Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill

House of Commons, 13 February 2006.

Clause 6 — Power of the Secretary of State to require registration

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 20, Lords amendment No. 21, Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof and Lords amendment No. 23.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The Government have decided not to seek to reverse Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which removed clauses 6 and 7 on the procedure for introducing compulsory registration. The clauses dealt with the requirement to register and be issued with an identity card in the second stage of the identity card scheme and for compulsion to be brought into effect by way of secondary legislation made under this Bill and subject to the super-affirmative procedure. We agree that those provisions should be dropped.

It is worth dwelling on the background to the issues. The Home Affairs Committee, in its fourth report of 2003–04, said:

"The move to compulsion is a step of such importance that it should only be taken after the scrutiny afforded by primary legislation: the proposed 'super-affirmative procedure' is not adequate."

We decided from the beginning that there is substance to the Committee's point: it is a sufficiently important step from the first stage to the second stage and compulsion to require a vote in both Houses. In the early stages, we decided that the super-affirmative procedure should apply, but many—not least the House of Lords—disagreed, and that is the territory covered by the amendments.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister knows that my colleagues and I oppose compulsory identity cards. Is it now the Government's view that a voluntary scheme would be acceptable and justified if there was no later agreement for a compulsory scheme? Is it still the Government's view that a scheme with a card that people do not have to carry will ever work?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

On the first point, no. We have made it clear from the beginning that the ultimate aim for the programme was compulsory registration. The answer to his second question is also no. We have always said that the most important element of the programme was the database that stands behind the card. In that context, the scheme that we have devised, which does not involve compulsory carrying of the card, is entirely right and proper.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My intervention might be a little premature, because the Minister has hardly had the chance to get to the end of the first paragraph of his remarks. I am grateful to the Government for not seeking to reverse the Lords amendments on the deletion of clauses 6 and 7, but I need to be sure of the limit to their agreement. The Government accept that primary legislation will be required to introduce compulsion, but there will be compulsion through the back door under clauses 4 and 5 and designated documents. Can the Minister state explicitly that it will still be a compulsory requirement to provide information to the national identity register in relation to designated documents—a concept that has so far been undefined, save in relation to passports and immigration or travel documents?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I can certainly give the hon. and learned Gentleman that explicit assurance, but it would tempt the House's patience if I travelled too far down the road he suggests, as it forms the substance of the next group of amendments. In a moment, I shall clarify what we have done to agree with their lordships.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Does the phrase in the Government's amendment,

"an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament passed after the passing of this Act",

include an order made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, should it become law? It will be enacted after the Identity Cards Bill, so if that phrase is included the Minister's assurance will be worthless.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall return to that point when I get to the second and third paragraphs of my comments.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

I have two questions. First, we are saying at this stage that the scheme will not be compulsory, but as people are being asked for some form of identification at airports, could airport authorities insist on the production of an ID card? Secondly, will my hon. Friend comment on suggestions in the press at the weekend that motorists will need an ID card when they reapply for their driving licence?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The Sunday press always affects Ministers' blood pressure, but I have never read such an absurd and inaccurate story as the one about driving licences. When I was part of the Department for Transport, we made it clear long before, and during, proceedings on the Road Safety Bill—which I thoroughly enjoyed—that all paper licences, which are the most inappropriate and insecure form of such an important document, would need to be replaced by small plastic photocard licences. I can say without fear of contradiction that that is entirely separate from—indeed, nothing to do with—what we want to do in the ID cards programme.

When we implement the ID card scheme on a voluntary basis, it will in the first instance—except for provisions made in the Bill—be for individual private operators to determine what they need for the fulfilment of a transaction involving their services. It is not for the Government to set parameters at each and every turn for private transactions.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

If the Minister is correct and an ID card will not be required to obtain a driving licence, why does the Government's figure of £1.7 billion of identity fraud include the costs of such crime for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency? If ID cards are meant to solve such fraud, surely the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) is right and an ID card would be required to obtain a driving licence.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend's comments related to a fatuous piece in one of the Sunday papers, which referred to a clause in the Road Safety Bill about the recall of paper licences and the issue of more secure and substantial licences. We have made it clear that we shall look only at passports and immigration documents in the implementation of the first phase of ID cards. We have never excluded from subsequent consideration documents such as driving licences, but the hon. Gentleman's point relates neither to the story to which my hon. Friend referred nor to reality.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

My question is germane to both this and the next group of amendments. International obligations for biometric tests in the reading of passports will be imposed on Britain, but does the Minister accept that it would be entirely possible for us to comply with those obligations without requiring additional information to be held on a passport or other document? Our international obligations are thus not a reason for the Government's policy on identity cards.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I accept that, but I would qualify it in part by saying that that is the initial position and the start of a trend in international obligations. In strict terms, on whether we are going beyond the minimum standards that are required at this stage and that are likely to be needed in the very near future, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right, but why should we go for something substandard or second rate, or that is likely to be second rate within five or 10 years? In essence, he is, of course, entirely right.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Will the Minister enlighten the House about whether he has discussed these clauses and amendments with the Information Commissioner, who pretty well condemned the procedures that were outlined on Second Reading, as I stated at the time? Will he explain why the reference to "compulsory registration" has not been removed from clause 9?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those questions, which lead me neatly into the second paragraph of my opening speech, in which I want to go into the substance of the choreography or jigsaw, which also refers to the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). It is very clear from the debate in the other place that their lordships would prefer us to go down the primary legislation route, rather than the super-affirmative route. That is what they seek to achieve in the amendments that they have offered to the House. The removal of clauses 6 and 7 goes part way to achieving that, but to go all the way to achieving that we need to include our proposal in lieu of Lords amendment No. 21.

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is entirely right: what their lordships chose not to do and what we are not doing in response to them is to eradicate every element or reference to compulsion in the Bill. In essence, all the building blocks for compulsion in the Bill remain. He will know from the debate on Second Reading and the other Commons stages that a number of elements in the Bill refer to the compulsion stage, rather than to the run up to that stage. Given the wording of our proposal in lieu of the Lords amendment, none of the buildings blocks for compulsion that remain can be enacted until the subsequent primary legislation has been passed. That more neatly achieves precisely what their lordships required in respect of the balance between super-affirmative and primary legislation, as is shown in the reports of their debates.

An order under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, however, will not be an Act of Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that anything other than primary legislation could be used as the vehicle, given the wording that we offer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cambridge keeps chuntering. I shall, of course, give way to him, but in my own time and on my own terms.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The Minister refers to building blocks in respect of the inner parts of the Bill. He might recall that, in addressing my remarks to the Home Secretary on Second Reading, I demonstrated the relationship between the Bill, what the Information Commissioner had to say and what I thought George Orwell would have made of the provisions on the building blocks of compulsion. I do not see any change in substance or principle. Does the Minister accept that the building blocks are those of George Orwell's Ministry of Truth?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I certainly do not accept the latter point, although George Orwell—also known as Mr. Blair—is one of my favourite authors, so I am with the hon. Gentleman at that level. [Interruption.] Eric Blair, I think hon. Members will find. However, the hon. Gentleman's general point that the key elements of the secondary phase—that is, compulsion—remain in the Bill is entirely fair. The point that he makes within the confines of the debate and these Lords amendments is entirely right: none of them goes to the substance or principle of voluntary, compulsory or any other form of ID card scheme. The debate is only on the narrow ground of whether there should be a super-affirmative procedure in both Houses or primary legislation. I think that everyone at both ends of this place accepts the premise that the step-up to compulsion is of sufficient seriousness to demand a vote in both Houses. We are discussing the technique and process rather than the substance.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I hear what the Minister says but the problem is that amendment (a) in lieu of amendment No. 21 refers to

"an obligation imposed by an Act of Parliament passed after the passing of this Act."

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will be such an Act of Parliament and it will be passed after this Act. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will give Ministers the power to amend any Act by order, so I cannot see any way in which an order under that Act can be excluded under this drafting of the amendment.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his interpretation is not accurate. If I need to discuss that with him in greater detail over a cup of tea, I will be happy to do so, albeit probably not today—let us say about Thursday.

I emphasise that the substance of the debate is on the narrow terms of whether super-affirmative is the appropriate procedure for there to be, as we all agree, a vote in both Houses as a prelude to compulsion or whether we should go back to primary legislation. I referred to the Home Affairs Committee and its report that said that it would prefer primary legislation and that the super-affirmative procedure was not adequate. The House of Lords Constitution Committee, in paragraph 9 of its third report in 2005–06, equally concluded that

"it would be preferable to separate the two phases in order that the compulsory phase would have to be introduced by primary legislation. This would enable Parliament to ensure that the legislation fully reflected experience gained, especially about safeguards, during the voluntary phase."

We have said on a number of occasions that this is not just about flicking the switch. There has to be a substantive view prior to flicking that switch.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

The Minister has clearly attached a new-found importance to an Act of Parliament to make compulsory the requirement for registration. Why did he not consider extending that importance to designated documents, which he currently proposes to do through an order? Perhaps that could also be done through the new Act of Parliament.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am tempted to go to our next debate, but I shall resist that temptation before you, Mr. Speaker, exhort me to shut up, move on and stay with the specifics.

The hon. Gentleman, who was on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, is aware of two points. First, as we shall see when we come to the next debate, it is inconceivable that people who have concerns about cost-effectiveness should say to the House that we should ignore the data needed for biometric passports and instead separately introduce additional but identical paraphernalia for ID cards.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that I am not a recent convert. I referred to the super-affirmative procedure in Standing Committee—I am sure he was there; he attended assiduously—and said:

"As people will know, the genesis of the provisions is the fact that we regard compulsion to register as the end goal. We regard the step from voluntary to compulsory as a serious one. That is why we sought to put in the Bill a scrutiny process that would allow the House proper time to scrutinise these matters carefully, with due diligence."

In response to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I added:

"One interpretation . . . is that the super-affirmative procedure could be seen as a rather crude algorithmic loop, in which something starts here, goes there, and modified or otherwise, comes back."

We end up in a lock from which there is no escape route.

"If it does not get to where it was headed, it starts again, with no apparent escape from that scrutiny loop. That is an entirely fair point."

I was feeling in a generous mood even then. I continued:

"We put that down the last time the Bill was determined to be helpful to the House in terms of scrutiny. I assure the Committee that we shall take back and consider those comments, albeit with the clause intact"—

that is, passed by the Committee—

"because that is how these things work."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 July 2005; c. 219.]

We decided, in our wisdom, that we were reasonably comfortable with the super-affirmative procedure. Many hon. Members and, indeed, Members of the other place, advanced substantive arguments for the alternative of primary legislation, and we have now succumbed to that will.

Clare Short (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood)

I was not a member of the Committee, so I ask this question for genuine clarification. What is wrong with the scheme is the register, because if we had biometrics and voluntary identity cards, it would be acceptable. If we accept the Government amendment, will some people still be compelled to be on the register because they have applied for a passport?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I say in all candour that the answer is yes. Nothing in the provisions would change the way in which the first part of the process would unfold regarding its implementation for passports.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Will the Minister clarify a matter—we need to get this absolutely straight—about clause 15, which will allow public services to be conditional on identity checks? The measure would apply if an individual was subject to compulsory registration. If the Government amendment is accepted, will that measure not come into effect until after the subsequent primary legislation has been passed?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance about that. The measure is one of the building blocks in the Bill to which the hon. Member for Stone referred. I assure my hon. Friend that it will not be switched on or enacted until the second piece of primary legislation has been passed to bring in compulsion.

We said several times that although the super-affirmative procedure applies to the new procedure, before a move to compulsion takes place we and the House will want to be satisfied that implementation of the initial phase of the identity card scheme has achieved significant coverage of the population so that compulsion would have an impact on only the relatively small number of people who had yet to register for and obtain an identity card. We would also want to be satisfied that there continued to be clear support for identity cards, that no vulnerable group would be disadvantaged, that the scheme had contributed to meeting the aims outlined in clause 1, and that the technology supporting the identity card scheme was working and trusted. All those matters will be reviewed before the introduction of primary legislation to flick on the switch for compulsion. If we go down the road suggested on costs, which we will address later, the six-monthly report to the House that accompanies the review will take us to a point at which we will have all the information that we require when we consider primary legislation on compulsion.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister clearly gave us a list to indicate how the conditions for moving to compulsion would be met. What is his estimate of the approximate percentage of the adult public with identity cards that would be sufficient to justify moving towards compulsion?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point that we will have to consider seriously as we move towards flicking the switch for compulsion through primary legislation. I suggest that there will be plenty of time to discuss that, but I said quite deliberately that compulsion would have an impact on only the relatively small number of people who had not registered for and obtained a card. I suggest that the proportion would be considerably more than half the eligible population, but the House will have plenty of time to discuss such detailed matters as we get closer to that time.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

There has been a lot of speculation about charges for ID cards. Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of the likely cost of a card to an ordinary member of the public who wants one?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I repeat the assurances that we have already given on several occasions. The stand-alone ID card will cost about £30 and the joint package with the biometric passport will cost about £93. My hon. Friend will know, too, that specific secondary legislation will remain in the Bill relating to the fees regime and any concessionary regime, which the House will have an opportunity to discuss.

We accept in spirit the direction in which the Lords want us to travel, but we cannot in substance and detail accept exactly the form of words proposed, for the reasons that I have outlined. I therefore commend the amendment in lieu to the House.

Michael Mates (Conservative, East Hampshire)

On costs, if identity cards are eventually to become compulsory, what is the argument for making them so for a citizen who does not need to travel abroad and does not want a passport? Why should he have to pay for what the Government are going to make him do?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

First, we are not making the cards themselves compulsory—it is the registration that will be compulsory. Secondly, we are not developing ID cards in lieu of passports, as a separate travel document. We think that the benefits of ID cards go far beyond simply travel and that, in the terms that we have outlined, £30 for a 10-year document is not terribly unreasonable.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I fear not—we only have an hour and a half on this.

With those comments I commend to the House the motion to disagree and the Government amendment in lieu.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 1, 68, 69 and 70. If the House agrees to those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

May I draw the House's attention to the fact that humble pie is also evident in this group of amendments? I was delighted to see the Minister eating it, although it is pity that he did not eat it in the summer, when we had our interesting discussions during the Committee stage.

We had a lengthy debate about this very issue and at that stage the Government decided that they were prepared to introduce compulsion through secondary legislation. I see my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), who were on the Committee with me, in their places today. We drew the issue to the Committee's attention but the Government, in their wisdom, decided that they knew best and that if they wanted to bring in compulsion—which was clearly their end intention—they would do it through secondary legislation.

The problem facing the Government is that they have, as usual, misused the English language. When they say "voluntary", they mean "compulsory", and that is why they have got stuck. When they say "may", they mean "must" and when they say "possibly", they mean "definitely". That is why they were given a thorough ticking-off in the other place, where Members of the House of Lords—not only from the Opposition parties, but from the Government party—turned up in numbers to persuade them that their original thinking was wrong.

I am delighted that the Minister and the Home Secretary have changed their mind. They were sensible to do so and here we are, dealing with something of a concession. However, before we get overexcited, we need to be clear about the value of the concession—how limited or extensive it is. We shall come on to designated documents in the next group of amendments, but we have already discovered from my intervention that a compulsory procedure will still be required when they are applied for. That is to say that when people apply for their passport, a residential status document or an immigration document they will still be compelled, whether they like it or not, under this Christmas tree of a Bill—which allows the Secretary of State to take unto himself 61 powers to make further law—to do things that he requires them to do. It is only in the discrete area of clauses 6 and 7 that the requirement for primary legislation bites. We are grateful for that—let me not give the Home Secretary and the Minister of State any other impression—but the problem remains that compulsion is still a big part of the Bill, which is still no more than a Christmas tree, providing various little places for this Secretary of State or his successors to add on secondary legislation giving them powers to tell us what to do.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the number of people in the United Kingdom who do not have a passport, driver's licence, pension book, national insurance number, work permit or any need to access public provision is tiny? It would be compulsion by the back door.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

It is my view and that of the official Opposition that it is compulsion by stealth. Only about 20 per cent. of the population do not have a passport. If the measure is implemented in 2008, only 20 per cent. of a population of broadly 60 million will be relieved of compulsion except by primary legislation. We have not seen the legislation—for goodness' sake, we have not even seen the secondary legislation that the Home Secretary wishes to apply.

Numerically, 20 per cent. is a large number—

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

It is 12 million.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

But it is a tiny number compared with the 48 million or so who will be required through compulsion, in designated documents, to enter on to the national identity register material that is private to them.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Is not the problem with the proposed system that the Government cannot control the current passport system? There are lots of forged passports and a good trade in them. They recently told me that they have no idea how many people are eligible to have a national insurance number, let alone what the correlation is between those who have them and those who should have them. Why should we believe that they will be any better at controlling the system if they do not have proper control of the borders and a proper policy on who is eligible to be here?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

My right hon. Friend properly raises all sorts of issues, and I trust that the Government will condescend to answer them in due course. I agree with the thrust behind his question. The Government's conduct on such matters is incredible and unconvincing. One only has to look at how they handle the Home Office accounts. Not even the Comptroller and Auditor General was prepared to sign those off. Why should we give them the trust that they desire and is required if the system is to command public confidence? I agree that the Government have a long way to go.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend heard the remarks by Commissioner Frattini on "The World at One" today—[Interruption.] I am sad to hear that he did not. Commissioner Frattini implied that he was concerned that there should be one border—namely, the European Union border. In the light of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will accept that at the heart of the problem is a view that we should have a border of Europe as a whole, as compared with those matters in respect of which passports are given—namely, access to the United Kingdom?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's interpretations of what Commissioner Frattini has to say. He has a slightly better link to him than I do. My hon. Friend's general point is good. Here we are, getting freedom from compulsion until the next Bill—the next piece of primary legislation—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that I am partially deaf—I have impaired hearing—would you kindly advise the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to speak into the microphone, rather than to the wall?

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

I have heard the hon. Gentleman's request. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) can assist.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I sympathise with the complaint of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), and I shall endeavour to make sure not only that he hears what I have to say but in due course that he can hear the grinding of his Government's reverse gears.

To return briefly to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who was listening with great care to Mr. Frattini at lunchtime, that issue will be wrapped up in the next debate when we discuss designated documents. The passport is a designated document, and immigration documents will be designated documents under the secondary legislation that will be introduced under clauses 4 and 5. The European travel document, which is what the identity card will eventually become, is another designated document. Mr. Frattini's point would therefore be more properly addressed in later debates. None the less, I do not wish to inhibit my hon. Friend from pursuing that argument.

I would like to know the width and weight of the Government concession. When will we know the detail of the next piece of primary legislation? Will it be written in English, and will it be yet another piece of legislation on to which the Secretary of State, whoever he then is, can hang further secondary legislation? It is one thing to say that there will be another Bill, but it is quite another thing to introduce a Bill that says precisely what it means. The Identity Cards Bill is nearly 45 pages long, and gives the Secretary of State 61 separate powers, but we cannot divine how the Secretary of State will use the powers that he gives himself and how he will define the documents and the other instruments on which he wishes to introduce secondary legislation.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Obviously, I do not resent the hon. and learned Gentleman making points on behalf of the Opposition—that is what he is here for—but a moment ago he referred rather sarcastically to a reverse gear. As someone who opposed identity cards—I remain opposed to them—and who voted accordingly, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments so that primary legislation will be required before the cards become compulsory. I accept that the Opposition have the right to make their argument, but those of us who are critics of the proposal should bear in mind the fact that the Government have made a substantial concession which I, for one, very much welcome.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I agree, and I have welcomed the concession—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I intervened on the Minister in the early part of his speech. However, it is a 20 per cent. or partial concession. As I have said, there are still plenty of provisions in the Bill that give the Secretary of State power to compel the citizen to do something. It is right to welcome the limited concession, but we need to be very careful indeed about a Bill that essentially sets up a national identity register, which is a large Government computer into which all sorts of private information will go, and to which various Government agencies will have access. We the citizens will have no knowledge of when that information goes in, what is taken out, and to whom it is passed. Under the Bill's final provisions, we will not be allowed to see an audit trail of the information that has been accessed.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

My hon. and learned Friend's reservations about breadth and depth and what the measure amounts to are formidable ones. At this late stage in proceedings, when we are considering Lords amendments, is he suggesting that he is prepared to accept the Government motion and amendment, or are we going to oppose them as vigorously as they deserve?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the Government's word. There will come a time later this afternoon when many of the problems that my hon. Friend and I still have with the Bill can be discussed—when we come to discuss compulsion and "must" or "may" in relation to designated documents. The narrowness of the present debate permits me to accept the Government's concession, to welcome their decision to agree to what their lordships say, and, as I said to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to welcome the sound of the grinding of the Government gears.

I do not want to be unpleasant to the Government, but they should have made the concession last summer. As I am sure the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), will appreciate, the concession would never have needed to be made had the Government written the Bill in English in the first place and, when they meant compulsory, written "compulsory" in the Bill. But they did not think it was in their political or other interest to do that, so they have arrived at that decision after some delay. It is a pity that they wasted our time, but they got partly to the right answer in the end.

The Bill is essentially about the national identity register, and I mentioned some of my concerns about that. Anything to do with identity cards is but a fig leaf. We need to concern ourselves with the practicalities of the national identity register and its implications for civil liberties, rather than allowing ourselves to be bamboozled into thinking that the Bill is simply about whether we should voluntarily or compulsorily carry an identity card. It is not just about that.

When we are talking, as we are, about fundamentally altering the relationship between the citizen and the state, it behoves every Member of the House, Front-Bench or Back-Bench, Government or Opposition, to look carefully at the detail of the Bill and not to buy everything that the Government put wrapped up on the shop front. We need to unwrap it and see what is inside the gift the Government claim to be giving us. When we unwrap it, we will find that there is not much to attract us.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman concerned not just about the relationship with the state, but about the potential for third parties to gain access to our identity, which is deeply worrying? The contactless chips proposed will, in effect, give out a signal that can be read by anyone with access to an antenna. In Holland, biometric identity documents have already been read. Apparently, it took two hours to decrypt the documents. We all need to worry deeply that we are being forced to carry documents and to send messages from those documents to a database with enormous potential for the theft of our identity. If somebody steals my credit card—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The hon. Lady knows that interventions must be brief.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I think I understand the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) was making, and she is entirely right to make it. According to the Government's commercial case, a possible 44,000 private operators will have access to the national identity register. [Interruption.] I note that the Minister disagrees. I cannot imagine why that figure is in a Government document. Perhaps he has not read it.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

He wrote it.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Even worse. May I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that the point that she has made needs making constantly. The Government will not listen to it unless it is made constantly. It has taken us nine months to get the Government to change from compulsion by stealth to compulsion by direct legislation for 20 per cent. of the population, but we should not forget that there are plenty of other opportunities for the Government to mine in—perhaps I should say to eat into it like a weevil. [Interruption.] Indeed—I see a bag of weevils sitting on the Government Front Bench.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I was in full weevil mode, but I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

If the Government argue that there is £1.7 billion-worth of identity fraud to be cured through identity cards, and on their own analysis they argue that so many millions are from insurance companies and the British Bankers Association, and so many billions from the Building Societies Association, how can it not be that those private concerns would have access to the data on the identity register?

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

That is a perfectly good question, but I doubt that the hon. Gentleman will get an answer from this Government. The sum that the Government pluck out of the sky as being lost to the economy as a result of identity fraud, which has gone up from £50 million to £1.5 billion, is misleading because it does not separate out money laundering and all sorts of other criminal activities that come under that aspect of identity fraud.

I end where I began. I welcome the concession. It does not go far enough, but I welcome the little way that it does go. A huge tranche of this country's population will still be compelled without primary legislation to give up to the national identity register information that is private to them, and we will perhaps have further battles on that later, but meanwhile, despite the perfectly understandable concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to welcome and accede to this Government concession. Government concessions do not come very often. It usually takes the Labour party to defeat the Government to get a concession, but today the Government have put their hands up first, and that is to be welcomed.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I shall endeavour to restrict myself to the particular topics under discussion, although the temptation to enter into another Second Reading debate is rather large. This is a debate dominated by a high degree of irrationality, as the exchanges in the past five minutes have shown. The inability to distinguish between a system in which a private company can check the validity of an individual's identity card and access to the register, with all that that implies about access to the data, has bedevilled this really important project.

I want both the ID card scheme and the register to succeed, because if we do not start to tackle the problems now, whether they be identity fraud for commercial reasons, how to protect the employment rights of low-paid people whose jobs are being undercut by illegal labour or the use of identity fraud for terrorism—all of them issues that make the case for ID cards—they will be greater in 10 years' time. Therefore, we need to make a success of the project now.

I welcome what the Government have done. As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear, the change was proposed originally by the Select Committee nearly two years ago, and I would not be a Select Committee Chair if I did not point out that sometimes it would be nice if our reports were acted on when they were first written, not a couple of years later when it becomes convenient to do so.

We were right to talk about new parliamentary legislation for two reasons. The term "compulsory", which I hope I will come back to on the next set of amendments, is being used in different ways in this debate. It is perfectly clear that, in the first phase of establishing the national identity register, those who wish to have a passport, for example, if it is a designated document, will have to go on to the national identity register. However, leaving aside the issues of principle, at least in that process the individual is making use of a service that is of benefit to them, namely, getting hold of a passport. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a powerful driver for any Government to ensure that that process is convenient, effective and works quickly. We saw a few years ago how quickly the public respond if something goes wrong in an agency such as the Passport and Records Agency.

The second phase of the process is entirely different, because that will require individuals to register and go through a process of registering their biometrics, and so forth, for which they get nothing back immediately—for example, in the form of a passport. Getting that phase right and being sure that the system is designed to make the process as user-friendly as possible is critical. When we considered the Bill two years ago, we could not look eight years into the future and know the design of the process. It is right for Parliament to say that it wants not only a yes-no super-affirmative vote, but fresh legislation and an explanation from the Government of the day of how that part of the process, which is frankly much more difficult, will be handled.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

Demand for a good service does not always deliver a good service—the right hon. Gentleman has previously mentioned the UK Passport Service, the Child Support Agency and pensions. A series of large Government IT projects have gone seriously wrong, despite the fact that serious political embarrassment follows such events.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

We know that all public or private sector IT projects are not successful. The UK Passport Service and the Criminal Records Bureau are good examples of projects that ran into difficulty early on and that were turned around rapidly because it was unacceptable not to solve the problems. I suspect that the first phase of national identity registration will be similar—I doubt whether the process will start without any problems at all, but I am sure that such problems will be put right quickly.

Parliament must be concerned whether the system works effectively for those who do not drive and who do not have a passport, which will require new legislation.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for making a second intervention. The size and complexity of the task is one factor affecting the speed with which such issues can be put right. The CSA is a good example of a problem that is intractable because it is too complex. Is there not a risk that this particular project will fall into the same category?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

No; the process is a good deal less complex than that of the CSA, which faces intrinsic problems such as income assessment and deduction of earnings—I am sure that hon. Members do not want us to get into a detailed debate about that topic. Although the process must be repeated for millions of people, the inherent issues in national identity registration are simpler than those in the projects that have gone wrong.

The Select Committee was right to press for separate legislation from the outset, because however well the Bill is scrutinised by us and the House of Lords, it is doubtful whether it will be perfect in six or seven years' time. Even if this were not a Home Office Bill, it would inevitably require a certain amount of amendment, clarification and adjustment in due course. It would be ridiculous to update this Bill and have a separate super-affirmative resolution on the question of extending it to the final 20 to 25 per cent. of the population.

The change is sensible, because it means that on the crucial step of extending the provision to the group of people who are more difficult to reach, Parliament will be able to take an entirely fresh look at the project's strengths and weaknesses.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Surely we know what any Government would say at that point. They would not say, "This is a question of principle: should we or should we not hold all this information about our people, who have committed no crime and who are not in themselves criminals?" They would say, as Governments always say, "We don't know why you are arguing about this now. You gave up that principle when you accepted the primary legislation."

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The point of principle is that this House and this country should take steps towards a compulsory national identity register, which is necessary in the broadest sense for the security and well-being of the people of this country. The question how the register will be extended in six or seven years' time to those people who are not on it through passports or other designated documents must be addressed properly by Parliament at that particular point.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

One of the most significant indicators of the Government's continuing commitment to compulsion is that the UK Passport Service, at the behest or with the connivance of the Government, is planning no fewer than 70 new prime high street sites, from which Crown post offices will be excluded from competing on an equal basis for first-time passport applicants. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his claim that computer projects are improving with the fact that the proposal will add greatly to the Government's costs?

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Clearly, the project to be implemented will involve the Passport and Records Agency and other bodies making appropriate arrangements for people to register. I am not in a position to debate the detail of the proposals that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I see no problem in the Government ensuring, within the rules, that the necessary infrastructure is in place so that when we are invited to join the national identity register, which we will have to do for the purpose of renewing our passports, that process is as convenient for the individual as possible. I would expect no less of the Passport and Records Agency or of any other part of Government.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. On passports, does he agree that we must consider carefully the arguments about convenience that he touched on a moment ago? The Government claim that international obligations require us to have on our passports biometric information that will be sucked into, or will be available to be stored on, the national identity register. However, our international obligation is merely for our passports to have digitised biometrics that are readable by the passport officer using a machine at the port of entry—those biometrics would not be accessible by a national identity register. The Government keep trying to smooth over that distinction.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The hon. and learned Gentleman and I start this debate from different points of view: he is against having a national ID register and ID cards, and I am in favour of them. My hon. Friend the Minister conceded earlier that the proposals go somewhat beyond the strict minimum required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and other regulations; however, that is not entirely the point. The ICAO requires this sort of development in the passport and that an infrastructure should be set up to collect biometrics.

If we are to go through the process of collecting biometrics because our citizens need that to be done to travel abroad, let us do the job properly and do the other thing that we need to do, namely, establish a decent ID card system and a national identity register. We need that development to enable us to tackle the whole range of identity fraud and to deal with illegal migration problems over the next 10 years, particularly as the EU expands and borders become more difficult to secure nationally. That is a gain worth having. The fact that we need to collect biometric data for passport use does not mean that all we should do is the absolute minimum required by those international requirements, given that the gains of having a decent identity register system are significant. That is where the hon. and learned Gentleman and I have different approaches to these issues.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

My right hon. Friend and I disagree profoundly in the Home Affairs Committee, so we have a minority report of one. I know that he is even more strongly in favour of identity cards than the Government. He talked about and gave examples of the ways in which identity cards will resolve various problems, but many of us believe that they are being held up as some sort of panacea on terrorism and identity fraud, whereby if we name a problem, the identity card will resolve it. We simply do not believe that identity cards will be the solution any more than they have been in countries such as Spain, where there has been terrorism.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I am in danger, which I said I would avoid, of being drawn into a Second Reading debate. My hon. Friend played an active role in our inquiries. As he said earlier, we agreed entirely with what the Government are now doing on the point that we are discussing. My view—and that of the majority of the Select Committee—is that identity cards will make a significant contribution to each problem that we are trying to tackle. They will absolutely solve few if any problems, but without an identity card system we will be far less well equipped to tackle them.

Anybody who suggests that identity cards or the national identity register are a panacea for all problems is wrong and would be misleading people, but those who say that they have no useful role in tackling identity fraud are also wrong.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I pay tribute to the exceptionally deft and dexterous manner in which the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and the Home Secretary handled compulsion. It takes special skill to present to the House an unworkable scheme, suffer a defeat on it in the other place and subsequently present an acceptance of a defeat on an unworkable scheme as a remarkable triumph and concession. Ministers should be given due credit for that.

I listened to some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) with wry amusement. He said that the Government were going into reverse gear. Some of us remember that when the Identity Cards Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, the Conservative party began in reverse gear. It managed to coast in neutral for a while and it has now managed to find a forward gear, albeit a low one.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I do not know how low my gears can go, but the hon. Gentleman would not have found me in a Lobby in favour of the Bill in this Parliament or the previous one.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind hon. Members that we are not debating Second Reading; we are debating Lords amendment No. 19.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even without that intervention, I should not have tried to highlight the divisions in the Conservative party on the Bill at different stages.

As the Minister has already said, I have been critical of the little-lamented super-affirmative procedure, which was unworkable. However, as one who deeply opposes the identity cards scheme and the identity register and does not want the introduction of any element of compulsion, I almost mourn its passing. The super-affirmative procedure was a secondary legislative procedure and the Parliament Act could not be applied to it. It would therefore have been possible, especially given the requirement to agree a report in both Houses, to block the implementation of a compulsory scheme indefinitely. However, it is not the job of the House to implement law that we know to be bad, even if it sometimes appears convenient to do that. The Lords amendments improve the opportunity for scrutiny through a second primary measure and Liberal Democrat Members welcome that.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough has already made the point that the compulsion that the amendments would exclude is merely express compulsion. The possibility of compulsion by stealth, which we shall discuss shortly, through the designated documents remains. The Government oversell their position when Ministers claim, as they did today, that they have made some great concession that requires the House to revisit compulsion at a later date in primary legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made a good point, which the Minister and his officials should consider at their leisure, about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is beginning its passage through the House. Hon. Members know that, if enacted in its current form, it would allow the Government to amend primary legislation through using statutory instruments. It therefore remains open to the Government to use secondary legislation to amend the Identity Cards Bill or to introduce compulsion. That worries me.

There are two possible routes that could be taken here. The first is that the Minister could stand up today and state expressly that that is not the Government's intention. The alternative route—which I believe would be open to the House on another occasion, and I commend it to hon. Members in the light of that—would be to amend the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill when we have the opportunity to do so. To give the Government the power to amend primary legislation in the sweeping way that is proposed by that Bill seems very wrong.

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

I shall endeavour to keep to the subject of the amendment, although other issues are involved. I believe that even hon. Members who are against ID cards would agree that they would be effective only if it became compulsory to own one at some time in the future. I welcome the Government's intention to have a separate vote on compulsion in some years' time. In the meantime, providing ID cards only to people who specifically ask for them would only reap certain advantages. A secure form of proving who we are would be beneficial for everyone who wished to have an ID card, but for them to provide their full benefit, we must not only encourage people to take them up initially but make them compulsory later.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Does the hon. Lady agree that if 80 per cent. of the population had already been forced to have an ID card because they required one for this or that reason, the vote on compulsion would be irrelevant anyway?

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. All the investigations carried out by newspapers, for example, have shown that the majority of people are in favour of ID cards.

People renewing their passport will have to provide their biometric data. Why should we not encourage the take-up of ID cards and ensure that they become compulsory by issuing them along with passports? The two should be issued simultaneously. The Lords amendment would create uncertainty about when and how the second compulsory stage would be brought in, thereby losing that window of opportunity.

Much has been said about the cost of the scheme, although I appreciate that that is not the issue before us at the moment. However, many of my constituents in Hove and Portslade are extremely worried about that aspect of the scheme. It would be even more costly if we allowed several schemes—such as ID cards, driving licences and passports—to exist side by side. The Bill obviously merges the UK Passport Service with the new agency responsible for ID cards, which would also work closely with UKvisas and the immigration and nationality directorate. It would therefore be far cheaper to support the Government's proposal to issue an ID card automatically to people who apply for a passport or a driving licence. The biometric technology is there, so we should use it to issue ID cards.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Why does my hon. Friend say that the biometric technology is there? In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to show that the biometrics are very iffy indeed, and that they work only under certain conditions. I did a lot of detailed work with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) on a Bill that dealt with eyes in this regard.

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

I take the hon. Member's point—

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Hon. Friend.

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I must say that biometric technology has been tried and tested in this country. It is certainly being used at the moment with asylum seekers in my constituency, although perhaps not to the full extent that will be necessary when it appears on ID cards.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

The Government had a pilot scheme in Leicester, the closest city to my constituency, in which they tested the biometric technology for fingerprints and eyes. Among the Asian population, 20 per cent. of the biometric tests failed. Is the hon. Lady content with that?

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

Obviously, I am not. This is why there would be several different forms of biometric identification data on each ID card.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

I would like to make some progress.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said, it will be necessary to move towards compulsion in the broader interests of national and personal security. ID cards will be a vital tool in fighting organised crime. At the moment, the Home Office identity fraud steering committee says that the cost to the UK economy of identity fraud is £1.7 billion. Given the greater ease of foreign travel—in which Members on both sides of the House are interested—identity fraud is not only becoming more prevalent; it is allowing fraud crimes of increased enormity to take place.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

I want to make some progress. Many other Members are eager to speak.

I know from my constituency surgeries of the incredible pain and difficulty that identity fraud can create.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Is my hon. Friend aware that £62.8 million of the cost of identity theft is estimated to be the cost to the UK Passport Service of measures to counter such fraud? Obviously, that is much less than the cost of implementing this scheme. Moreover, the estimate of credit card payment fraud submitted by the Association for Payment Clearing Services is about a tenth of the Government's figure. A growing problem is "customer not present" fraud, which identity cards will not deal with at all

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May I again remind Members of the amendment that we are discussing?

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

Without such a secure compulsory system, the £1.7 billion figure, which is expected to grow, will be set to rise every year. That is why figures such as those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), which I have no reason to question, are irrelevant in the longer term.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

How can a compulsory identity card—given that biometric information is held centrally and locked in the card, and in a person's face, eyes and fingerprint—possibly deal with fraud involving a card transaction when the person is not present and neither he nor the card can be checked by a scanner?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind Members once again of the amendment that is under discussion.

Celia Barlow (Labour, Hove)

The hon. Gentleman obviously was not present for the Second Reading debate, when all that was explained.

While we all value our civil liberties, protection from criminals should be seen as a right—a compulsory right that our Government should be expected to protect. When identities are stolen, our privacy is stolen. When identities are stolen, our financial safety and security are under threat. ID cards—and compulsory ID cards—will protect our ability to live as free individuals in society, without fear of terrorism or financial crime. That is why I am glad that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments to remove the clauses on compulsion by means of the super-affirmative resolution procedure. However, I support the Government amendment to revise the definition of compulsion so that it refers to future primary legislation.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I want to make only a few simple comments.

I strongly object to the amendments, not because they take away two clauses—like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I can understand that—but because I do not welcome the Government's adoption of a de minimis approach. As I explained to the Minister, who is not present at the moment, the amendments make absolutely no difference to the principles involved. For practical purposes, this is just an exercise in tactical retreat. There is no difference between what is being said now and what was said on Second Reading, when my Front-Bench colleagues produced what could be described as the excruciating sound of reverse gears. I am glad, because there were issues of principle, but in this context my point about the Government is much more important.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is accusing his Front Bench of flip-flopping and flip-flopping on the issue?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I would not put it in such gentle terms. I would simply say that I am delighted that my Front-Bench colleagues have taken the view that they have, and have resolutely stuck by it throughout the Committee stage and subsequently—unlike the Minister, who has come to water extremely slowly and reluctantly. The fact is that this is a political exercise—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Home Secretary sees the joke; the truth is that this is nothing more nor less than a tactical retreat.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if anybody is guilty of flip-flopping, it is Her Majesty's Government, who have flip-flopped over their reasons for introducing this Bill?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am pleased to confirm what my hon. Friend says.

I am afraid that I must point out to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) that his argument misses the wood for the trees. He is a tremendous advocate of identity cards and he argues that we do not know what the position will be in eight years' time, but I point to the example—as I have done before—of "Nineteen Eighty-Four". When George Orwell wrote that book in the 1940s, he was projecting forward to what would happen in circumstances that he foresaw at that time. I recognise the motivation behind the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but he is completely missing the point. The Information Commissioner made it abundantly clear that the Bill will fundamentally alter the relationship between the individual and the state. He has kept very quiet about the arrangements made and the amendments tabled since our debate on Second Reading. I should be very interested to know his thoughts now, but I doubt whether he has changed his opinion very much.

The plain fact is that this is a matter of principle and the Bill constitutes a fundamental change in the relationship between the individual and the state; whether one calls the Government's approach a flip-flop, a change into reverse gear or a tactical retreat makes no difference to that fundamental point. This is the offence of which I accuse the Government: they are engaging in a cynical exercise to gain more control over the individual, and in a way that is inimical to the liberties of the people of this country.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Perhaps I can quote to the hon. Gentleman the Select Committee's conclusion on the very point that we are discussing. We said:

"An identity card scheme of the sort and on the scale proposed by the Government would undoubtedly represent a significant change in the relationship between the state and the individual in this country."

However, we went on to say:

"International experience does not suggest that objections of principle are overwhelming",

and we proceeded to back the idea of an ID card scheme. So we recognised the issue—and we dealt with it.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that sounds to me like a pretty typical report from the members of the Home Affairs Committee. They say, "We concede that this is a matter of fundamental importance to the relationship between the individual and the state, but it doesn't matter: we've got a whole range of other reasons that we can invoke for making such a change." We have seen some pretty remarkable Select Committee reports over the years, but that one just about takes the biscuit.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We have just heard the verdict of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and his Committee, but does my hon. Friend recall that it was the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who argued—as long as two years ago—that, yes, compulsory ID cards would indeed change the relationship between the individual and the state, in the sense that they would allow him to overcome his sense of alienation and to assert his identity. I have met a lot of people in Buckingham who have grumbled about the loss of identity, but I have yet to hear any of them say that the problem would be addressed by a compulsory ID card from this Government.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Absolutely. In fact, the Government are suffering from what could be described as severe political schizophrenia.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The Orwellian scenario to which my hon. Friend referred is not that far away. We established in Committee that not only an ID card reader but a biometric reader will be needed at every airport terminal and in every police car, so the requirement to hold an ID card is not really necessary. Once the information is on a database, we will have to enter our details at a given terminal every time that we are arrested. That makes the whole debate on ID cards and compulsion completely obsolete.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The real reason why the Government are including arrangements relating to biometric procedures is that they are based on a European directive, and the Government know that perfectly well. It is time that the House understood the extent to which domestic legislation is driven by European directives and regulations. The Home Secretary knows that that is why it is impossible to change the arrangements in the Bill. He has already signed up to them. He has given it away in principle and in practice.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

For the sake of clarity and just in case the hon. Gentleman is not clear on the point, may I say that when we discuss primary legislation, we mean this Parliament, not the European Parliament?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am very clear on that point, as I am on all matters relating to that subject.

When Mr. Frattini referred, on "The World at One", to the fact that he was in favour of securing our borders, he made it clear that he meant the EU borders. It is also clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his remarks yesterday—and the day before and the day before that, in his jostling for the premiership of this country—may be taking a divergent view of the principles in the Bill. The Home Secretary shakes his head—[Interruption.] He has his fingers crossed. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to the necessity of ensuring that we secure our own borders, that is not the same as the arrangements that have already been set up and that are dedicated to preserving EU borders, not our own.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that under the Hague arrangements, which followed the Tampere discussions, the European countries, working together, could do a great deal to combat international fraud through the use of identity procedures.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am grateful for that intervention, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to refer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on this matter. The plain fact remains that whether one considers the Tampere discussions or the Hague conventions or arrangements made at a summit in The Hague or in any other circumstances, the provisions in the Bill are inimical to the principles and liberties on which this country has been built. We do not have state control or a police state, but this Bill is the beginning of such arrangements. Ministers know that to be the case, although they are camouflaging it under a range of matters, including terrorism and state security. In essence, they are giving away the fundamental liberties of the people of this country and that is why we should oppose all the measures in this Bill.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members have the chance to speak. I shall try to stick, as little of the debate has done, to the substance of the amendment. It deals with the simple issue of compulsion. I could go on at great length about the Bill, as I have in the past, but I want to point out that no other country is doing this. No other country is going down this road. I think that in a couple of years the whole issue will be abandoned. The idea that the Home Office, of all Departments, will get this massive infrastructure to work, which nobody else in the world has managed to do, is unreal.

I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the amendment, because it would not affect everybody. It affects those people who will not be caught under clause 5. The amendment will make a difference because primary legislation, with proper debate and scrutiny in this place, will be needed before a move to compulsion. I would much rather have that than secondary legislation. We should welcome the fact that this step has been taken; it is an improvement, although it does not deal with the aspects of the Bill that concern some people.

I emphasise the point that I made in an intervention: the relationship between the amendment and clause 15, which covers the power to make public services conditional on identity checks. The Minister confirmed earlier that if the amendment is accepted clause 15 cannot come into effect without further primary legislation, and that is important.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I confirm that what my hon. Friend has just said is correct. The aspects of the Bill dealing with free public services could not come into effect until primary legislation to make the whole system compulsory had been passed.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

That is an important effect of the amendment and I welcome it, because some of the last people to receive a card, who would in the end be caught by compulsion, are those who rely on public services.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

In relation to the Home Secretary's response, if the access to public services were an application for a driving licence, passport or designated document, compulsion would still exist.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The compulsory element in relation to public services in clause 15 relates not to designated documents but to individuals subject to compulsory registration. If the amendment were to have the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests, there would be a problem, but the Home Secretary has made it clear that it will not.

Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, if it becomes compulsory to have an ID card to use the national health service, we shall be undermining the principle that the NHS is free at the point of use? People would have to pay to use it; without the card they would be unable to access services that we have always understood are free at the point of use.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

I wish that the hon. Lady had listened to my starting point on the issue. I am not defending the ID card scheme. I have never said that it was a great idea. I am making the simple point that this narrow amendment is an improvement. I do not want to be churlish and say that it does not matter; it is a step in the right direction. Given a choice, I would scrap the whole thing, but the amendment is a positive step.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I share my hon. Friend's complete opposition to ID cards, but should not those of us on the Labour Benches who have urged the Government to listen and respond to criticism of this and other issues welcome the fact that they have done so? Like my hon. Friend, I would rather that they scrapped the whole business, but as they will not, the fact that primary legislation will be required for compulsion is undoubtedly a shift in the right direction.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

That is the simple point that I wanted to make, so I shall give another Member the opportunity to speak.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

This is an important opportunity to look once again at the Government's proposals and to consider the changes incorporated by the Lords. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken recently to secure the substance of their programme.

Inevitably, questions about personal privacy, civil liberties, system security, cross-predictability and function creep must be taken into account in the development of an identity verification system, but by removing compulsion in relation to entry on the national identity register and in dealing with designated documents—the substance of the amendments—the Lords would make the system less secure and its use in public services less effective. In fact, the measures address none of the substantive issues with which Parliament might properly be concerned, and can be considered only as spoiling tactics designed to make the implementation of ID cards impossible in practice. If those are the Opposition's tactics—that is by no means clear from what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has said today—they are not in the interests of the British people, do not reflect the world in which we live and, frankly, constitute opposition for opposition's sake. The churlish contribution from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 21 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 23 agreed to

Clause 5 — Applications relating to entries in Register

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 22 and Government motion to disagree.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The House debated the essence of this issue on Report on 18 October. It rejected proposals similar to the Lords amendments, and I hope that it will reject them now. Although Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 22 rest on changing a "must" to a "may", which seems a very small change, they risk undermining the basis of the current identity cards proposal, and for those reasons they must be resisted strongly by the Government and by the House.

We have always been clear that the identity cards scheme is being designed and is intended, eventually, to become a compulsory scheme for all UK residents, and that in the second phase of the scheme it will be a requirement to register, with a civil financial penalty regime for failure to do so. Throughout, we have also been equally clear that linking identity cards to the issue of designated documents is a central part of the scheme in the first phase. That will enable a sensible, phased introduction of identity cards.

Once passports and residence permits are designated, when British nationals resident in the United Kingdom, renew or apply for their residence permits they will be entered on the national identity register and issued with cards that will serve as ID cards. That approach is well known and will not come as a surprise to the House. When the Government issued our first consultation document about a card scheme in 2002, one of the options canvassed was a universal scheme linked to passports.

When we announced the decision in principle in November 2003, it was made clear that there would be a two-stage scheme and that the second stage would be compulsory. However, on the first stage, we stated in "Identity Cards: the Next Steps":

"By linking the card scheme to widely held identity documents most people will get a card conveniently and automatically as they renew an existing document".

That announcement in principle in 2003 was put into effect when we published the draft Bill, as long ago as April 2004, when we included the word "must" in clause 5(2). Yet again, we made it absolutely clear that, once designated, obtaining a passport would also involve being issued with an identity card.

It is also clear that, other than the biometrics—an important development in the whole security of card systems—no information will be required from an individual as part of that process that the state does not already hold in one form or another. To put the compulsory element of the designation of documents another way, it will be compulsory for information already held by the state to be placed on the national identity register. No new information will be required as part of that process.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

As I understand it, a fully biometric passport that complies with European Union requirements should have a facial biometric and two fingerprints. However, as my right hon. Friend said at Question Time, he proposes to have up to 13 biometric elements stored on the national register. It is not correct to say that that information is required for the passport and that the Government would therefore necessarily have that information and the full biometrics.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

My hon. Friend is correct in that the information is not required as part of the current EU passport regime—the fantasies of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) are relevant in that respect. However, for a variety of reasons, all Governments are determined—it was set out in no less a source than the United Nations Security Council resolution last September—to move to a fully biometric scheme for passports. That is part of the overall world approach, which this Government strongly support, to the most secure system of biometrics to protect us most effectively in a wide variety of ways.

My hon. Friend's point is about biometrics for the passport scheme and not about the ID card scheme, although they are related. We believe, as a Government, that getting properly secure biometrics for the passport scheme is not only in our interests in this country but is part of our international obligations.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The biometric passport is fully biometric because it has biometrics on it; it just has not got all the biometrics. Which other countries propose to have 13 sets of biometric data on a centrally held database?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

A number of countries, including the United States of America, is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I invite the Home Secretary to be quite careful about this. I do not want him to mislead himself or anybody else. Is there not a difference between the international obligation and what the Government require? Under the international obligation, biometric information that can be read by a passport officer's machine appears on the face of the passport. What the Government require us to do is to provide biometric information on the passport that can be read by, and stored in, the national identity register. There is quite a difference of quality and principle that the Government keep eliding.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in one respect. We are in an evolving situation as far as the international requirements are concerned. That applies to the EU, the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the UN Security Council resolution. It is equally the case that many countries are evolving their own systems—whether they go for the number of biometrics that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) mentioned, for biometrics for all 10 fingers and thumbs or the 13 that we will have for our ID cards. It is also true that there are different states of decision in different countries on those points. All is evolving. However, both within the EU and in the dialogue between the EU and the United States that has explicitly addressed these matters, including in the G8 context, the overwhelming view is to move towards the most rigorous form of biometrics for fundamental documents such as passports and visas. That is the point that I am trying to make.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report published today by the Commission for Racial Equality in which it specifically talks about the use of biometrics in relation to the black community and about the difficulties with the technology?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I have seen that report. If one considers different biometrics, one sees that there are different issues for different communities. The biometrics for the face, the iris and for fingerprints and thumbprints give rise to different issues in each case. However, as I know my hon. Friend will accept, the point is simple and straightforward. The more biometrics we have, the more reliable and fraud-proof is the system. For example, it is better to have biometrics for all 10 fingers and thumbs than it is to have them for one.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

My passport is coming up for renewal. I will have to offer biometric data and I understand that, but what about the non-biometric data and the registrable facts that we would have to offer as part of the process of getting an ID card?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I made the point earlier that the non-biometric facts that will be required for the identity card will be broadly the same as those needed for passports, residence and immigration documents and other purposes. It is not the case that more information will be requested. In fact, less information will be required for the ID card than for some other purposes.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to our conversation last week in written form, which I received this morning. However, the letter says:

"We are designing the scheme in such a way that there is no direct access to the Register itself by organisations—Government or non-Government—who want to verify a card-holder's identity. Organisations will be able to use an identity verification service to verify basic identity information".

What is the difference between the register and the identity verification service?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I need to make it clear that the register will be the record of each citizen's biometrics and a limited amount of other data relating to them, such as name, sex and so on. It will be a basic database for each of those people. The service to which I referred in the letter to my hon. Friend would enable other agencies, whether governmental or non-governmental, to use the data for the purpose of verification. An organisation that wants to use the central data will work via a verification service, which was the distinction that I was trying to draw.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The Government's figures show that while £1.3 billion is lost due to fraud each year, identity-related fraud accounts for between £20 million and £50 million a year. That amount is considerably less than the £85 million cost of implementing the ID card system, as we established in Committee. The scheme will be an expensive, intrusive and unproven way of tackling ID fraud.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman raised that matter during previous stages of the Bill's consideration. We will debate costs when we consider Lords amendment No. 1. The most recent estimate of the cost of identity fraud throughout the country is £1.7 billion. That is a significant amount, so we must address the problem.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to make progress, but will he answer a question? I am vexed that he does not entertain the possibility that storing the information centrally will create the opportunity for corruption and the abuse of information. What would he say to those of us who think that the concentration of data in itself will create a considerable temptation for organised criminals to hack into the information and thus institute other methods of fraud and ways of achieving identity theft?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

First and foremost, I am very keen not to have the support of the hon. Gentleman in this vote—God knows what would happen if I did.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

We can guarantee that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As the right hon. Gentleman says, we can guarantee that.

Only one question needs to be asked about security: will the system that we are creating be more or less susceptible to fraud than the system that we have now? I argue strongly that the system that we are creating will be less susceptible to fraud, whether we are considering passports that are used fraudulently, or the variety of ways in which identity fraud is committed. Of course we will have to consider fraud under the new system, but we must compare the system that we are establishing with the existing system.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I shall make this intervention as constructively as I can. The simple truth is that the test is not simply whether the system will be better than that which we have now. Given that we will be spending a large sum, we must consider whether the system will be the best that might be available. Plenty of identity card systems do not challenge individual privacy or require massive central databases, but are far more secure than the system that the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he is correct. The distinguishing aspect of the scheme is the move towards using fingerprint biometrics and other biometrics. To respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, some 30 countries already intend to include fingerprint biometrics on their passports. As I said, the United States is increasing its programme. In my opinion it would be utterly foolish of us not to take advantage of the advances in biometrics to increase our security, and that is the intention behind the proposal.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

If the Home Secretary is so confident in his proposal for a central database, why did the Home Office last month invite a number of technology companies and biometrics experts to submit proposals to put biometrics on cards as part of the ID scheme?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We had a substantial discussion with the whole industry about our proposals to ensure that we work as best we can with the most up-to-date technologies. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) was right to say that the technology is fast moving. Many companies are involved—many British companies are in the lead, by the way—and we want to work closely with them. That is an intelligent course for us to follow.

My argument is that the ID cards system brings substantial benefits to both individuals and society and that the opt-out proposed by the Lords puts those benefits at risk. Focusing on passports and residence permits means that we can target a manageable number of people each year who will go through the process and minimise uncertainties that would otherwise apply to rolling out the scheme nationally. The benefits of the ID cards scheme will grow steadily as more people obtain their cards. By linking the process with the issue or renewal of a document such as a passport, which around 80 per cent. of the population already holds, there will be a manageable roll-out of the ID cards scheme. That is surely in the public interest. If those hon. Members who say that they are concerned about the cost of the scheme really do want to avoid excessive costs, they should accept the logic of combining the process of issuing ID cards with the issuing of passports or immigration documents.

In practice, of course, the process of obtaining a passport and an ID card will be combined in future, so issuing the two documents as a package will be just as convenient as applying for a biometric passport. When we introduce passports with fingerprint biometrics, the process of obtaining a passport and an ID card will be so similar as to make the need to combine the two quite obvious.

Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)

The Secretary of State mentioned costs. Has his Department conducted any studies of the cost implications of the amendment? What extra costs would there be to the taxpayer if the idea of combining ID cards with passports were abandoned?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The Department has not made a systematic, rigorous assessment of the costs that my hon. Friend describes, but we have considered the issue in principle, to see what the overall situation would be. As he implies, if the amendment were passed, the costs would be greater because they would be shared among fewer people and the implementation of the whole ID cards system would be far less assured. If the amendment proposed by the Lords were passed, the effect on both the cost and the roll-out of the scheme would be serious, but detailed costings would take some months to clarify.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Is not the logic of the Home Secretary's argument that, because the cost would be shared by fewer people, there is therefore less desire for ID cards in the country than he suspects? Would it not make more sense to accept the Lords amendments and respect the rights of individuals to choose how quickly the scheme is rolled out and whether they will take part in it, and thereby make it truly voluntary?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I think that I addressed that argument earlier. We have set out from the beginning our intention to move to a compulsory scheme in two phases—I said earlier what compulsion means in this case.

Let me now deal with the designated documents. First, I confirm again that the Government's intention is to designate British passports issued to UK residents aged 16 or over, so that an ID card must be issued alongside a passport, as a package. Secondly, it is intended to designate residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals resident in the UK for more than three months. Thirdly, we intend to issue stand-alone ID cards, but they would be issued on a voluntary basis under clause 8 and would not require the use of the designation power in clause 4.

Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow)

Is not there a potential problem with the European convention on human rights if the Home Secretary imposes a requirement on a foreign national that is not imposed on a British citizen?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We believe that there is no problem of that type at all. The immigration documents that we are describing relate to people coming here on the basis of having to indicate their identity to gain residence permits. That is not only reasonable, as would be clear to anybody, but entirely works with the European convention on human rights and is compliant with it.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, I want to make more progress and will give way in a moment, as I said.

We do intend to designate the passport. We do intend to designate residence permits and other immigration documents. We do intend to issue stand-alone identity cards, but on a voluntary basis, not a compulsory basis. As we have always made clear, however, we believe that the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for the possibility of designation of other official documents in the future. I have said that I would want to look at the possibility of designation of Criminal Records Bureau certificates in England and Wales. There may be a good case for designating those documents, but we would need to consider issues such as the impact on volunteers, and that would be for future consideration.

In the light of some of the recent publicity, I should make it clear that, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I have looked actively at designating driving licences, but we have decided not to do so. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency already uses the passport database to check, with consent, the identity of people applying for photocard licences. That is more secure for the DVLA and more convenient for individuals, who do not have to send their passport to the DVLA. In the same way, issuing driving licences to people with ID cards will be more secure and convenient, but we have no plans to require people to get an ID card before applying for a driving licence.

I should emphasis that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, mandatory recall of paper driving licences is a measure to improve the security of driving licences and has nothing to do with ID cards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the Government's position on the defeat in the House of Lords on the provision in the Road Safety Bill and will announce his intentions in due course.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

rose—

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will give way in a second, as I said.

I need to make it clear that there will be no possibility of designating any document until the identity card scheme is introduced. The designation order will need to set out the exact details of the proposed class of document, with any exceptions, and will also need to specify the timetable for designation. Each designation order under clause 4 will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. It could not be done for any particular document, including all those that I have mentioned, without a very full opportunity for proper debate and scrutiny.

A number of my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), have been concerned about the process of designating documents, and I hope that the procedure that I have set out makes clear the approach that we are following.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made the point about residence permits and human rights. What the Home Secretary has not answered—it was not answered in Committee either—is how the proposal affects the 380,000 Irish citizens currently resident in this country who enjoy a protection as a result of a separate Irish-Anglo treaty that dates back some years.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The proposals relate to UK citizens. We are debating fully with the Irish Government and my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office the detailed operation of the scheme in the joint travel area, which covers both islands—our island and Ireland.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

On this specific issue, I have heard from senior members of the Irish Government that if we introduce ID cards they will have to introduce them. It will have to be on a compatible basis and there will have to be information exchange between the countries. Is that true?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am not going to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have been told by Ministers in the Irish Government. I will say, as I have said before, that we have had a very full discussion of those issues precisely to be able to clarify those points.

No document can be designated under clause 4 unless a designation order has been debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I should also make it clear at this juncture that there will be the opportunity for Parliament to debate the level of fees to be charged as the identity cards fee regime is also to be set in regulations, subject to the affirmative order procedure. All subsequent changes to the level of fees, apart from increases due to inflation, will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and will thus need the approval of both Houses. I hope that I have shown that it is essential that we have a clear and definite link between an application for a designated document such as a passport and an entry on the national identity register. That has always been our clearly stated policy.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

There is bound to be concern among opponents of ID cards that if someone receives a passport or reapplies for one their details will be entered on the register. My right hon. Friend rightly said—some people may have overlooked this—that an affirmative order is necessary. However, given that there would be a limited debate if such an order were made, does he not accept that there is a need for a wider debate when the measure returns to the Lords, bearing in mind the principle of the matter and its crucial importance for many of us? He has accepted the need for primary legislation on compulsion, but could he go a little further than the Bill's existing provisions?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that an affirmative order is needed if any document is to be designated. There will be an opportunity for debate in the House on those questions. It will take considerable time to designate any document, so the Government would wish to announce such a proposal in advance with the aim of ensuring full debate in both Houses. I am ready to facilitate such a debate, and it is a perfectly reasonable request for the hon. Gentleman to make. I can assure him that we would seek to facilitate debate on all those matters. While it is important that Parliament has the opportunity to address them, people must accept that the key point in relation to passports, residence permits, immigration documents and the Criminal Records Bureau check is that the amount of information given by the individual to the state would be the same as it is now. It is not a question of new information coming online for the state—it is a question of putting that new information, with its biometric assurance, on to a national identity register so that it can work more effectively. Individuals will therefore not give more information to the state than they do at present. That is an important point to grasp.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

If identity cards are introduced, as has been suggested, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Irish citizens living in this country will not need to have any form of ID whatsoever?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

No, I am not saying that. The Bill applies to everyone who is legally resident in this country, including Irish citizens. Once it is compulsory to register, Irish citizens resident here would be obliged to register. The common travel area is unaffected in principle by that definition, although, as I told the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, a series of practical questions arise that are subject to active discussion in those circumstances. There is no requirement or need for the Irish Government to introduce an ID card system because of what our Government do—it is for the Irish Government to make their own decisions.

Following his contact with the Irish Government, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that they would actively consider whether it would be wise to introduce a card system if we did so. I am sure that they would do so in such circumstances, but the key issue is how properly to share information. Apart from any other consideration, there are serious political issues that need to be tackled very carefully.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

What rights would other countries have to access the UK identity cards register if we hold information about their citizens?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

None.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I was about to stop giving way, but I shall make an exception for the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow).

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's generosity. As he will know, of 45 clauses in the original Bill no fewer than 25 provided for order-making powers. He has celebrated the fact that the Government will require the use of the affirmative procedure in many instances in future, and he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, as it is vital that our proceedings are intelligible to outside observers, will he put on the record something that we in the Chamber know? If there is a debate on the affirmative procedure, that does not mean a debate on the Floor of the House. It means a debate upstairs, in a small Committee compromising no more than 30 Members and often substantially fewer. It is important that the public should not—inadvertently, of course—be misled.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Having participated in many such debates with the hon. Gentleman I know how much he enjoys talking in Committee, often at length, on the issues involved. I believe that he does so in the knowledge that they will be reported and noticed outside.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Only in Buckingham.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I know that people are well educated in Buckingham, and they will follow his contributions with particular care.

Robert Wareing (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)

To pursue the question asked by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) about access by foreign countries to the register, what concerns me most about the Bill and the database is the issue of who will have access to it and who will give approval for that access. Is it possible for the intelligence services of a foreign country, such as the USA, ever to have access to the database?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

As I said a moment ago, no—perhaps my hon. Friend did not hear that answer. That is not the way in which the system will operate, and what he envisages simply could not happen. There is a clear case for the House to disagree with the Lords amendments, so I urge it to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 22.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

May I begin by saying that I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot be here today? I doubt that his absence will have as great an influence on the votes tonight as his previous absence, but at least the Home Secretary and I can draw some pleasure from the fact that the phrase, "Detained in South Africa" has a nicer tone today than it did 20 years ago.

I wish to discuss the national identity register much more than the piece of plastic or the biometric attached to identity card. The rather arcane subject of this debate is designation. In practice, it is the most controversial and, indeed, the most important debate that we shall hold today, because it will determine whether the ID card scheme is covertly rendered compulsory or not. In 2005, under the heading, "Strong and secure borders," page 52 of the 111-page Labour manifesto said:

"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports."

I heard what the Home Secretary said about consultation papers and so on, but any reasonable member of the public would deduce that they could choose whether or not to have an ID card when they renewed their passport. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw, but it is the opposite of what the Government intend. To justify what this Bill does, the Labour manifesto should have said: "We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a compulsory basis for a progressively larger portion of the population as people renew their passports." That is the truth of today's proposals.

Faced with that fact, Baroness Scotland, speaking on behalf of the Government, tried to claim that passports are voluntary. That is not the case if someone's work takes them abroad, nor if their parents live abroad, nor if their spouse or partner is from an another country. Nor is it the case if their children travel abroad, fall sick or get into trouble. It is a novel interpretation of "voluntary" if the price of a foreign holiday is a requirement for inclusion in the national identity register. The Lords therefore amended the Bill, quite properly in my view, to remove that creeping compulsion, and make inclusion on the register optional when someone receives or renews a passport. That is what the Government are seeking to reverse, for reasons to which I shall return.

The Government may ask why that should be voluntary. If people are already getting a passport, what is the reason for turning down an identity card? There are many good reasons for not wanting to be on the national identity register, which involves a large number of pieces of data about each individual being put on a single Government database, many of them the access keys for other Government databases. That is the important point: it is a central database with access keys effectively to all the other Government databases.

It is disingenuous of the Home Secretary to say, "We've already got all those." One of the transitions that has taken place over the past several years under the Government, and to a small extent under the previous Government too, is the removal of barriers to the transfer of information around Government. Those barriers were a protection of the liberties of the individual, and now they have gone. Many have gone for good reason—to make the Child Support Agency work, to stop terrorism, and so on—and the Bill will accelerate that process.

I ask the House to forgive me for a political point, but it is one that I care about very much. After the way the Government treated Martin Sixsmith, Pam Warren, Rose Addis and others, seeking information about them and using it to destroy reputations, I would not trust them with data about my life, let alone anyone else's.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about bringing together different databases and his concerns about that. Can he give me an example of two pieces of data that are currently held on separate databases that he does not want brought together, and why?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I shall use the examples that I was discussing. When Pam Warren, the rail safety campaigner, was a thorn in the side of the Government, a special adviser, I think, was known to say, "Let's look into her political background, her sex life and other such things." [Interruption.] A medical database can give all sorts of information—visits to clinics, visits to gynaecologists and the like. I shall be happy to take an intervention from the Home Secretary, if he wants to tell me that in due course it will not be possible to access medical databases through the system.

When people set about trying to create an embarrassing story about somebody, the more detail and the more data they get, the better. Experts in the area have spoken to the official Opposition, and I suspect to the Liberal party as well, of their concern that the audit trail will be loaded on to the database—in other words, every point of access on the database will be logged and recorded. If those on the Government Front Bench want to challenge that as untrue, I am happy to take an intervention. No. Okay.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's whipped speech. I have had fun before with the Whips' plants on the Government Benches. He is clearly a new addition to that group. I shall give way in a moment.

In the run-up to the debate there was an independent report about the cost and technical capability of the proposed systems—an independent report by the London School of Economics. [Interruption.] I expected hon. Members to groan. The Government—and, to my surprise, the Home Secretary—have been attacking the individuals who drew up that report. As a result, Howard Davies, the head of the LSE, wrote to the Government saying, "You are wrong to attack individuals who wrote the report. Sixty different people wrote it. It was peer reviewed. It was written by experts on various aspects of ID card technology." I will return to their views.

Chris Mole (Labour, Ipswich)

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear what the fine would be, as prescribed in the schedule, if a special adviser inappropriately and outwith the legislation accessed the sort of information that he suggested?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

Of course such a person would be fined if he were caught, but one of the problems with the proposal is that high volumes of data would be travelling round the system, and it is not good enough to say that there would be a small fine.

Let us assume that people do not care about their privacy. Let us assume they believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, Mr. Alastair Campbell and a legion of special advisers are all saints. Let us imagine they believe that. There are still good reasons not to want to be on the register. Let us go through them. First, there is the price.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

The hon. Gentleman likes to make his name on economics. I will give way to him after this section.

Even on the Government's figures, the price of passports for a family of four would rise from £134 to £372. On the LSE's figures, which I trust more, the cost could be as high as £300 per person or more than £1,000 for a family of four—a plastic poll tax that the Government must fear will lead no one to volunteer for the system.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

The right hon. Gentleman is much more experienced than I in the House. He is basing his case on an allegation that he made earlier in his speech, that a former special adviser tried to gain access to the privileged details of someone's sex life through Government machinery. If he has evidence of that allegation, he should put it on the table. He should not make such allegations on the Floor of the House under parliamentary privilege.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

This is the public domain. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was doing when he was at the Treasury. Perhaps he did not read any newspapers in the past few years. That would explain quite a lot about his political performance.

Let us return to the subject of the debate. Even if people believe that the Government are well intentioned—they may be—

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

Since there are only six pieces of personal information on the national identity register—name, sex, date of birth, place of birth, nationality and address—how would the collection of those data, which are already collected for passports, make it any easier or more difficult for the kind of revelations described by the right hon. Gentleman to be made?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

The primary concern is about a piece of data giving access to other databases—for example, driving licence number or national insurance number. Such pieces of information are the access keys to other databases. I shall return to that in detail, because there is expert evidence that causes concern among people who know a great deal about that.

Earlier, in Home Office questions, the Home Secretary made the dubious claim that the Passport Agency has been a tremendous success, which was sort of reiterated in an unqualified way by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. The Home Secretary must have far different criteria for success from me and the rest of the country, who have seen many millions of our money squandered on that. It overran significantly and led to great inconvenience for a large number of people.

As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, four Government agencies have seen projects with a total budget of nearly £9 billion record spectacular failures, racking up a combined overspend of £33.9 billion. Even simple databases are often beyond the Home Office. Why should we imagine that it is capable of setting up the very complex register required by the Bill in an acceptable and workable way? If it goes wrong, that may manifest itself in problems and delays in getting the designated document. How much longer will it take to get a passport if we add the ID card requirements? Once we have renewed our passports, we are required to keep the Government informed of any changes. We will have to tell the Government every time we change our address, on pain of a fine of £1,000, which is quite a lot of money.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman's argument and he makes the point about the alleged unreliability of Home Office IT projects. Does he agree that in fact the process being outlined for what is effectively an evolutionary process for putting data on a database is the proper and valid way to proceed in order to ensure that all procedures are tried and tested before we have the debate on compulsory registration, and that these processes can inform that debate? Should he not therefore be supporting the Government?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

The hon. Gentleman makes a decent point in truth. A large database should be introduced on an evolutionary basis and slowly. However, that could be done on a much more steady basis with a voluntary system. The point here is the strategic problem of the database itself, but I will come back to that in a moment because it is a serious point to take on.

There is also the question of inaccuracy. The Government have tried to persuade the public of the value of an identity card, but they have not considered the consequences if there are erroneous records. Many hon. Members have dealt with personal disasters that have befallen constituents when some data held about them have been wrong. As the Select Committee Chairman will know, the Home Office cannot even ensure that the Criminal Records Bureau database is accurate. At one point two thirds of it was in error, and at the last check it was one third. Those are serious errors in what should be an absolutely accurate record. So what chance with a 40 million person database? So there are many major problems even before one considers the hundreds of thousands of people who will be the victims of false positive or false negative biometric tests, as has been clear from the studies done.

Finally, there is the most important question about the whole issue—the insecurity of the system. The Government have made, in a way properly, much of the issue of identity theft, particularly with regard to terrorism. Yet their proposal—a point I referred to earlier—is to gather the access keys to virtually every Government database in the national identity register, put them on one large computer and then create many thousands of direct access points to that computer. They will have created the most attractive possible target for every fraudster, terrorist, confidence trickster and hacker on the planet. Those people will be able to lift data out and put viruses and false data in.

If the Pentagon and Microsoft cannot keep hackers from penetrating their mainframes, what chance the Home Office? Speaking about the scheme, Microsoft's national technology officer has said that a central identity database could worsen the very problems that it was intended to prevent, such as terrorism and identity theft. He said that

"ministers should not be building systems that allow hackers to mine information so easily."

So, far from protecting the public, the Government will put the individual citizen at risk by creating a culture of complacency that is based on an ill-designed and ill-thought-out scheme.

Incidentally, this is yet another area where the Government mounted a mendacious attack on the independent LSE report. I will deal with that in detail because it is rather important. The section of the report that highlights the very serious security flaws in the proposed system was written not by an antagonist of the identity card system, but by somebody who favours identity cards, Dr. Brian Gladman, the ex-technical director of NATO, who had an eminent career in the British military ensuring the security of our military computer systems. He himself has said:

"the UK ID cards programme as now envisaged will create safety and security risks for those whose details are entered into the system."—

that from an avowed supporter of ID cards.

Edward Balls (Labour, Normanton)

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and he has made a series of arguments that have not been easy to follow, but as far as I can see, almost every one of them is equally an argument against the Home Office running a passport system using a computer on which identities are stored. I struggle to understand why he is against ID cards, but in favour of passports. His main point seems to be that passports are compulsory, so if ID cards are applied to people with a passport, they will become compulsory too. But is he really saying that passports are compulsory?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I am afraid that I do not take responsibility for the hon. Gentleman not being able to understand something. It is as simple as this, and if he listens he may understand. There is a national identity register. It is a central database system. It has many thousands of access points around the country. It has to do so because that is the way it works. It is different from most other identity card systems around the world. The compulsory ones are largely localised databases, not national, and that is why they cost only about £4 a head, not the sort of cost that this system will engender when we see it.

In a moment of frankness last year, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality admitted that the Government had exaggerated the value of ID cards in the fight against terrorism. He was very honest, he always is, and I give him credit for that. But as Dr. Gladman suggests, the truth may be far worse. The creation of the national identity register may create a mechanism that will actually allow terrorists to operate under the radar more effectively, undetected until their plans come to fruition. All of those are good reasons for individual citizens not to want to put their details on the national identity register.

David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the whole purpose of having a clean identity base is to ensure that once someone's identity has been verified by taking the biometric, that biometric can then never be used by anyone else? If someone takes someone's identity to begin with, they would have to continue with that identity for the rest of their lives. Therefore, the purpose of a clean identity base nationally is to achieve what the Conservative party paraded as its policy before the election, namely, an understanding of who is in the country, who is entitled to work, who is entitled to services and to ensure that those who are not, are precluded from working, drawing down on free services or being involved in other such ventures. Is that not the case?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that he adheres to honestly and straightforwardly, but on which we differ, and that is that it is possible for the proposed system to be entirely clear and to have perfect integrity. When we were considering the early stages of this when he was still Home Secretary, I went to see the Metropolitan police, at that point under Sir John Stevens—I know a favourite of his—and I talked to him and all his deputy commissioners about their interest in the system. I put to them a question that I subsequently put to his previous advisers, to the Cabinet Office advisers, and to the briefers who talked to us about this at various stages. The question was this: how will somebody be prevented from putting a virus into one of the many thousands of access points in the system to change a piece of data, for example, relating to me, by inserting a little programme that says that every time a question is asked about me, answer yes?

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It may get the other Mr. Davis.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

There are many with the name David Davis. That would be a major disruption for the entire country of Wales. But the simple point was that we received no answer and we still do not have one. That is the point that the Microsoft specialist in this area has made: that it is a very vulnerable exercise to create what he called a honeypot for fraudsters, conmen, thieves, terrorists—

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

I have not finished answering this question. I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) deserves a clear reply because he will know more of the inwardnesses of this than many others.

The second point with regard to creating a clean database is that, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, whoever creates it will have to have some originating documents. One of our concerns about this was the prospect that people would come in from mainland Europe and have three months clear, without doing anything, but even if they did nothing for three months, they might come in with documents that were cleared in another part of Europe that is perhaps a little less careful than we are. I will not insult any particular country by picking it out, but they do exist and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do who they are.

Earlier today, we heard concerns about the common travel area and the Irish Republic, and although we do not know what the outcome will be, that issue represents a 5 million-person hole in the system. Given the value of corrupting the system, the size of the system and the fact that all the data will be in one place, people will try to corrupt the system and—I hate to say this—the likelihood is that they will succeed. The right hon. Gentleman has asked a good question, but his argument is not right.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.