact words in July, but I do recall a discussion about the use of identity cards in Spain to identify the Madrid bombers, and about mobile phones. Because it was necessary to register an identity card when buying a mobile phone, it was possible to track down the bombers.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

That is not the point that the Government are making. The bombers in Spain were identified as a result of a number of basic mistakes that they made with the use of mobile phones. The fact that evidence had been well maintained and recorded, and had been used by both the mobile phone companies and the police—as well as the curiously amateurish behaviour of the terrorists—allowed the terrorists to be identified.

The hon. Gentleman did, however, make a fair point. The bombers who killed themselves on 7 July did two things very deliberately. First, they made sure that their faces were recorded by cameras before they went to their deaths. Secondly—this is really the point—they made sure that they had on them forms of identity so that their bodies could be identified, and they would reap whatever rewards they thought they might as a result of claiming responsibility for their acts.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Spanish identity card played no role in the detection of those responsible for the Madrid bombings?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

It certainly played no role in preventing the bombings, although it helped when linked with telephone records.

Had identity cards been on the bodies of the 7 July bombers, that would have been frightfully helpful; but that is not the point. The cards are not about trying to identify dead bodies. They are about what we call preventing terrorism.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The bombers in Spain were still alive, and the police and security services were able to locate them rapidly. That may have prevented them from carrying out further damage and destruction.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

That is simply not the case. As the Minister is well aware, those terrorists attacked again within two weeks.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I think that this is a bit of a red herring. The amendments are concerned with how we can make the register more robust. Loopholes in the Bill need to be tightened. There are far too many freedoms in it. We are trying to deal with serious crime. We are trying to ensure that facts about security are listed. We shall discuss that later, but massive loopholes are littered throughout the Bill, and we seek to tighten them.

May I add that all this discussion about whether or not someone has—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

No, the hon. Gentleman may not. An intervention should be very much more concise.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

My hon. Friend is right: there are loopholes all over the place. The amendments seek to define the purpose of the register and of the identity cards, which is why at least two are linked.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). Is not the point that the Spanish identity card has a very different scope from the card proposed in the Bill, which includes an enormous database? The Government could obtain the advantages that they believe the Spanish card provides with a much simpler system.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The hon. Lady is right. The Spanish model is entirely different from the one proposed by the Government.

In the context of terrorism, the card stands condemned by its own statements and indeed those of Ministers. Let me amplify a point I made earlier. In January this year, a mess tent in Baghdad was blown to pieces. There were 43 casualties, both Iraqi and American. It seems likely that the suicide bomber who blew them up was an Iraqi policeman, and that he was carrying an identity card that allowed him to get through the security checks and to penetrate to the very centre of his target before detonating his bomb. In some ways, such a card would not impede terrorism; indeed, it might actually help it.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Do we not need to know from the Government precisely how helpful identity cards and the register would be in the detection and prevention of terrorism, so that we can judge whether the system's disadvantages would be outweighed by such help? Is it not true that at the moment, the Government are offering the blanket statement—sometimes it is a blanket statement—that this provision will be frightfully helpful in dealing with terrorism, but that on other occasions, they say that it will not be quite so helpful? What we really need to know is how helpful it would be, so that we can properly judge whether it is worth the candle.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention and he is absolutely right: we need to ask ourselves whether this card is really going to deliver the promises that have been made. I have made the point, I trust, that the Government's view changes by the day. On First Reading, which I had the perhaps tainted pleasure of attending some months ago, terrorism played a big part in the Bill's logic. When we went through the Bill for the second time, the Government's line suddenly changed after 7 July. In a way, it is lucky for them that the House rose on 21 July, before these issues could be examined in any great detail.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's military background and for the great knowledge that he brings to this House, but I am a little bit concerned about the example of the mess tent bombing that he mentioned. He said that the ID card allowed the bomber to access the tent and then to explode the bomb, but even if the bomber had not possessed such a card, he would surely have had some kind of pass; in fact, without one he could not have been a member of the police force. We should also consider the example of this House, which gives passes to people so that they can enter it. So trying to argue that the ID card allowed the bomb to be planted in the mess tent is stretching the House a little.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I would not wish to stretch the House in any way, shape or form, and nor would I wish to stretch my credibility with the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to expand on, perhaps even dilate on, the point that a form of identity can—can—assist terrorists. Obviously, the circumstances in Iraq are very different from those that we face today. The fact remains, however, that had the identity card scheme been in place, such cards would quite legitimately and properly have been with all the bombers who died on 7 July. They might have been very useful in identifying their shattered remains, of course, but they certainly would not have prevented terrorism.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. Is it not true that the more the security forces rely on identity cards, the less alert they will be to other factors? In the Iraq case that was mentioned, the person in question probably waved the identity card and managed to get straight in. But if similar circumstances arise in the United Kingdom, it is very likely that terrorists who do not want to be detected will have false identity cards, and that they will therefore be waved through the various systems of checks.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Possibly, but such terrorists need not necessarily have false identities. Having a proper, pukka, legal, straightforward identity will not prevent terrorism. I was a serving soldier in Northern Ireland when the illustrated driving licence was introduced—it was introduced first with a photograph and then with a thumbprint—and we were told that it would be the solution to terrorism. Much of the terrorism in Ulster was conducted by people using cars, trucks and the like, and we were told that the licence would solve the problem. It did not. On the contrary, the tired, wet, exhausted and distracted soldiers saw that piece of identity as a pass—something to assist rather than impede.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There may be a number of circumstances in which possession of an identification card helps to prevent terrorism, but in the majority of cases, that will be so only if the possession and carrying of the card is made a mandatory requirement of law. That, of course, is expressly excluded by the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

As usual, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. He is quite right that the carriage of the card—though the register may have some useful purposes—is not required by the Bill. Having sat through several Committee sittings, I know that we were told that enabling legislation could be introduced quickly to compel people to carry the card, but I absolutely take my right hon. and learned Friend's point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is being notably generous in giving way. This provision pertains to who is to maintain the register and what is to appear on the card when it is issued. I am very concerned both about what is going to be on the card and about who will have access to it. For example, could clause 1(4)(d) oblige every employer to check every potential employee and, if so, how will employers do that and how will they gain access to the register?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Those questions certainly need to be answered, but I would suggest a prior question: will the card work? Is the technology capable of recording the various details to which my hon. Friend has just referred? I shall not test your patience further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by digressing to answer that question more fully. It will, in any case, recur later on and it remains a hugely good and important point.

I believe that the Government have tried to make the card all things to all men—a one-size-fits-all approach. We know that the card will not have to be carried and that no one can demand to see it, and we shall come on in due course to the cost of the card, which I believe will be prohibitive. The fact remains that the benefits of both the register and the identity card are highly dubious and I do not accept the claim that they will prevent terrorism.

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

As others have said, the hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. He is establishing some important points, but before he finishes, will he comment on the fact that the card will not only articulate identity, but allow the actions of the bearer to be traced? It is both a contact card and a contact-less card. As one enters a public place, the card establishes that one has been there. When an individual possesses the card, the actions and activities of its bearer are traceable. That is an important matter, which has not been at the forefront of debates on the Floor of the House, though it may have been mentioned in Committee.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I can certainly confirm that the human rights elements of what might be called the Big Brother aspects of the card have been explored thoroughly in Committee. To my mind, those aspects are hugely disagreeable, but if the Government wish to control a population, put a population under surveillance or poke their nose into every detail of someone's life, I can see that those aspects could be viewed as highly desirable. I would reply to the hon. Gentleman by posing the question whether the card could ever work.

Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrat, Truro and St Austell)

Pursuing that point, is not the opposite likely to be the case? Is not the process of registration of tens of millions of people built around the same paper process that we already use to identify people and is it not capable of being abused? Could we not be creating an opportunity for thousands or even tens of thousands of false identities to be created at the very process of registration in the first place—carrying over all the weaknesses of the present ID systems? Once the card is issued, the biometric data can tell us that this is the person who holds that card, but it certainly does not tell us that it is a genuine identity.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The old aphorism relating to any form of computer or intelligence work is, "Rubbish in, rubbish out." Unless we get it right from the first principles, the card and the register stand little chance of success. [Interruption.] I seem to have had the desired effect on my own Benches. [Laughter.] We are getting the chance to check the dentures of one of my colleagues, thereby establishing his identity beyond doubt. [Laughter.]

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

If I may leave terrorism for a moment and go on to the second claim made by the Government, concerning serious and organised crime. I have asked the Government on a number of occasions to provide one—just one—example of a crime detected in this country in the recent past that would have been stopped by an identification card. No single example has been provided to me. Has any example been provided in Committee or to the hon. Gentleman?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The hon. and learned Gentleman as usual puts his finger on it. I hope that my earlier quote from Interpol illustrates exactly that point. Nothing that is claimed for the card has been proved to my satisfaction.

The card claims much but in practice will deliver little. It changes with the wind. The Government sometimes see the card as being the cure-all to everything, a panacea across the piece. It will sort out crime and prevent terrorism. It will be an entitlement card without parallel. But this group of amendments exposes the card and the register for what they are; unworkable.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Clauses 1 and 2 contain the meat of the Bill, as was reflected in Committee by the exceptionally substantial debate that we had on them. I observe in passing that now they are on the Floor of the House, we are to be allowed one hour and seven minutes to do them justice.

As the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, time and again the Government have damaged their own case by constantly seeking to oversell identity cards, presumably because of the extraordinary costs that will be involved in their introduction and operation. Just as one argument is knocked down, so it seems another has to be produced. We are told that it is about identity fraud and then that it is not; that it is about terrorism, and then that it is not; that it is about benefit fraud and then that it is not.

My concern is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman in relation to the underpinning of his amendments, although I have one or two detailed points where I disagree with him. I will come to them later, but my fundamental concern is that the Bill is exceptionally widely drawn. Nowhere is that more apparent than clause 1(4), which seeks to define those things that are considered to be necessary in the public interest.

The House will see that paragraphs (a) to (d) are fairly sensibly and reasonably drawn. Paragraph (a) says:

"in the interests of national security".

Paragraph (b) talks about

"the prevention or detection of crime"

—or as our amendment No. 24 would have it, "serious crime". Paragraph (c) says for

"the enforcement of immigration controls"

and (d)

"enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment."

So far, so good. But when one comes to (e), one finds the catch-all,

"securing the efficient and effective provision of public services."

It is not so much a question of what that contains, but what it does not contain. The provision gives the Government carte blanche to hold and use information in just about any way they choose. As later clauses reveal, in almost every instance the Government will be able to appoint themselves the sole arbiter of what constitutes the public interest in these matters.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does my hon. Friend recall that I questioned the Prime Minister about this matter? Although the Labour-led Welsh Assembly voted against requiring the use of identity cards to access public services, the Prime Minister was not willing to give any indication that there might be an exemption for Wales. That makes me believe that the Government are hell bent on introducing the provision, and that they are not simply giving themselves the option to do so.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is clear that there will be different modes of operation in different parts of the UK. He has highlighted the situation in Wales, but the Scottish Executive have already made their position clear. In the public services for which they are responsible—that is, health, education and policing, in the main—the Executive have stated that they have no wish to use identity cards. It seems, happily, that the influence of the control freaks in No. 10 Downing street lessens the further one gets from London.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Gentleman is making a very persuasive speech. Is not his argument supported by the Select Committee report, which states, in terms, that the purpose provisions in clause 1 are too widely drawn? The report says that those provisions should be narrowly confined, and offers some recommendations in that respect.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and his intervention allows me to explain why the concerns about the widely drawn nature of the purposes in clause 1 are important. The debate is not simply about the possession of an identity, but about how the Government have constructed their proposals. They intend to set up a register of the information provided, and then the Bill details how that information is to be used—when, where, and for what purpose.

In effect, the Bill establishes a personal footprint for each individual that the Government can access—apparently at any time and for any reason, just about —to find where people have been and what they have been doing. As I and others have said in the House before, the Bill redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state, or the individual and the Government. It seems to proceed on the assumption that, in some way, the people are accountable to the Government. My contention is that that should be the other way around—that the Government should be accountable to the people. If the Government need access to the personal footprint that I have described, they should provide a coherent and compelling reason.

Matthew Taylor (Liberal Democrat, Truro and St Austell)

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point about how widely drawn are the powers of the state, as set out in clause 1. However, we know from the Cabinet Office leak that the Government also foresee that the information will be used by the private sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that a person's identity number and card may be required by a growing number of private-sector organisations, as validation of that individual's identity? As a result, those organisations will build up data around that number, and the Government may well be able to buy into that data. Is not this a system for allowing the collection of an almost infinite amount of information about individuals—by the Government, and by those who might try to access various forms of data networks about people? The latter may pay for that information, but they might also procure it illegitimately, by breaking into those data networks.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Interventions should be brief, as this debate is very much time limited.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

There is very little that I need add to my hon. Friend's intervention, other than to say that he makes a good point about function creep. That becomes possible because the purposes are so widely drawn.

Government amendment No. 2 is unexceptionable. However, given the catalogue of examination that the Minister of State outlined earlier in response to the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), it is remarkable that the Government should still feel it necessary to table their own amendments.

The Minister of State was pressed in Committee on clause 7, which is the mechanism by which identity cards may be made compulsory. I read press reports during the summer months which suggested that the Minister had accepted during a Home Office seminar that the so-called super-affirmative procedure was defective and unworkable. Is that the case? If so, why have the Government not tabled amendments to rectify the defects today?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I am one of those in the House who believes in identity cards. My problem with the Bill is that the Government have shown an infallible ability so to form it that it drives away from their support the very people whose support one would have thought that they could have gained.

The amendments go to the heart of the matter. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has rightly pointed out that with this Bill the Government have given themselves every possibility to do almost anything in any circumstances. Many of us who are not unhappy with the concept of an identity card are unhappy with the concept of a Government who give themselves powers like that. Governments have an insatiable desire for power and therefore will use it in ways that most of us will find unacceptable.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made the point that seems to me central to this issue. If we are to agree with the Government that we should have identity cards, we need to know three clear things. First, what restrictions on the use of identity information will the Government put permanently in place and what mechanisms will they use to do so? We need to know the scope of the legislation. These clauses show that the scope is in no way restricted. It is envisaged to be as wide as the Government think it should be at any particular time.

The second issue that the amendments raise is what the Government think that the identity card might do. I happen to think that there are certain areas in which it would be helpful and useful to have a unique register of everybody's name and address. It is possible to argue that that could be portrayed on a card. I happen to think the other way round from my hon. and learned Friend; I think that the register is more important than the card. Be that as it may, there are mechanisms by which this could be done. What the Government cannot do is to claim for identity cards things that are self-evidently not true. The Government in so doing are driving away people who might otherwise have been corralled. It seems to me that the Government are making a series of claims, hoping that one way or another they will pick up the support of all sorts of people whose support they would not otherwise have gained. In fact, the opposite is happening. As each of these claims is made and found wanting, people begin to ask whether the whole idea is a sensible one.

The third issue that the amendments raise is what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough referred to as "Will it work?" Unless we know its scope and what it is supposed to do, we can make no judgment as to whether this particular scheme—let alone the technology, which one cannot deal with on this group of amendments—will work. None of these things seem to me to be evident from the Bill. It is an inconvenience of the House that in these days of truncated debates and the significantly underused potential of Parliament, the only way in which we can get at these things is by tabling amendments such as this and asking for sensible responses. So I put three simple questions to the Minister. Will he put in the Library a list of the specific purposes of the Bill? What does he think he will be able to do after he has got it that he cannot do now? Will he, perhaps with a little narrative, describe incidents that could have been better dealt with if only he had had this particular equipment? That seems to me to be what any sensible person would do if they were running a business and thinking of spending a lot of money. They would ask how they could be in a better position and whether the solution would have been cost-effective if applied to their past actions.

Perhaps the Minister could explain the role of the identity card in the prevention of terrorism. I can see that it would be useful in circumstances in which someone claims to be Mr. Jones to check whether they are indeed that person. That is a satisfactory concept, but I cannot see how widely that could be used in the direct battle against terrorism. The Minister should tell us more about that.

I have always thought that it would be very helpful for people in this country to know that those people who claim benefits are entitled to them and not fiddling the system. I think that not for atavistic reasons, but because I happen to believe that benefits are an important part of a civilised society and people should not be besmirched because the system does not work very well. We have heard such contradictory views from the Government about how ID cards could be used against fraud, how much that might save and how many people might be involved, that it is difficult for any sane person to make a judgment. Many of us want to make a judgment, because we are not here for theological reasons only. Can the Minister give a definitive statement of how ID cards and the register will be useful in that area?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Why does the right hon. Gentleman have a problem with clause 1(4), which clearly outlines the purposes of the Bill? With which of those uses of the Bill does he have a problem?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Well, clause 1(4) may outline the purposes of the Bill, but it is on such a broad canvas that it is like a Tintoretto painting, with many little figures. The Government have focused on a tiny part of the canal and said that they are concerned only about that bit, but they have painted all the rest in because it is pretty and because they might be concerned about that campanile at a later stage. That is a fanciful example, but perhaps it will cheer up those listening to the debate.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My question for my right hon. Friend is in part a response to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods). When my right hon. Friend sounds out the Minister, as he is doing so clearly, he may wish to ask what aspect of government does not fall within the definition of

"securing the efficient and effective provision of public services".

That is included in the stated purposes of the Bill.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My right hon. and learned Friend has underlined the point that my metaphor of a great painting is far too small. The Bill will enable the Government to use the ID card and the register to discover the number of times an individual has used a public library, if they decide that discovering that fact is in the national interest. The hon. Lady must understand that the clause would enable the Government to discover anything they like—probably not the number of times a person uses public lavatories, but that could be one of the examples.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

When my right hon. Friend asks the Minister to place that document in the Library, will he also ask him to place in the Library a draft of the 60 statutory instruments that the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to produce?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

61.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Will my right hon. Friend also ask the Minister to produce, as the Government promised they would in Committee, the code of practice on penalties, which is referred to in clause 36? We are legislating in a vacuum, and it is essential that my right hon. Friend presses his point because, unless the detail of the Bill is got right now, the public will be at a loss.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. and learned Friend is, of course, absolutely right, but my difficulty in increasing the number of things that I want to ask the Minister to do is that I will reveal to the world that close-kept secret that there is no information about anything that is detailed enough for anyone to make a real judgment about the Bill. I am not saying this from any antagonistic position. I want identity cards—they are a good idea—but the Minister is making it quite impossible for anyone who is logically, sensibly approaching this matter to vote for the Bill, for we know nothing about all the key issues. Without that knowledge, how am I to reassure my constituents, whom I have always told that I want identity cards— I have always supported them—that this proposal does not run counter to everything else that I have ever told them?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Will the right hon. Gentleman add a further request to the long list of questions about the intention? Will he ask the Minister to explain how the Government will guarantee that no one with a mind to corrupt and abuse the database can gain access to it and perhaps gain employment by doing so? Obviously, if there is corruption on the inside, the system falls apart. I suspect that the Government will not be able to give that guarantee.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

The Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman's sensible proposition. The Minister has received a number of requests, so I shall leave him with an answer: he ought to think seriously about taking the whole thing out of the Government's control. It seems to me that the Bill would be acceptable only if it were entirely independently controlled and all these issues were decided not by the Government and not by the weight of government. Frankly, these decisions are too important to be made by people who are parti pris. For the Government to decide what they think is in the public interest when what they will decide is what they think is in their interest, which is a wholly different thing, seems to be too great a power for the House to give to the Government. Therefore, I ask the Minister, please, not only to answer my questions, but to seek a different format that will ensure that, in this the mother of Parliaments, we do not give away to the Government powers that no previous generation has ever been willing to give.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I apologise to those Opposition Members who still wish to speak, but this section of debate will conclude at a quarter to 6, and a lot of serious issues have been raised about the purpose of the scheme, so it is only right to address them in detail.

Clause 1, with which we are preoccupied, sets out the purpose of the national identity register, and I would tell the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that two very clear statutory purposes for the Bill are given in that clause: first, to provide a convenient method by which individuals can prove who they are—he recognised that he might indeed welcome that—and, secondly, to provide a secure and reliable method by which public bodies and others can ascertain identification and thereby better serve the public interest.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I shall try to be briefer than I was in my last intervention. I thank you for allowing me some latitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The register will only work if there is a way to check that an individual belongs to the ID, so verification systems—perhaps using some form of scanner—will be needed. Does the Minister agree that, every time we embark on a plane flight, we will have to confirm who we are by using some form of system to verify the card itself?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I most certainly do. When the hon. Gentleman travels on an aeroplane, I think he will find that he has to carry identification with him. That is nothing new, but by moving to a highly secure means of identification we can be sure that the people sitting in aeroplanes are who they claim to be. That is one of the principal reasons why we are introducing the Bill.

The point that Opposition Members seem to be missing is that, although they may not like it, the running of society depends on identification. Every day, millions of transactions are carried out by public and private sector bodies to ascertain people's identity. It is directly in the interest of us all, as individuals and as citizens, that those checks be carried out to the highest possible standard and as efficiently as possible.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is dealing with what is deemed to be in the public interest. Will he tell the House which aspects of government do not fall within the definition of

"securing the efficient and effective provision of public services"?

Most of us believe that it could extend to any function of government of every kind.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is assiduous in these matters and always reads the legislation, but perhaps I might refer him to paragraphs (a) to (e), subsection (4) of clause 1, where he will see clearly set out the purposes of the Bill and the functions for which we are introducing it. His answer is before him.

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

The Minister referred to the fact that people should be able to prove who they are, and in answer to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) cited the usefulness of passports in establishing people's identity before they went on a flight. The difference between a passport and an identity card, as far as I can work out, is that for a passport one's identity must be vouched for by a responsible person such as a doctor, magistrate or Member of Parliament. Will every person who registers for an identity card have to obtain an endorsement from an outside person?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

That is not just for passports. Catching an internal flight in the UK requires a form of identification and the ID card would provide a useful means of doing that. As my hon. Friend knows, we are describing a system that would utterly change the method of applying for passports. It will involve moving to a system of application by interview, whereby the individual is present when they are enrolling their biometrics. That is the premise on which the scheme is being rolled out. That front-end system—the higher standard of identity check—will give my hon. Friend the guarantees that he seeks.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

I should be grateful if the Minister returned to the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). He referred the Minister to paragraph (e) of subsection (4)—

"for the purpose of securing the efficient and effective provision of public services".

What falls outside that in the public interest? That was the question put to the Minister, but he merely referred us back to that paragraph. Will he please give a justification or an answer?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Across the public sector, bodies are performing identity checks day in, day out, be they the local council, the Criminal Records Bureau or the DVLA—any number of organisations. The point is that those checks are already being carried out, and if a higher standard of identity check can be introduced it must surely be in the interests of each and every one of us—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to listen to the answer? It is in the interest of each and every one of us that those checks be carried out to a higher standard than at present.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I want to make progress to answer some of the points that Members have raised during the debate.

Let me make one thing clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones): it is not and never has been our intention to create an elaborate database that would hold detailed personal profiles for every individual. Rather, it is our intention to create a system that takes basic personal facts about each of us—name, address and date of birth—which are already held on databases, such as those for passports or the DVLA, and link them to a unique personal identifier, such as a fingerprint or an iris scan.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Will the Minister give way?

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Will the Minister give way?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I want to finish answering the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.

The link between those basic facts and the unique identifier puts the individual citizen in control of the use of their data. They alone can put that personal stamp on those basic facts and they hold the key to their use. That is one of the main arguments for the system. It is a basic identification system, not the elaborate database about which my hon. Friend seemed to have concerns.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Will my hon. Friend explain how the Government's proposals, which involve storing 10 fingerprints, facial biometrics and two irises on the national database, will achieve his objectives more effectively than the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, under which just a face and fingerprint are stored on a chip on a card that people carry?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We had to take a decision on the extent to which biometrics would be collected when enrolment was carried out. We believe that it is right to ensure that it will not be necessary to bring people back for further enrolment two or more years after their initial enrolment. The combination of different biometrics will give the high standard of identification check that we want.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, of all bodies, has put together information about the use of multiple biometrics. Far from creating fewer false accepts and false rejects, the reverse can be the case in certain circumstances, so multiple biometrics do not necessarily lead to the results that the Minister wants. His assertion in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) was thus not correct, so will he comment on the fact that using multiple biometrics will not deliver the beneficial results that he wants?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

We will proceed to a full technology trial if the Bill receives Royal Assent. In the interim, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report by the National Physical Laboratory, which examined the matter in detail and concluded that biometric systems could be used in the way in which we propose. I also refer him to experiences in the United States, where such systems are already in widespread use. The technology is not new and coming to us only now, but established and used today throughout the world to prove people's identities.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The German Federal Parliament's Office of Technology Assessment warned that introducing biometrics on such a scale would be a "gigantic laboratory test" and that face recognition was known to fail. Other bodies throughout the world argue the case against what the Minister says.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The European Union has already agreed to move in the direction of requiring the widespread use of biometrics. The United States has also taken such a decision in principle, as has the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred a few moments ago. It is up to the hon. Gentleman if he wants the British Government to stand back from that and thus ensure that British citizens have second-class passports that will not enable them to travel with freedom and convenience in the future, but Labour Members will not take that decision.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

The Minister said that it was not the Government's intention to create a vast body of information and that the Bill sets out what may be stored on the database. However, he is aware that Ministers will be enabled by secondary legislation to add to the categories of information on the database, which causes great concern to many of us. Will he comment on that and, especially, the report in today's edition of The Guardian that the Government will give an undertaking that that power could not be used? I do not know where that provision appears in the Bill, so I would grateful if the Minister dealt with the matter.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

We do not have time to consider Government amendment No. 1, but I refer my hon. and learned Friend to it because it will give him the reassurance that he wants. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised the legitimate point in Committee that clause 1(5)(g) suggested that personal sensitive data could be covered by the Bill, such as those on the police national computer. We have thus tabled Government amendment No. 1 to rule out the use of sensitive personal data, as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998, with which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) will be familiar.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I will press on, because I do not have much time.

Terrorism was raised by many Opposition Members. No Minister has ever claimed that the proposal is a silver bullet to deal with terrorism, but the scheme as conceived will provide the security services and the police with a useful tool, enabling them to tackle and identify individuals responsible for terrorism. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked me to give a definitive statement explaining why the measure is useful in tackling terrorism. I refer him to the head of the Security Service, who said:

"ID cards will make it more difficult for terrorists to operate."

We must listen to the security services, and we must take on board the points that they make. The right hon. Gentleman will remember better than me debates in the early 1990s about closed circuit television in which the same fears about a surveillance society and function creep were expressed. No one in this country can doubt the role that CCTV played in the aftermath of the London bombings.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I acknowledge what the head of the Security Service said, but where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Can the Minister point to an incident that was prevented at a certain time and place in a certain country because of the possession of such an identity card? Have things been improved?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The argument is clear. The main strength of the biometric system is that individuals can only register their personal details once, because they have only one set of biometrics to register. Terrorist networks around the world rely and thrive on the use of multiple identities. They use multiple travel documents and passports. Tackling that is one of the Bill's key strengths.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister and the Government have failed to answer a fundamental question. Can they guarantee that the system is not open to corruption? If the Minister wishes to be taken seriously on the issue, can he give a 100 per cent. commitment that there is no opportunity for corruption within the system itself?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

All afternoon we have heard from Liberal Democrat conspiracy theorists who seem to think that this is about creating great things that will be used to control people. However, is the hon. Gentleman confident that the system for issuing passports is as secure as it could be? If he does not accept the new system, how does he propose to make the passport system more secure?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

rose—

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

I will not give way, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue on many occasions I shall give him one instance of a serious crime that identity cards could help to prevent. Last week, on Tuesday 11 October, Metro revealed that a fraudster who created 130 false identities to swindle hundreds of banks out £1.1 million was jailed for five and a half years. Identity fraud is not a figment of our imagination—it is a real problem that affects more and more of my constituents and perhaps the hon. Gentleman's too. The issue is repeatedly brought to our attention, so it is right to take action against it.

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

As we will not be able to debate Government amendment No. 1, will my hon. Friend explain the difference between a "registrable fact" and "information"? How does "information" differ from a "registrable fact"?

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Government amendment No. 1 clarifies the definition of an identity card by means of a minor amendment. The information mentioned in clause 1 is qualified by the additional reference in Government amendment No. 2. That gives my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

The points raised in the debate have been dealt with on many occasions by me and by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality—

Clause 5 — Applications Relating to Entries in the Register

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 42, leave out 'must' and insert

'may, if the applicant so chooses'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

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

No. 39, in page 5, line 17, at end insert

', provided that the specified place is no further than 20 miles by road to the nearest point on the public road network to the individual's place of residence'.

No. 36, in page 5, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 37, in page 5, line 18, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 38, in page 5, line 25, at end add—

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

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

No. 13, in page 5, line 26, leave out Clause 6.

No. 14, in page 6, line 11, leave out Clause 7.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

The amendment would make it possible to be issued with a designated document without having to go on the national identity register by replacing the word "must" with

"may, if the applicant so chooses."

It would thus remove one of the most important elements of compulsion from the Bill.

The content of the register and its use is probably the major issue for me. The register will be different from anything else that is being constructed in parts of the world where identity cards are used or biometric passports are being introduced. No other register of which I know has the audit trail that was mentioned earlier. The Government clearly have a problem when they say, as they have said from the beginning of the debates on identity cards, that the system will initially be voluntary. There is a contradiction between claiming that it will be voluntary and getting people on the national identity register. The amendment deals with that.

A related issue is defining exactly what constitutes a designated document. There is no doubt from comments in previous debates that a passport will be a designated document. That may apply to other things. From reading the Committee proceedings, a designated document might be a Criminal Records Bureau letter, a firearms certificate or a driving licence. That information is important because it affects the scope of clause 5 and those who will have to register under it to get a document that they may want or need.

Dealing with compulsion is at the heart of the amendment. Compulsion crops up in different forms in various clauses. The Government have clearly said that the Bill does not provide for compelling people to carry an identity card. There will be no compulsion, without further legislation, to produce an identity card to access services. There is no compulsion to have a card and be registered. However, the tactics are clear: the measure is an enabling Bill and, ultimately and inevitably, having a card will be compulsory. It will certainly become compulsory to register. It became clear during previous debates that that is the ultimate aim. The tactic is obviously to leave the difficult cases until the end. They include people who do not have passports or driving licences, such as those who are elderly or infirm, and those who are difficult to tackle because they have chaotic lifestyles.

However, clause 5 provides for compulsion from day one in a slightly more subtle form.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

I apologise for missing the first moments of my hon. Friend's speech. Does not he agree that even the Bill's critics have said that it is desirable to test the concept of identity cards on a large number of people, otherwise we cannot get a fair impression? What is more natural than to test them on people who seek official documents, such as passports?

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Some people might be prepared to be involved in trying out an ID card but let them make that choice rather than compelling them to do it. Let me be clear about what has been said previously. Some people have said to me that our manifesto contained a commitment to ID cards. Let me therefore quote the relevant passage. It states:

"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and"—

the part that is especially relevant to the amendment—

"rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports."

Any normal person—by that I mean people outside this place—would interpret that as, "When I renew my passport, I can choose whether to go on the register and have an ID card." That is what "initially voluntary" would mean to anyone who read it.

However, the clause does not provide for something that is truly voluntary and the amendment tries to remedy that. Indeed, I am being generous because the amendment would provide for more than the manifesto outlined. It would apply not only to passports but to other registrable documents. To all practical purposes, the clause provides for compulsion.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

May I check that the hon. Gentleman and I share the same interpretation? The announcement yesterday that one could get a £30 identity card and buy a passport separately does not mean that, when one buys a passport, one would have the option of saying, "Thank you for the passport but I don't want the ID card." Unless the amendment is accepted, one would be made to have the ID card.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill clearly provides that, to get a designated document, a person "must" include an application to be entered on the register. One could claim that the person did not necessarily have to be presented with an ID card, but being on the register is what matters. The implication is clear. Not registering would mean no renewal of a passport or new passport. According to what constitutes a designated document, it could mean no driving licence and no Criminal Records Bureau check. Of course, I could decide that I did not want a passport. I could decide not to travel, drive or apply to the Criminal Records Bureau. The implication is that, by not registering, I would lose abilities or what some of us regard as rights.

It has been accepted for hundreds of years that a British citizen has a right to leave and re-enter the country. The passport has traditionally been a travel document that facilitated one's ability to leave and return to the country. However, if the Bill is passed in its current form, I cannot exercise that right without registering my biometrics.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that many of us would be willing to accept an international agreement that, to travel internationally and have a passport, certain other information had to be given, but that that is entirely different from having to comply with the new Big Brother system, fill in a form and register in order to remain in our country and live here, without any international travel obligations? I will buy one but I shall never be persuaded of the second.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

There is a question of choice involved: do we want to travel internationally? It might well be that, under international agreements, other information has to be stored. I do not have a problem with having biometric data on a passport; that is not the issue for me. The issue is the register, the database on which all that biometric and other information is to be stored.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Will my hon. Friend explain how he envisages a biometric passport working without the support of a register? If such a passport is presented in a country that requires a biometric passport without there being a register to check that the information is correct, how on earth is it to operate?

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

That question ought to be put to just about every other country in the world that is introducing biometric data on passports, because they are not going to have a national register such as the one proposed in the Bill. For instance, biometric passports are being introduced in Germany, yet German law specifically prohibits the construction of a database using that information. Biometric documents are also being introduced in Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. Those countries are going down the road of introducing biometrics, but without setting up a national database.

The United States is often cited as the reason for our introducing biometric passports, because we will not be eligible for its visa waiver scheme if we do not have them. When we turn up at the airport in the US, a machine will compare the biometrics on our passport with our own personal biometrics. That is how the system will be used. A comparison will be made between the document that we are carrying and our personal biometrics. That will show that I am the person whose biometrics are on the document. The United States will not then try to check back to a national database, either in this country or anywhere else. If it wished to, there would need to be some serious amendments to the Bill to allow access by other countries to the information on our national register.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, to ensure that a terrorist did not get on to an aeroplane, if everyone were compelled to be on a register, their ID card would somehow have to be verified, to prove that they were the person whose details were on it? That means that we should need some form of verification device at every airport. That would make the ID card redundant, because everyone would be on the register, and the Minister confirmed earlier that there would be verification systems at airports. The question of whether ID cards should be compulsory is therefore academic.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

We must be careful not to exaggerate what can be done through biometric checks at airports or anywhere else. It is possible to check whether I am the person whose details are on a card. But let us consider the number of people who come in and out of the UK or any other major country every year. About 80 million people, of whom 60 million are British citizens, come in and out of British airports each year. It is inevitable that many of them will be travelling without biometric documents for a long time to come. We must be careful not to exaggerate the level of security that we can achieve. I am not suggesting that we should not make those checks if they can be made, but the issue that really concerns me is not the general principle but the question of compelling someone who applies for a biometric passport to be on the register.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's need to use this element of compulsion to get the scheme started suggests that it would not be a popular scheme if it were left to the voluntary initiative of individuals to decide to register on the database? By doing this, are not the Government recognising that the scheme will be unpopular?

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

The scheme will get less and less popular as people learn more about it. That is already happening, and it will continue once it starts to roll out. This has already been experienced in other countries: Australia is an obvious example. The more people knew about the system as it started to come into operation, the less popular it became. As I said earlier, the tactic is very clear: try to do the easy ones first. Someone who is applying for a passport, and who needs that passport, will feel that they have no alternative. They will feel that if they do not put their name on the register it could cause them serious problems in other ways.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

On a point of clarification, my hon. Friend cited Denmark as an example of a country that was introducing biometric passports without a compulsory register. I used to live in Denmark, and I know that it has had a compulsory personal register for more than 40 years.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

There is a difference between a personal register and one that contains all our biometrics. My understanding is that Denmark is not going to have a register that contains all the biometric information as well. So the checks that are carried out there will be on a one-to-one basis using the passport. That is certainly the case in a number of other countries.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The passport authority already has a database containing all the information submitted when we apply for a passport. However, that is a static database that contains only our name, address and the other details that we submit. It does not have all the potential of the Government's proposed database for audit trails and for tracking where we are going or inquiring about our whereabouts. Neither does the present database have the vast complexity that will render the new one liable to all kinds of problems.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We all know that information about us is stored on databases. The question is whether the proposed database is acceptable. Is it something that we want?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, in this discussion, we are changing fundamentally the attitude towards passports. The passport is not a privilege offered by the Government to citizens. It is a right of citizens to get the support of their Government when travelling abroad. If the Government insist that we cannot have that right without compulsorily entering into something else, it is the first example of a change in the relationship between Government and subject. This is not an easy thing to bring about; it is a fundamental change to what the passport means. Inside our passports, there is a promise by the Government to do all that they can to enable me or any passport holder who is a British subject to move round the world unhindered. However, it will now become a privilege offered by the Government to such people as will sign up.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

That is a very important point. I referred to it earlier when I mentioned the right to leave and re-enter the country. These proposals do represent a change in the nature of the passport. In fact, they are beginning to change the passport from being a document that facilitates travel and can be used to seek assistance if needed to one that is becoming a sort of identity document.

It is strange that an EU citizen exercising freedom of movement will be able to come in and out of the UK without having their data recorded on the national register, unless they want to remain here for more than three months. As a British citizen, however, I might find myself in the position of not being able to leave the country without having my biometrics recorded in that way.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The position is even more extraordinary than that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a free travel area between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. Unless the Irish Republic buys and uses identity card scanners that match ours, the system will break down. So we should have not only the three-month allowance for tourists—or touring terrorists, or anyone else—but a hole on the western flank. The Government simply have not got their head round these issues. It is important for the House to realise that the hon. Gentleman is describing but part of the picture. It gets worse as one explores it further.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. The issue of travel to and from Ireland was raised on Second Reading, and it has clearly not been resolved.

My final point—given the limitation on time for this debate, and that I want to allow other Members the chance to speak—is that the Bill is a form of creeping compulsion. It is not genuinely voluntary. That is the key to this amendment: to introduce a system that is, initially, voluntary—exactly as we said that we would do in the election earlier this year.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for the careful way in which he opened this debate. I can assure him that my party, at least, will have listened carefully to all that he said—

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Will the Conservatives support it?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I see that the Wolfgang element has emerged. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no Government run by my party would bundle such people out or have them arrested under the terrorist legislation. I look forward to the support of the Liberal Democrats later in this debate, and I assure them that if they need protection, a Conservative Government will protect them from the increasing activities of the police and the state. Many Members might think that the Liberal Democrats are in need of quite a lot of protection. At this stage, however, I want to concentrate on the important issues that the amendments allow us to discuss.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow began his speech by discussing the concept of the designated document. We had that discussion at some little length in Committee, and at no stage were the Government able to tell us precisely what they meant by the category of designated documents that they were going to include. What we discovered, which was instructive, is that the list is open-ended, undefined and designed to allow the Government, through clause 5, slowly but surely to allow a greater category of documents to become designated.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and I discussed all the kinds of licences that one can get at a post office, and the Government had absolutely no idea whether those would be designated. We also realised that 20 per cent. of the population have never had, and never will have, a passport, which represents a huge proportion of the British population. In Committee, the Minister of State said:

"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."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 July 2005; c. 177.]

At no stage—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—was he able to produce a list of those documents that he hoped would become designated. Through the Bill, the Government are therefore asking us to give them a blank cheque simply to increase the creeping designation of documents. That is a wholly unhealthy way to design a piece of legislation, and it is even more unhealthy for Parliament to give the Government unseen powers over the citizen and the way in which he or she conducts his or her life. I therefore urge Members to listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said.

I will leave the Liberal Democrat spokesman to deal at greater length with amendments Nos. 39, 36, 37 and 38. Clause 5, however, deals with applications relating to entries in the register, and with the powers that the Home Secretary will give himself, which we have not seen in any written form, to compel us as citizens to do what he wants. For example, he will be able to compel us to provide such information as he thinks fit—which is undefined—for the purpose of verifying information that may be entered in the register about an individual in consequence of his having made an application to go on the register. One is given the impression that applying to go on the register is something for which the Government are deeply grateful, and that it is a voluntary activity, but it is not—it is distinctly compulsory and the limits of the Secretary of State's powers are undefined. The Government really ought to have the self-confidence to condescend to let us see the statutory instruments containing the 61 powers that they intend that we should be bound by. That is in parentheses, however.

Under the Bill, individuals may be required to attend a specified place at a particular time in order to register, and to give up information about themselves to go into this huge, great national register—this great bucket of private information that will slosh around between the various Departments and agencies, and to which private companies might even have access for a fee. If we consider the creeping way in which the Bill gives powers to the Government, it might well be that aspects of this data register will be available to certain private companies. As the Government farm out their functions to private companies, and if that is to work properly, those private companies must have access, if not to the whole of the information, at least to sections of it. I urge Members of the House to be very careful before they allow the Government to move down that road.

Let us assume, however, that one lives in the Outer Hebrides, Orkney or Shetland, and there does not happen to be a suitable place to register on those islands, or let us assume that one is in rural Devon, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire or even Bournemouth—[Laughter.] Let us assume that one will be required to travel some considerable distance, at one's own expense, to this gulag, where the Government will have one fingerprinted, photographed and otherwise processed. Why should the citizen be compelled, at the Home Secretary's direction, to travel around the country looking for the place where they must provide all this information? Why should he be compelled to travel to such a place to have his fingerprints and other biometric information taken and recorded, when one bears in mind that these are by and large not exactly secure methods of determining a person's identity?

Let us consider fingerprints. In Leicester, which is the nearest large city to my constituency of Harborough, the Government subjected people to the fingerprint test in a pilot scheme to see whether it would happily provide a sensible biometric system. Of the 772 people who submitted their fingerprints in Leicester, 642, or 83.16 per cent., were identified correctly—the lowest rate of any test centre in the United Kingdom—and there was a failure rate of almost 17 per cent. in matching the individual to the fingerprint. Across the country, approximately 45 million to 48 million people over the age of 16 will be required to add to the convenience of this Government by providing an entry on the register and giving in addition the information found in the schedule. Seventeen per cent. of between 45 million to 48 million people is a very big number, and yet this is the system that the Government are compelling us and our constituents to adhere to. There is not simply a smack on the wrist but a fine—a civil penalty—of up to £2,500 if an individual or one of their family members over the age of 16 fails or refuses to do what is required by the Secretary of State under one of the as yet unseen statutory instruments.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the most obnoxious aspects of the Bill is the way in which the civil penalty system to which he has referred works? It allows the Secretary of State to impose fines at his discretion, and if one has the cheek to object to his penalty, he has the power under clause 34 to increase the penalty, to deter one, I presume, from applying to him in the first place.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Gentleman might have noticed the rubber stamp on the front of the Bill—it may not be on the current version—saying that the Secretary of State has declared that this Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights. I thought that article 6, which says that one is entitled to a fair hearing, was a fairly central part of the European convention. The punitive aspects of clauses 6 and 7, and the clause mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, seem to me to ride straight through the convention and the rubber-stamped certificate introduced by the Home Secretary.

People will have to travel huge distances to be photographed. The stupidity of that is only underlined by paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which refers to identifying information. It states

"The following may be recorded in an individual's entry in the Register".

"May" means "must", of course. What may be recorded is, for instance,

"a photograph of his head and shoulders".

How many jokers in this country will stand with their backs to the camera? They will not have broken the requirements of paragraph 2: it will be perfectly lawful for people to allow the backs of their heads and shoulders to be photographed for the purposes of the schedule. Members may say that that is a minor and a flippant point, but it highlights the stupidity of this part of the Bill.

It should also be borne in mind that the eyes of some members of the ethnic minorities do not respond to the biometric readers in quite the same way. The same applies to those who have had cataract operations. Why should people of my parents' generation, who now have eye problems such as cataracts and who fought for their country in the 1940s to prevent it from being overrun by a state of this kind, now endure the embarrassment of not being read properly by biometric readers, and possibly be denied access to the health service, local libraries and all the other public services that the Government seem to want to provide?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that people would have to travel long distances. I do not know whether he has noticed the huge queues outside the American embassy, consisting of people trying to obtain visas. It is not just a question of travelling; it is a question of the general bureaucratic incompetence of any organisation that seeks to process a large number of people. Given that the United States seems to think it entirely possible to behave in what I consider an outrageous way to British citizens, and given the quality of the Bill, I see no reason to expect the British Government to behave better to their own citizens.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I regret to say that my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. Nothing that I learnt from the Government in Committee—despite the admirable human qualities of the two Ministers who had the misfortune of conducting the Bill—nothing that I learnt on Second Reading, and nothing that I learnt from the Government's utterances during the recess persuaded me to take any view other than that expressed by my right hon. Friend. We are dealing with a Government who are in a total muddle, and have absolutely no idea of the Bill's implications. If they do know, they do not seem to want to care.

The irony is reinforced by the time limit, but that does not apply just to this debate. On 12 July, in Committee—as can be seen in column 405 of the record— the Under-Secretary of State attempted to explain his weary way out of clauses 5, 6 and 7, but was cut off in mid-sentence because the knife imposed by his own Government came down and chopped off his tongue. How can we take seriously legislation that not even the Government gave themselves time to explain? Even they did not give themselves time to respond to the arguments advanced by the Opposition parties. The whole thing would be utterly absurd if it were not so Kafkaesque.

Our amendments, Nos. 13 and 14, seek to delete clauses 6 and 7. I understand the parliamentary arithmetic, and I know that it is highly unlikely that the Bill, if it secures Royal Assent, will be minus those clauses. However, the amendments give us the opportunity to express a view, which I hope is antithetic to the Government's wishes, about the huge powers that the Secretary of State is taking—huge powers wrapped up in statutory instruments that we have yet to see; huge powers to impose what the Minister politely calls "civil penalties". That is a fine in my language and, I suspect, in yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and it is a fine in the language of the good men and women of our country who will be the victims, or the recipients, of the Bill.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I visited South Africa recently. I believe that the riots and rebellions there were sparked off partly by the draconian penalties for not carrying or possessing identity cards. I fear that that may be a consequence of measures of this kind in the long term.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I quite agree. The pass system in apartheid South Africa was offensive to all civilised people. It does the Government some credit that the despicable collection of clauses in the Bill does not—at least, yet—include a requirement for you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to carry identity cards. It will, however, become increasingly a matter of practice and a matter of compulsion—if not as a result of legislation, because people will be stopped and searched in the streets, and required to show their identity cards when entering the hospital, the library and, I gather, even the video store. The penalties to which my hon. Friend refers are hugely draconian.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Given the national database, will we not be walking identity cards once the system becomes compulsory, regardless of whether we carry a piece of paper? Our biometrics can be measured by any machine that we come across, or any machine used by officialdom to test us. People may think that they are not being forced to carry identity cards, but they will be forced to have their identities verified by the state if the system becomes compulsory.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Gentleman has made a couple of good points, directly and by implication.

The identity card is, in a sense, just a front. It is the human barcode that will allow the authorities—the state, or whoever possesses the readers—to delve into the bucket of information about us that will be established by the Bill. This should more properly be called the national identity register Bill, because that is where the real civil-liberties implications lie. I accept that the Bill does not at present—as far as we can tell—make carrying an identity card compulsory, but I have little doubt that in due course we shall be told—if not by this Minister, by another—that we will find that much more convenient. Of course we cannot tell for certain, because we have not seen the 61 statutory instruments, still less the penal code referred to in clause 36.

I know that many Members want to speak, and that we must stop debating these important amendments at 7.15 pm. Let me say, however, that I am deeply concerned about the fact that we may well be passing into legislation the penal regime in clause 6 that would enable the Secretary of State, or those who work for him, to impose fines of up to £2,500 without our having seen the code of practice. I am also deeply concerned about the fact that under clause 7 the Secretary of State is doing his best, but not doing well enough, to give us mechanisms to allow parliamentary oversight over massive but as yet unseen powers.

On Second Reading and, frequently, in Committee, I described the Bill as no more than a Christmas tree on which the Secretary of State would hang, as he saw fit, statutory instruments, powers and so on. It would be, as someone else observed, the victim of creeping conduct by the Government. I urge all Members with any understanding of what the Government are capable of doing to resist the Bill. I accept that it contains some measures that are not as damaging to the citizen, but for the moment the Government have failed to discharge the burden of proof. I urge Members to bear in mind what was said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, and I trust that the mood of the House will permit his amendment and others to be passed.

Andrew Love (Labour, Edmonton)

What is the mood of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition toward amendment No. 5?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

We shall support it.

I hope that others will deal with this Bill as vigorously as the hon. Member for Walthamstow has.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I will be brief. The Government have sought to curtail this debate and I do not want to aid or abet them. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) pointed out the serious concerns that exist about the effective compulsion in which the introduction of the identity card system and the attendant database will result. Given that possession of an ID card is linked so closely to entitlement to basic services such as housing, health, use of libraries and education, we are indeed, in effect, talking about compulsion.

The distance that people live from registration centres—one of the issues with which our amendments deal—is crucial to take-up of the ID card and, therefore, to entitlement to those basic services. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to the various rural areas in which distance from a registration centre will be crucial to take-up. [Interruption.] He could indeed have mentioned rural and isolated areas such as those in Bournemouth and Cambridge, along with those in my own constituency. I would not myself wish to opt for take-up at the so-called voluntary stage, given that the Government are effectively making possession of an ID card compulsory by linking access to basic services—

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have given a commitment to establishing a number of centres throughout the country—perhaps 70—to ensure that people do not have to travel too far?

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her observation, but she might want to consider that 70 is a very small number, given the large rural areas that exist in this country. If we divide the population coverage by that number of centres, it is clear that accessing them will be very difficult. Such a number certainly does not meet the requirements that are met by the 20-mile distance limit that we are seeking to include in the Bill.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Of course, it is a question not only of distance but of the ability to get to a registration centre. The islanders of Colonsay have only three boats a week to the mainland, and if there are to be only 70 registration centres, it will take them at least three days to get to a centre and back again. If the date specified by the Secretary of State happens to fall on a Friday, they will have to leave home on a Wednesday and will get back the following Monday. That is ridiculous. The registration facilities must go to the people, not the other way round. Such facilities must go to the islands.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which highlights one of the many other ways in which the £5 billion that will be spent on the ID card system could be better spent. There are great problems with the public transport services in rural areas such as mine. They are much more expensive, and much less available and convenient, than they should be, so access to registration centres will be rendered even more difficult.

Our desire to limit the distance between the individual and the registration centre highlights a general problem throughout the country, even in urban areas: lack of take-up of the ID card and, therefore, of the services to which people are entitled.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

For the many elderly and disabled people on means-tested benefits, registering for the ID card will be almost compulsory. Does the hon. Gentleman feel comfortable with the idea of living in a society in which we wheel out the elderly, infirm and disabled to Government processing centres to have their retinas scanned and their fingerprints taken?

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I feel in no way comfortable with the idea of living in such a society. He has moved us on to the important issue of people becoming excluded from basic services not because they live in rural or isolated areas, but for other reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred earlier to the 20 per cent. of people who will never have a passport. Perhaps even more worrying and illuminating is the significant proportion of people who are not, and are never likely to be, on any electoral roll, and who effectively duck out of society. Some may say that they should not exclude themselves in that way, but we are talking about a group of people consisting predominantly of Travellers, young people, elderly people living in isolated rural areas, and people with mental health difficulties. They will exclude themselves from registration and will, therefore, effectively become non-persons. That should worry us all.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 seek to remove the requirement to submit to the gathering of biometric data, which we object to on the ground of efficacy. We simply do not believe that such a provision will work. The Government are surely aware of evidence showing that where registration and the checking and gathering of data is automated, people can, for example, use false contact lenses to give an erroneous retinal scan. The Government will say that they can get round that problem by carrying out individual checks of everybody who comes forward for examination. However, such an incredibly labour-intensive exercise would vastly increase the Bill's associated costs, beyond even the estimates of independent assessors who have published data on this subject.

I also object to the provision because it allows the Government to overplay the reliability of this scheme. A perverse consequence of such overplaying is that it will play into the hands of the criminal. It will increase the currency and likelihood of fraud, create incentives for committing fraud and increase the premium on counterfeiting. My fundamental objection to the provision, however, is that it is illiberal, because I am one of those who take the view that something that is illiberal is intrinsically bad.

Were you to visit the National Liberal Club, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would see memorials to the great Liberal heroes of yesteryear, such as Gladstone and Lloyd George. You would also be interested to see a plaque commemorating one Clarence Harry Willcock, who was a Liberal party member in 1950—an act of heroism in its own right. He is famous because it was he who precipitated the abolition of the previous ID card scheme. In 1952, Winston Churchill abolished that scheme largely because of a case brought against Mr. Willcock. He was asked by a member of the constabulary to show his ID card and despite possessing it, he refused to do so because, he said, "I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing." Absolutely right. [Interruption.] I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing. I suppose that the Conservatives might say, "We are Conservatives and we are in favour of this sort of thing, but we've checked the opinion polls and so we're voting with the Liberal Democrats." However, I digress.

Fundamentally, we oppose this provision because as we all know, Members of this House cannot and should not bind their successors. In passing the Bill and allowing this provision to remain unamended, we are providing the apparatus for authoritarianism. I ask Labour Members to imagine that in response to the IRA threat of the 1970s, the previous Labour Government successfully introduced this Bill—that James Callaghan stood before the House and carried it through. Would Labour Members consider the possibility of what might have happened after 1979 if this sort of legislation fell into the hands of Margaret Thatcher? What might the unintended consequences have been? Many of you were involved in anti-nuclear protests and industrial relations disputes of the 1980s, particularly the miners' strike. Would you like to suppose for one nightmarish moment what this Bill in their hands would have meant for you?

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I want to comment on his point about heroes. Does he consider that the great Liberal heroes, Asquith and Lloyd George, were right to refuse to grant the vote to women for years on end? Women only achieved the vote in 1918.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I will check the history later with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). What I can tell you is that this House cannot bind its successors—

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman persists in using the term "you", but he must use the correct parliamentary language when addressing fellow Members.

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat, Westmorland and Lonsdale)

My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right to make that point, but just as the House cannot bind its successors, neither can the Liberals of yesteryear. All I am asking is for Labour Members to be true to themselves and say, "We are Labour and we are against this sort of measure".

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

I should like to spend a short time discussing the important amendment No. 5, which deals with the central vice and evil of the Bill—compulsion. There is no point debating the Bill without debating the issue of compulsion. It is in the Bill: it can be made law by secondary legislation and it can be introduced into law by various crafty devices that are already set out in the provisions. The British people have no idea what they will be required to do under the Bill if it becomes law. If they did, there would be no question of any opinion poll saying anything other than that they were totally, or nearly totally, against it. In the short time available, I want to put into historical context the issues raised by both Front-Bench spokesmen.

Not since the Domesday book in 1068 have we seen anything like it. That was a system of registration put into effect by the Normans—or the new Normans, as I suspect they were known at the time. Not since then have the British people been required to attend, with their families, at a certain place at a certain time in order to have their heads measured and the colours of their eyes taken. To be fair, under the present Bill, people will not have to declare the number of livestock that they possess or the items of clothing that they wear. However, we should not get too excited, because under the terms of the secondary legislation, people could be forced to give any other information that the Secretary of State prescribes.

I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are many people in my constituency who simply will not do this. They will not do it—full stop. Some may do it and there are doubtless some that conform to the model citizen that new Labour imagines in the south-east of England. However, a very large number—I can see them in my mind's eye as I speak—find it difficult enough to go 100 yd down the street to exercise their right to vote and they simply will not comply with the Bill under any circumstances. Social stress will be the result.

I can picture one of my constituents talking to me in my surgery, saying, "I have to go to Maidstone to have my head measured". I will reply, "Yes, you have" and he will say, "And she has to have her head measured as well". I will say, "Yes, indeed". Pointing to his adolescent offspring, he will say, "They have to have their heads measured as well" and I will confirm that that is absolutely right. He will then say, "Why did you vote for this Bill?" I will then experience the glory of being able to say that I did not vote for it and that I voted against it at every conceivable opportunity. My constituent will want to know what will happen if they all refuse to have their heads measured. I will tell him that he will not be able to go to the public library, which will not upset him very much, but there will be other things that he will be unable to do.

Andrew Love (Labour, Edmonton)

I am following my hon. and learned Friend's argument closely. Does he agree that the most insidious aspect of what he is discussing is that someone will have to decide whether to fine or even imprison that person? That will be the acid test, but does he agree that that is a test too far for a Labour Government?

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

Yes, indeed. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was going to become a little more serious and make precisely that point. I would have to tell my constituent that he could be fined or sent to prison, at which point I would be looked at with complete disbelief—that in the 21st century we have passed a law that requires our citizens to comply on pain of fine or imprisonment. I would also point out that this is not even the worst part of the Bill, but an exemplification of what lies behind it. I would have to point out that when they have had their heads measured and their eyes photographed, they will then form part of a massive registration process, to which they have no access or control. I will explain that that was why I voted against the Bill.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I always enjoy hearing my hon. and learned Friend's oratory, but to develop his theme of explaining his glorious vote against the Bill to his constituents, did he make it clear to them at the election—I have seen some of his election publicity and it was very good—that, although he was standing on the Labour party manifesto, which included a pledge to introduce this Bill, he was personally opposed to it and would vote against it?

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

I am pleased to answer that question. The answer is yes, I did. Neither was it the only part of the Labour manifesto that I told my constituents I was not standing on—[Interruption.] I had pared it down quite thin by the end of the campaign. What I will be able to say to my constituents—it may mean that I will get re-elected, despite the fact that I will be standing on a Labour ticket—is that I voted against what I considered to be the most illiberal piece of legislation that the House has been asked to pass for half a century and quite possibly—pace the Bill on terrorism—into the foreseeable future. I strongly urge hon. Members to join me in the Lobby tonight in order to bring to an end this attempt to visit such illiberalism on our people.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

The House owes a debt of gratitude to the mover of amendment No. 5. The whole issue is about liberty. It is about our liberty and the liberty of those we represent. The Bill makes it quite clear that, at the designation of the Secretary of State, an application for something that we have taken for granted all our lives—the right to apply for a passport, to access our national health service or whatever comes to the Secretary of State's mind—will be dependent on showing our subservience to the state. In providing the state with one coherent datum on our whole identity, we are giving it the power to follow us wherever we go. That is what the Bill is about and why it constitutes a deep and savage attack on what this country has stood and fought for across the centuries.

We did not acquire our liberty lightly. Our liberty is not just a thousand years old. It was through the work and struggle of people across this nation that the long march of everyman secured for us our relationship to the state. It is our state, but the Bill and its clauses say otherwise. The Bill says no. The Bill says otherwise: that the state will measure, identify and control all our citizens for purposes that are lost in the Bill, but which can be designated by the Secretary of State by orders in what is essentially a dreadful enabling Bill.

This is about liberty. A.C. Grayling wrote a pamphlet for Liberty and reminded us of four lines from Kipling, which come via a powerful essay once read by E.M. Forster against the Sedition Act. It says

"He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,

Set his guards about us, as in Freedom's name

He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring

Watchers 'neath our window, lest we mock the King."

That is what the Government have sought throughout their history. We have had more benighted legislation to measure, to circumscribe and to deny freedom without justification, other than "it may" or "it possibly could." The Bill is a monument to the incapacity of the Government to make our existing laws and services work and, to that extent, it is flummery, but it is flummery that strikes deep into the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish—all the people who make up this nation's sense of liberty.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

We have heard a lot of rhetoric tonight and we can congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). His amendment would change only one word, but it is the crucial word of the Bill. I happen to take the opposite view to his, but I recognise that this is the central part of the Bill.

Let me take my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow back to the beginning of the process. We have had several White Papers, the first of which, issued by the Home Office, distinguished between different possible schemes: a voluntary scheme; a scheme called at that stage a universal scheme, under which the card would have to be held by everybody; and a compulsory scheme, under which everyone would have to carry the card. From the start, the last option was excluded and the Government looked at either a voluntary scheme or a universal scheme, which we would now call compulsory: compulsory to have and not to carry.

One of the crucial arguments came from the opponents of ID cards, who said that any such scheme would have to become compulsory, or it would be useless. There was no point in discussing the subject on the basis of a voluntary scheme, which would not work and would not fulfil the most fundamental objectives. In the response to the White Paper, it was recognised by both sides that there was no point in proceeding with an ID scheme if it were to be purely voluntary.

That emphasises something that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow must know, as he and his colleagues advanced the argument at that stage. If the amendment were passed, it would be a wrecking amendment and would cut out the heart of the Bill. Anyone with an open mind who is listening to what my hon. Friend says about the amendment must bear in mind the fact that the purpose of the amendment is to disable the entire Bill and to make it of no value.

At the end of the day, we must look at the fundamental point of the Bill—that we should have a list of names of all the people in this country. We already have many lists of names: a national insurance list of about 40 million names; the Inland Revenue list containing a similar number; the Passport Agency list of 38 million people; and the council tax registers, which contain a similar number. The electoral register contains 40 million people's names. The only difference between the national identity register and all these lists is that the national identity list will be correct.

For example, the national insurance register has 75 million names on it, so clearly it cannot be correct. We cannot be sure that all the other lists are correct. The advantage of the national identity register is that we would use modern technology to ensure that the list that we have of people in this country is correct. Biometric technology will enable us to do that for the first time in our history.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

It seems to me that it will be compulsory to carry the ID card. If an ID card is based on biometrics—retinal scans and fingerprints—one constantly carries those and therefore one will be carrying an ID card. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

The point is not whether we have separate cards, but whether we have the register, which will contain simply the details of name, address and date of birth, as all other registers try to do. But the register would be foolproof, to a far greater extent, against fraud and falsehood.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

As I have come to the crucial point, many people want me to give way. However, there are many others who want to get into the debate and I would rather defer to them.

The crucial part is that we have heard a lot of rhetoric. We have heard mention of South Africa and Nazi Germany and the word Kafkaesque, but none of those points is relevant.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The hon. Gentleman is misleading himself, perhaps because he has not got as far as page 40 of the Bill. Will he please look at schedule 1, where he will see eight paragraphs specifying the information that will be on the register? It is not just the four pieces of information that he mentioned.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

It is actually 56, but it boils down to identity information.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

I will not give way again, because others want to get into the debate.

Opponents of the Bill should have the honesty to accept that the fundamental point is that we will have an accurate register that will be of enormous assistance to us as individuals, as well as to the Government. We have heard a lot of rhetoric, but people should accept that this is the absolutely crucial part of the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

We need to start with those matters on which we all apparently agree, certainly in terms of official party positions. As I understand it—although one would not have thought it, given some of the contributions—all parties agree on biometric passports. That is on the record. One cannot have biometric passports without the infrastructure we are talking about bringing in by 2008. We simply cannot organise biometric—[Interruption.] Infrastructure was the word. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) should calm down and listen. He may have been excited by the fourth-form contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron); I certainly was not.

By infrastructure, I mean contact centres and how we capture biometrics. Everyone should agree as a starting point that that is necessary for the biometric passports on which we all agree. The argument is not about how many centres there should be; 70 may be enough with mobile facilities, but it may not be enough. That is a matter of detail that, of course, needs discussion in terms of the roll-out of biometric passports, which will happen whatever happens to the Bill tonight. That is a position with which every party in the Chamber agrees.

The argument, put quite fairly by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), is about the link beyond that to ID cards. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair argument, one made in Committee and before. I am not going to say that this is a wrecking amendment, because such an amendment would not be selected for debate, as it would not be in order. However, unpicking the ID card from the passport would drive a coach and horses, to coin a phrase, through the entire structure of the system that we aim to produce. I freely accept that that may be what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is seeking to do, but we must not run away with the notion that we will not have biometrics if this Bill fails. The question of whether 70 contact centres will be sufficient to do the necessary biometric work will not go away, as all parties agree with biometric passports.

All the Government are saying is that the process should be phased in, rather than introduced according to the big bang model. Here is another little secret: I am not over-enamoured of the success achieved by huge Government IT procurement projects introduced on the big bang model. I place it on record that, in the recent past and under both parties, the litany of failure is far too replete. The responsibility is not specific to one party, and that is why it would be foolish to introduce this process according to the big bang model.

We are not saying that we can go from what we have now to a database covering 60-odd million people overnight, hoping and praying that the IT and the procurement will work and that everything will be successful. We have learned the lessons of the past, and this project has to be rolled out on a phased basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and I disagree, but my contention is that the two processes involved—in securing the biometric passport from 2008, and in registering people on the database and securing the ID card—are virtually the same. Given the facility and proximity of those two processes, it would not be fair to ask people to submit information in respect of passports and then do the same thing again some way down the line.

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

On that point, will the Minister publish the gateway reviews that have been undertaken in respect of the IT procurement for this project?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, is not in the Chamber at present, but he has asked a similar question. I told him that we shall provide that gateway information, to the extent that we are able. Even the most cynical of hon. Members will accept that there might be degrees of confidentiality in the process—

Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat, Falmouth and Camborne)

indicated dissent.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she is wrong to do so. I gave the Chair of the Select Committee that undertaking, and I give it again.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Given what happened with the Child Support Agency or the tax credit systems, have not the Government learned the problems that arise when a database constantly changes? The databases that work successfully are fairly static, and other countries are not establishing the same huge database as is proposed here. They can have biometric passports and identity cards that conform to international standards, but without that huge database.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says about static as opposed to ever changing databases. She makes an entirely fair point. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) offered a lot of comedy about the Domesday book, but it is not a fair interpretation of the Bill to say that the Secretary of State can change anything in the database that he likes, and insert whatever he wants to. That is not the case. We want people to be able to access secure websites, by means of their PIN number, so that they can adjust and change data on the register.

Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour, Medway)

Given what he has just said, will the Minister tell me what the following passage means? Clause 5(5)(d) states that an individual may be required

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

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway does not mention the three other paragraphs of clause 5(5), which set out the belt and braces details of what may be required of an individual before subsection (5)(d) is activated. I also refer him to schedule 1, which lists all the items that may be recorded in an individual's entry in the register, and to the statutory purposes of the legislation as set out in clause 1. The Bill states, in terms, that the imposition of anything outside those stipulations would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to return to the House for approval, so the situation is not quite as my hon. and learned Friend suggests.

Finally, it is entirely wrong—

Clause 8 — Issue etc. of ID Cards

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 8, page 7, line 20, after 'individual', insert—

'(aa) must be free of charge;'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 37, page 31, line 26, leave out paragraph (c).

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

This simple amendment provides that an identity card issued to an individual must be free of charge. Ministers will not be surprised by the amendment, because we have already debated the point in Committee and will no doubt talk further about it tonight. The cost of the card is one of the most crucial elements of our debate. If we believe that the card is right and will, in due course, have to be possessed, if not carried, by everybody in the country, how on earth can we make the sort of charges for it that we have heard about in the past few months?

The identity card will come in a package with the passport. I shall come to the combined cost of the card and passport in a moment, but we have heard already that some 20 per cent. of the population never need to have a passport. How much does the Minister propose to charge those who do not want passports, only cards? It is the nation's job to support its citizens' travel abroad, but why should a fee be charged for ID cards?

The possible costs cited vary. "The Identity Project" states:

"The Government originally asserted that the cost of the passport/ID card package, that is valid for 10 years, would be £85, but six months later this increased to £93."

In Committee, the Minister was chary of allocating a cost to the card. He skirted around questions about how much the card alone would be and whether it would be possible to issue a card without a passport. He gave us the tantalising figure for the cost of the passport of some £63. By a simple process of subtraction, the card would therefore cost about £30, but the Minister was hesitant about agreeing to that sum. However, now we hear from the Government that the figure is about right. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why he was so reluctant to talk about the cost of the card alone.

The costs of the card alone will not be confined to compiling the register and then issuing the cards, with all the associated equipment necessary. Some reference has already been made to the article in The Scotsman, which claims that ID cards will lead to massive fraud. It states:

"Jerry Fishenden, the national technology officer for Microsoft, says the proposal to place 'biometrics'—or personal identifiers such as fingerprints—on a central database could perpetuate the 'very problem the system was intended to prevent'. He says Ministers 'should not be building systems that allow hackers to mine information so easily'."

As we asked about an earlier amendment, if rubbish is put in, what rubbish will come out? If the scheme will be wide open to fraud, as the article suggests, how will we offset the costs? Will a margin be included in the charge for ID cards and passports?

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

The hon. Gentleman is sliding back and forth between the issues of cost and charge. The amendment relates to the charge the user will pay for the card to be issued. It is reasonable also to discuss the cost to the country, but that is not the subject of the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

As always, I am grateful to my fellow Nottinghamshire Member of Parliament for his observations. If he will allow me to develop my argument, I am sure that he will receive full satisfaction—[Interruption.] Yes, for less than £30, I expect.

I would be interested in the Minister's view on how fraud will be offset in the charge for issuing cards. "The Identity Project" goes on at length about the cost projections for the card—what it will cost individuals, and what it will cost the nation. It talks of the costs of issuing cards over a 10-year period, based on passport service figures; of card readers for the public sector, as envisaged in the Bill; of the national identity register; of the total cost of the national identity register infrastructure; of managing the national identity system; and of specific other staff costs over a 10-year period. The lowest estimate in the report is more than £10 billion. I shall not exacerbate the situation by mentioning the higher costs, because they are difficult to quantify, but £10 billion is already a massive sum. How can the Minister expect the nation, and the individual, to foot the cost for the register and the card?

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about future, projected costs, but I wonder how much the Government have already spent on this project.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a useful and helpful intervention. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to outline exactly how much this scheme has already cost us, even before it has been approved by Parliament. How much of the national treasure has been invested in something that will— I hope—lead nowhere?

What will be the cost to the individual? If the Minister tells us that the package comes to just under £100, will everyone have to pay that? Are those who are on benefits likely to be asked for the same sum? If so, where will that money come from? How will they pay? Is it more likely, as I suspect, that those who are better off will end up being asked to subsidise those who cannot afford either passport or card? I should be very grateful to the Minister if he made it clear to me how that lies.

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), but I cannot close on the amendment without mentioning opportunity cost. In my view, even I were persuaded of the need for both a register and an identity card, I would question very carefully whether we are putting those massive sums—most modestly assessed at £10 billion and probably much more—into the correct place if we want to stop the sort of ills that we have heard about, not least of which is terrorism, a subject in which I clearly have a great interest. Is the money being spent in the most efficacious fashion? Is it likely that a register and a card will have the effect that we hope to achieve? I suggest that the opportunity cost of the register and the card is absolutely out of proportion to the perceived benefits that either or both might deliver.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am very keen to know what the amendment would cost. He suggests that the Government will charge £30, but has he calculated what the cost would be if the card were given free to whoever wanted it? What does he imagine the overall cost would be?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not surprised if I say that I have done no such calculation. As far as I am concerned, the scheme is not a starter. I have moved the amendment simply to challenge the Government and to make them explain how they can request such sums. I believe that if these cards are issued—if we ever get to that dreadful and parlous state—they should be free to those who will be forced, first, to hide them in the bottom drawer of their wardrobes and, in due course, to carry them.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I have not spoken in the debates so far today, and this seems the most appropriate debate in which to make a few comments about the costs of the scheme and its procurement because those factors directly reflect the issue raised by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I strongly support ID cards—my Select Committee produced a report on them a year ago—but believe that costs must be contained as much as possible and that we must procure effectively.

On the issue discussed in the amendment, the Government's approach is okay. In practice, despite the blood-curdling rhetoric of an earlier debate in which reference was made to the prospect of people being frog-marched 80 miles to have their heads measured and then charged 100 quid for the privilege, a certain amount of sheer politics rather determines that that is not likely to take place. So making provision for a charge is reasonable, but it is important that the overall cost of the scheme is contained. I have concerns about some elements of the approach that the Government are taking to the procurement of the scheme. Those issues were raised by the Home Affairs Committee well over a year ago, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that progress has been a little disappointing until now. I should like to reinforce a few of those points.

First, there are some elements in the design of the scheme that I suspect will not turn out to be cost-effective. Some of those elements were referred to earlier. In particular, the cost benefit of including addresses in the scheme may well turn out not to be that good. It is an irony that one of the advantages of moving to a biometric national identity register is that someone's address becomes a less important part of their identity than in the current system, where their address is an important statement about who they are and how to prove who they are. The ability to strip out of the system the cost of constant re-registration in cities such as mine where 25 per cent. of the population move every year would be of enormous benefit. The Minister will need to return to that issue in practice. That does not necessarily affect the detail of the legislation, but it is an important issue.

The second issue relates to procurement. Biometrics were discussed earlier this evening. One of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee more than a year ago was that Sir David King, the chief scientific officer, should be invited to oversee and judge the preparedness of biometrics. I was pleased that that recommendation was accepted by the Government a year ago. However, a year later, the committee that Sir David was to be invited to lead has not yet met. Some of the problems that the Government are having with the debate about systems—those that suggest that wrinkled, bald-headed men have their faces on upside down and all the other issues that we have heard about today—would be put on one side if we had the simple assurance that the chief scientific officer was going to do what the Select Committee recommended a year ago and give the green light, or the red light, to the preparedness of the technology. That would be an enormously important step. The Government agreed to it in principle more than a year ago, but no action has yet been taken. That is a shame.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The right hon. Gentleman may be further concerned to hear that, before we broke for the recess in July, I tabled 10 or 12 written parliamentary questions to a number of Departments of State to find out what steps they had taken to prepare for the national register and the identity card system. Not one of them, not even the Home Office, was able to say that it had done anything meaningful to prepare for the scheme. The Treasury, the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office—none of them had done anything sensible to meet the right hon. Gentleman's Committee's concerns.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

That is an interesting point. Although the Select Committee supported the ID card scheme, one of its recommendations was that it felt to us a year and a half ago as though this was a Home Office scheme that the rest of Government was watching—those were not our exact words, but that was the sense of them—rather than a cross-Government scheme to which the whole of the Government were committed. I fear that what the hon. and learned Gentleman recounts rather supports that view. Those are not reasons to vote against the Bill—we need the scheme—but it is right to put down warnings that, unless those issues are addressed, the scheme may well not be successful.

Mark Todd (Labour, South Derbyshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a cultural barrier lies in front of the scheme, to which he has just alluded? All Departments must be involved in delivering savings and process changes to make the collection of national identities work for them. Yet they must also step back in the management of the project and allow someone to deliver it without their direct control. That presents a management conundrum, which I admit, as someone who has had to manage projects, would be scary in the extreme.

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

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I remind him and the House that these amendments relate to what the public must pay for the cards. The cost of producing them is therefore irrelevant, so a wide-ranging debate on that aspect is not acceptable. The debate is specifically about what people must pay for the cards.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice and tolerance up to this point. However, the point I wish to make about procurement is now directly related to the cost of the overall scheme and therefore the cost that the public are likely to have to bear, be it for a free-standing card or for a passport-plus in the form that 80 per cent. or so of the population will have.

There seems to be a lack of willingness in the Home Office at the moment to adopt what is generally called an open process to procurement. That does not involve openness about whether we are advertising according to the normal European procurement processes and so on. There are essentially two approaches to procurement that will have a big effect on the design and cost of the scheme. The first is one where, having defined the broad outcomes and objectives of the scheme, the Government tender for one or more suppliers to provide a black box—computer software or a certain type of card—that will deliver what they want. The second approach is one where all the major issues about the design of the software, the structure of the identity register, the choice of card and the choice of different types of chip on the card are made publicly available and there is the widest technical and scientific scrutiny.

Traditional Government procurement has taken the view that the savings in cost achieved by the black-box type of procurement outweigh the advantages of a wider scrutiny of the proposals. Having looked at procurement around the world, the Select Committee came to the opposite view: the most open technical procurement, with the best scrutiny, was most likely to deliver systems that worked at the lowest possible cost.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should not go ahead with procuring the system without having conducted, or having had conducted, an independent large-scale study to ensure that the necessary error rates can be achieved on a population of 60 million people?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

rose—

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

Order. That is off-beam again. The right hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the amendments before the House and that intervention was not in order.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall not answer the question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I was tempted to do so.

Andrew Love (Labour, Edmonton)

rose—

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but if he could help me to remain in order I should be grateful.

Andrew Love (Labour, Edmonton)

The Government have commissioned a study by KPMG, which looks at the risks to the system and, I understand, includes costs. However, they have said that due to commercial confidentiality they can release only part of that information. Is my right hon. Friend, like me, somewhat concerned about that, and is not it important that we be as open as possible about the system if we are to achieve the ends that he wants?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I have much sympathy for what my hon. Friend says. It seems to me that we are locking commercial confidentiality into the procurement process far too early, when many of the major technical design issues have not been solved. The likelihood, therefore, is that we shall end up paying more than we need to for the final product because we have not had appropriate scrutiny of what is being purchased. That, I can reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will impact directly on the cost that the public may have to pay for the card.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He may have pushed the boundaries of what was in order, but he made a highly significant contribution, bringing as he did an almost unique insight into Home Office procurement processes. That is indicative of the sort of debate that we need in the House in relation to identity cards, but are unfortunately denied due to the nature of the Bill, which, as has already been observed, is an enabling measure.

The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he was a supporter of identity cards. I wonder what someone reading his contribution would think that the opponents were saying if that was a Government supporter's analysis of the case. If there was a flaw in his argument, it was that his message seemed to be that we should identify all the difficulties but pass the Bill anyway. That is entirely the wrong way of going about things. The right hon. Gentleman is inviting us to give a blank cheque, which will ultimately be substantial, for something whose efficacy is by no means guaranteed.

I want to say a few words about the amendments. This is one of the occasions when I feel that I may have fallen through the looking-glass. I find myself supporting a Conservative amendment that proposes a free universal provision, in the teeth of opposition from a Labour Government. However there is some merit in the Conservative proposal, as there is too in amendment No.19, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has yet to move. There will be a cost to us all, whether from those who have to get the card at a flat rate or through general taxation, which is a burden that falls on us all. Both the Conservatives and Government Back Benchers are offering the Government a way out.

The Government are stumbling towards a new plasticised poll tax. It is worth recalling why the poll tax was unpopular. It was a flat-rate tax, which bore no relation to ability to pay. In that sense, it was regressive. What the Government are suggesting is, at the very least, a similar flat-rate levy. Much of the opposition to the poll tax was not from principle, although that was at the root of it; the serious opposition, at least in Scotland, arose from the recovery process. We saw local authority-instructed sheriff officers carrying out poindings and warrant sales for the recovery of a civil penalty, the poll tax. The Bill suggests that failure to pay the fee for an identity card will incur a civil penalty. We are presented with the spectacle that a Labour Government will be sending out sheriff officers to carry out poindings and warrant sales for the recovery of a civil penalty—[Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality says from a sedentary position that that is not true. Perhaps he can tell me on which point I am wrong. He is not going to do so.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

On the point about a regressive charge, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is likely to fall most heavily on some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of the public? In my constituency, we have a large proportion of pensioners, who are often on fixed incomes. Many of them will find it extremely hard to pay that additional tax, struggling as they are already with a number of other cost increases.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That certainly appears to be the case. As with everything else to do with this cursed Bill, we do not know, because we do not yet have the detail of what the Government are proposing.

The Bill will impose a penalty, which if it is to be meaningful must be recoverable and that can be done only by means of civil penalties.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

After making a sedentary intervention, the Minister has disappeared from the Treasury Bench. He should not do so. What is his disagreement with the logic of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael)? Is it that people would not receive a card if they did not pay? If they do not pay, presumably the Government have some means of recovering the charge. The hon. Gentleman should pursue that point; he may have touched on a Government soft nerve.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I do not know whether it is soft, but it is certainly raw—

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Minister is now getting advice.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister should have no need of advice as I have already raised the point with him in Committee. Members from Scotland in particular will have memories of the political capital that they made in the 1980s and early 1990s from the poll tax and the poindings and warrant sales, which should give them pause to reflect before they go into the Lobby tonight, or on any other occasion.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

As someone who once had the sheriff's officers at his door, I can well remember that time. Furthermore, as someone who, albeit somewhat reluctantly, has supported the Government on some issues tonight, I will not be supporting them on payments for individuals. We should keep separate the arguments. I would accept the argument on cost, although we must challenge what the cost would be, taking on board the comments of the Select Committee mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), but what I will not accept—nor will a number of people—is that the costs should be transferred to individuals who cannot pay them. If they are on income support or are among the millions of our low-paid workers, they should not have to pay under that system.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I would have expected him to take that position because I know his views on a range of similar issues. However, I fear that he may prove to be the exception rather the rule among his fellow Scottish Labour Members, but we shall see.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that Labour Members are not concerned about costs, especially costs to the individual, because we want them to be as low as possible. The Secretary of State has given us assurances that every effort will be made to keep the costs reasonable.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I do not doubt for a second that hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about costs. I am worried that Labour Members' concern does not seem to extend to providing meaningful protection for those who simply will not be in a position to pay and will thus be heavily penalised due to the scheme.

I am aware that time is short and that other hon. Members wish to speak. I thank the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who is yet to speak, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. We have had a useful debate and if the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is minded to press amendment No. 19 to a Division, I assure him that the Liberal Democrats will support him in the Lobby.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I shall speak to amendment No. 19, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall press it to a Division at a later stage.

I come to the debate, as always, as a humble seeker of the truth. I am doing everything that I possibly can to ensure the swift and speedy passage of Government legislation, and I am supporting them by trying to ensure that whatever legislation is passed can be properly implemented.

The problem on which hon. Members on both sides of the House are currently stumbling is that the Government clearly and correctly said from the beginning that they wanted to ensure that they budgeted for the scheme appropriately and set aside the required sums to introduce such a new mechanism for identifying individuals. They said that those sums should properly cover the costs and be effectively and efficiently spent, which I wholeheartedly support. When there was discussion and consultation on charges for ID cards themselves, the Government honestly said that they wanted to keep any charge to a minimum, yet ensure that it would cover the costs of implementing the scheme. That was why we reached the point in June during which it seemed almost as though negotiations were going on in the Chamber between Labour Back Benchers and Front Benchers about the breakdown of charges between the passport and ID-card elements of the scheme. We were told at that stage that the Home Secretary was looking at trying to keep the charge of the card down to £30.

A £30 charge on top of the charge for a passport—that takes the charge to £93—might well be reasonable for some people, but the figure is based on the Government's estimate of the costs of the scheme. The charge is designed to cover the costs, but what will happen if the costs have been underestimated? The Government estimated that the passport and ID scheme would cost £5.8 billion over 10 years, which was the basis on which we calculated a charge of £93. I must say that I could spend £5.8 billion on many more productive things than an ID card scheme, but let us put that principled argument on one side.

The London School of Economics report that analysed the scheme, which has already been cited, gave its lowest estimate of the cost of the scheme as £10.6 billion. The median estimate was £14.5 billion and the highest estimate was £19.2 billion. If the Government wish to cover the cost of the scheme through charging, a cost that is anywhere near the LSE's predictions will mean that the charge for a card and passport will eventually rise to something like £200 to £300.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I share my hon. Friend's concern. Is he aware that the increase to the charge for a passport between this year and next will be £15.57, which will be set to take account of only minor changes: the facial biometric and the system of interviews? However, it is estimated that the charge will increase between 2006–07 and the full implementation of the scheme by only £5.07, although fingerprint and iris biometrics will be introduced and the changing database will be set up during that time. The Government's figures are intuitively unreliable—compare £5 for a massive change with £15 for a minor change.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

My hon. Friend's point, which was perfectly made, reinforces our worry about what the Government will do if the charge is to cover the cost and yet the cost escalates.

The Home Secretary and the Government have quite properly given assurances that they will try to keep costs down, but I have sat in the Chamber listening to assurances before. When we considered the Bill that became the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary—he was then a junior Home Office Minister—assured us that the measure would not be used against people who were peacefully picketing and demonstrating, but within three months it was. I have thus sat through debates when assurances have been made by Government Ministers that have then not been realised.

I am worried about what will happen if there is a cost overrun after we have inflicted a mandatory charge on the general public. Who will cover the cost if the system does not work? What will happen if not only the initial procurement estimates are wrong, but the cost of the contract starts to overrun in the early stages? Will we give more assurances to the public that the charge will not rise and, if so, will the cost fall on general taxation? Alternatively, will a one-off levy be put on businesses or others?

Andrew Love (Labour, Edmonton)

According to the press release that was released yesterday to indicate that the charge of a card to those who do not take a passport will be £30, the Home Office can absorb any costs entailed in the scheme. If costs go up, they will thus lie with the Home Office and the only way in which it will be able to recoup the money will be by increasing the charge for the identity card.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

That is one option. However, we are all aware of the stringency of the Treasury's activities across Government Departments, so the other option would be that the Home Office would have to swallow its own smoke by using its budget, which would lead to cuts in other services, such as probation, prisons and policing. If costs escalate, the options are to increase the charge for the cards, or to cut services in the Home Secretary's remit.

It is argued that risks will be reduced because the scheme will be rolled out in phases, but that does not reassure me. It is estimated that the scheme will involve the biggest computer contract in western Europe for the past 20 years. A project on such a scale has great potential for problems and cost overruns. Reports by the Public Accounts Committee tell us time and again that 50 per cent. of the Government's computer projects have failed, experienced serious developmental and operational problems, or overrun on time scales, thus overrunning on costs. None of us will be reassured about the implementation of the programme through such a massive contract.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend read the answer that I received last week to a parliamentary question. It said there are currently 300,000 cases of passport theft a year. We did not touch on this matter in Committee, so will the Minister tell us who will pay if people lose their ID cards, or their ID cards and their passports?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.