Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill
House of Commons, 29 March 2006.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written a note to Mr. Deputy Speaker about the Bill as it stands and how it might be amended. It might be strange to raise this matter at such a late time, but it is in the nature of the exchanges between the Houses that it is possible that the amendments being applied could make the Bill a hybrid Bill. I say that with reference to the definition of the Speaker that a hybrid Bill is
"a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other"—
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. I have the reference from "Erskine May", so we can save a little time because the hon. Gentleman need not read out the whole passage.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I merely say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that however improbable it might seem at this late stage, differences could be created in the "same category or class" by virtue of the amendments that are being proposed and those that have been considered. On the general principle, it seems to me that hybridity could apply in this instance, but I would be grateful for a ruling.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
As the hon. Gentleman says, the matter has been brought to the attention of the Chair at a late stage. I am thus seeking advice and guidance and we will return to that point of order later.
Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 22J and 22K.
This is the fourth time that amendments to remove the automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards have come back to us from the other place and I very much hope that it will be the last time. The amendments were tabled by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who sits on the Cross Benches. I have high regard for Lord Armstrong, his commitment to the constitution of this country and his knowledge of history relating to it. I know that he was trying to help to reach a constructive conclusion by tabling the amendments. However, as I have said before, the moment has passed for discussing the principle of linking designated documents and ID cards, and it simply would not be possible for the Government to accept a complete opt-out for people who apply for documents designated under the Bill from the requirement to be entered on the national identity register and issued with an identity card.
I understand the reasoning behind Lord Armstrong's amendments. As I have said before, I am grateful to him for trying to help to resolve the impasse that exists. However, while in theory an opt-out might well make more sense than an opt-in, the reality would be the same. We would still be introducing an unacceptably large degree of uncertainty into the plans for rolling out identity cards linked to passports.
When the Bill returned to the House on 21 March, the debate was essentially about the timing for implementing the requirement for people applying for a designated document, such as a passport, to register and obtain an identity card, rather than the principle of so doing. That was certainly the line taken by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), although I have to say that he was more coherent than Lord Phillips of Sudbury in yesterday's debate in the other place when he made a mistake about a name. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) for reminding me of a particular factor behind that, so I will not read the relevant part of Hansard, although I refer hon. Members to column 655.
The line taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was very clear. He said that the amendments to be proposed by Lord Armstrong would
"blow a hole in the Bill"—[Official Report, 21 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 192.]
The position of the Liberal Democrats throughout has been to use any device, however constitutionally doubtful, to destroy the scheme decided by this elected Chamber. I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill, or damaging the delivery of the identity cards scheme as a whole.
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that people are right in thinking that this is all part of an EU requirement to prepare for a common system across Europe, and that that is why he is in such a hurry to get rid of our liberties in this respect?
Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)
I am happy to confirm that that is total nonsense. There is no proposal either for an EU identity card or for an EU-wide card of any sort. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal on the table. What has been discussed in the EU is biometrics for passports and biometrics for residents' documents. That has been discussed not only in the EU but in countries throughout the world—especially the United States—as a means of helping people to travel more effectively. There is no requirement, and the canard, if I might use a Frenchism, that this is all an EU plot—something that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes suggests—is not true in this instance.
Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the lack of an EU conspiracy. However, will he comment on why the UK alone is going down the route of having a centralised data base and an audit trail, which is not in line with recommendations that are coming from Europe?
Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)
There are no recommendations coming from Europe on this matter so that the issue of being in line does not arise. The arguments for the Bill stand in their own terms. I remind my hon. Friend that they have been debated during the consideration of two Bills in this place and in the other place. They have also been considered on many occasions during debates on Lords amendments. However, the issue that my hon. Friend has raised is not the substance of the debate that is before us. My hon. Friend has been clear about her position throughout the debates and I have no criticism of that. I hope that she will now acknowledge, as an elected Member of Parliament, that it is time for the elected House to have its will and for unelected peers not to proceed as they are seeking to do.
I have no intention of accepting any changes that would have the effect of blowing a hole in the Bill or damage the delivery of the identity cards scheme. Of course, I have read carefully what was said yesterday in the other place. I recognise that some of their Lordships realise that they cannot continue to delay the passage of the Bill, and that there has to come a time when the unelected House should bow to the will of this House.
I was particularly struck that Lord Armstrong said that he would have no objection to obtaining an identity card when his passport came up for renewal. He said also that he thought that his amendment might form the basis for an acceptable compromise, possibly with the insertion of a time limit after which any opt-out would no longer apply. He went on to ask directly whether the Government would consider such a compromise. The answer that I have to give is that the Government are not being intransigent. If a different compromise were to be proposed—one that was workable—I would consider it carefully, as I have carefully examined a series of changes that we have made when considering how best to introduce this legislation.
I realise that there are many in the other place who feel uncomfortable about the length of time during which they have defied the will of the elected House. They know that it is wrong that they are in that position. I realise also that some of their Lordships are trying to end the impasse. I will watch carefully what happens next.
As I have made clear previously, the Bill will affect not only holders of British passports once these documents are designated. By about 2008 or 2009 we intend to start issuing biometric residents' permits to those foreign nationals who are temporarily resident in the UK. Without the requirement for designation and registration on a national identity register, foreign nationals will be able to opt out of the scheme completely. I believe that it would be entirely unacceptable if foreign nationals with those documents could opt out of registration, which would be the effect of the amendment that is before the House.
Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)
No, I will not.
There is little more that I can say other than to suggest that at this time the other place should listen and recognise that the elected House, again today, will insist on retaining the requirement in the Bill for anyone obtaining a designated document such as a passport to be entered on the national identity register. I believe that the scope for further compromise is small, but I and my right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal will be prepared to listen constructively to what is said when the Bill returns to the other place today, in the hope that it can at last pass on to the statute book.
David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)
In the spirit of that compromise—the Home Secretary knows that I am always prone to compromise—I would like the right hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the problem that he sees with respect to foreign residents being cut out by the proposal made by Lord Armstrong. If we can resolve the issue, we might come to some conclusion on the matter.
Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)
As always, I am amazed, encouraged and even excited by the right hon. Gentleman's positive tone. The concern that I have, on the particular narrow point of foreign nationals, is that we are establishing the identity documents—in my opinion, rightly—and bringing them on to the national identity register. I understand the quasi constitutional objections of some in the other place to the idea that a British citizen should have an identity card whether they want it or not—that is the essence of their concern—but I do not believe that that concern should extend to foreign nationals under the schemes that operate. I am thinking about the protection of our borders. Occasionally, I see the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden in the public media on such matters, to which he is deeply committed. That is one of the reasons why I think that the amendment from the other place is inappropriate. However, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
As I have said before, it would be inappropriate and a waste of parliamentary time, in my opinion, for the Opposition in the other place to force the Government into using the Parliament Act to enact the proposed legislation. I hope that we shall reach a conclusion today. I have made it clear that the Government will listen and reflect on what is said both here and in the other place. I have to repeat that the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 22J and 22K.
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
I hope that I can begin on an uncontroversial note in a debate on what has been a controversial Bill, and that is that the House must surely wish Lord Phillips of Sudbury the most speedy recovery from what I hope is a temporary illness.
The arguments for the Bill, as the Home Secretary said, stand in their own terms. It seems that the arguments in favour of the Bill stand in an interesting substance, but I am not sure that its own terms recommend it.
The Home Secretary would like us to believe that there is a huge constitutional wrangle between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, over which House of this Parliament should have supremacy—us, the elected House, or the other House as the unelected and largely appointed House. I say in parenthesis that a large proportion of its Members have been appointed by the present Prime Minister.
I would describe the dispute that we have in other terms: that it is a dispute between the citizen and the state. It is a dispute between truth and freedom of the individual and the power of the Executive. I would describe it—
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
Will my hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
Even in mid-sentence, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I do not want to cut my hon. and learned Friend short. Having said what he has just said, does he agree that it is not merely a question of battling with the Lords? The issue is fundamentally the constitutional point that he is making, which is the key to the answers to the questions that we are raising in these debates between the two Houses.
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
I agree. We are debating, both in this Chamber and in the other place, the fundamental relationship between the citizen and the state. If we upset that balance, which has evolved over centuries, we shall do ourselves and our electorates a disservice.
I would not want to go over the arguments that we have had about the terms of the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. Those arguments are well known and they are clear. As I have said during previous debates, repetition never made a good point better. The point is there and it is one that the House can consider.
I gently remind the Government that their earlier reliance on the need to have biometric passports was irrelevant to the earlier debates on the Bill and the setting up of the national identity register, and is even more irrelevant today, especially in the context of Lord Armstrong's amendments.
Today, the Government can do two things. They can either stubbornly turn their face to the wall and ignore the helping hand that is proffered by Lord Armstrong or they can be sensible and realistic and accept it. I had an inkling from the Home Secretary—I was slightly put off by his over-excitement at the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), which I found a disturbing prospect—but I cast that aside. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says from a sedentary position that he was dreaming about having a bath with my right hon. Friend. I will leave them to have those private discussions elsewhere.
A door may have opened in the Home Secretary's mind, because he uttered the word "compromise". That is a helpful step forward, because I did not think that that word could be extracted from his mouth. However, I would like more details—I am happy to accept an intervention from him—about the terms of any compromise that he would find acceptable. In the past, he has set his face against proposals from the other place and the Opposition. If he is in the mood to mention the word "compromise", perhaps he could tell us more about the nature of an acceptable compromise. In the meantime, as he queues with his towel outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
That queue appears to be growing.
John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, while compromise may be a good thing, there can be no compromise over the principle of compulsion? We cannot accept a compulsory identity card in this Parliament, given the Government's position at the election and the strong sense among our constituents that we want freedom in this country.
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
I entirely agree, but I am trying to extract from the Government precisely how close to us they are prepared to move. The closer they move, the more likely they are to have their Bill not just before Easter but even tonight. We look forward to hearing their response either in the House or in the other place.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
My hon. and learned Friend said that he did not want to rehearse previous arguments but, further to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), may I put it to him that each of these debates must be self-contained and intelligible to the widest possible audience? In seeking negotiation, it is highly pertinent to draw attention to the difference between what the Government have said today and what they said last May.
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
I accept that but, as my hon. Friend will know, Dickens wrote some of his greatest novels as part works. They were serialised before being brought together to form a whole. I hope that his interventions in our debates will form part of a great encyclopaedia of parliamentary occasions, so that at the flick of an internet switch anyone will be able to search his great works.
I want to move on from our earlier debates, because last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker chided me for rehearsing that argument. Everyone knows my views on the Labour manifesto, and everyone knows what that manifesto says, so we can reach our own conclusions about the meaning of those English words. Lord Armstrong has sensibly endeavoured to find a way through that does not wreck the Bill and preserves a decent and proper balance between the citizen's rights and freedoms and the Government's necessary demands to realise their policy. His amendments are clearly not all that my party and I would want, but that is the nature of compromise. If the Government are prepared to accept our good will in supporting his amendments and if they are prepared to accept our genuine concerns about the rights of the individual as against the power of the state, I hope that they will conclude that Lord Armstrong's attempt to broker a deal between the two warring sides is certainly worth supporting this evening.
Lord Armstrong's amendments provide a clear and simple solution that achieves fairness and justice, and which ought to commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether or not we support the general principle behind the Bill and the establishment of the national identity register. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is in the Chamber, and he will know Government policy often appears to be made up on the hoof from day to day. Different announcements appear in the newspapers as the Bill is manoeuvred through the highways and byways of Government policy making. However, if the Government are confident that their policy is right, they should allow the public to prove their case by giving them the choice to opt out of registration on the back of designated documents.
Both the Home Secretary and Baroness Scotland have accepted the thrust of Lord Armstrong's amendments by arguing that people can avoid compulsion by stealth if they renew their passports before the Bill in its unamended form becomes law. If they are prepared to advise the public to "cheat" to avoid the Bill's requirements, it is not logical for them to resist Lord Armstrong's attempt to bring light to this overheated debate. I urge the House to be adult about the matter so that at least we can put a Bill that is clear on the statute book. If we accede to Lord Armstrong's amendments we will, I accept, dissatisfy both sides of the argument but, presumably, we will achieve consensus, which gives the Government time to think and digest the quality of the arguments for and against opting out. Lord Armstrong's intervention in this affair is timely and constructive and it is certainly worth queuing outside the bathroom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden for it. I look forward to the Home Secretary moving quietly towards that upstairs room with his bath towel in hand.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. May I remind hon. Members that we have a little over 40 minutes left for this debate? Several Members wish to contribute, so I urge them to be concise.
David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)
May I say straight away that I am in favour of the Lords amendment, which is a sensible proposal? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept it, as Lord Armstrong has tried his best to find a solution. However, I must be frank and express some disquiet, as I am one of the few Members who is in a genuine dilemma about the issue. The Opposition parties have made it clear that they would be willing to accept the Lords amendments at the end of the day, and some of my hon. Friends take the same view. The large majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends support the Government regardless.
While I accept the need for the Lords amendment, I reiterate what I have said on many occasions as a Member of Parliament: it is the elected Chamber that should decide. It would therefore be wrong, irresponsible and contradictory to say that, just because I share the view of the majority in the House of Lords, their view should prevail. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I am encouraged by the Home Secretary's suggestion that there is room for compromise. The last thing that I want to do is use the Parliament Acts, but if the Lords absolutely refuse to agree, it is likely that they will be used. I accept that it is right to use them for certain issues, but it would be inappropriate to do so on this occasion. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary is willing to enter negotiations—if that is the right description—to achieve a satisfactory outcome and to ensure that the view of the House of Commons prevails, whatever amendment or compromise is agreed. I do not think that we should be worried about compromise, as it is part of political life.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
rose—
David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I wish to heed Madam Deputy Speaker's advice about brevity. I shall cross my fingers and hope that compromise can be reached to prevent ping-pong throughout the day and night. Most of all, I do not want the Parliament Acts to be used. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the word, and if he means what he said, I can only hope, like everyone else with doubts and reservations, that compromise will be reached today.
Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)
Last week I suggested to the Home Secretary that, if he rejected the amendments that were before us then, he would, as turned out to be the case, be facing the amendments before us today, which are arguably just as problematic from his point of view, because they would, as he explained, allow a wholesale opt-out from the need to register for an ID card. It remains my view that he would have been well advised to settle for the amendments that were before us last week. Even so, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary will put himself and us out of our misery and accept the amendments from Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.
As the noble Lord said in the debate in the other place yesterday:
"My amendments would restore an element of voluntariness—of personal freedom—which is absent from the Government's proposals",
but that voluntarism, or voluntariness, as he put it, was entirely in keeping with the Government's oft-quoted election manifesto, where there was a clear emphasis on voluntarism in the introduction of identity cards, an emphasis which the Government have been so quick and keen to forget. As the noble Lord rightly said:
"There are a good many people out there who genuinely thought that the Government were proposing a voluntary scheme, and they were prepared to go along with it on that understanding".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 651.]
The Government have already conceded the principle—it was a welcome concession—that compulsion will occur only on the back of separate primary legislation, which makes it all the more inexplicable that they seek to reject amendments that would allow them to do precisely that and take a voluntarist approach in the early stages of the introduction of identity cards, to be replaced by legislation enforcing compulsion at a later stage. That is the Government's intention. That is what they have explained to us. The amendments do not disturb that plan at all; indeed, they are perfectly consistent with it.
The other compelling reason why the Government would be well advised to support the amendments is that they would allow time to deal with the accumulating list of uncertainties about how the draconian ID database would work in practice. We still do not know how much it would cost, who would run it or how they would run it. We have heard conflicting messages about chip and pin features and biometric features, but we do not know what would be on the card.
On Monday, we heard that yet another uncertainty had come to light. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) explained that some British citizens would have two identity cards—one listing their nationality, which could be confiscated if the Government wished to prevent them from travelling, and another not listing their nationality, which they would retain while the other one was confiscated, to access domestic services.
The written answer stated:
"However, to ensure that anyone subject to restrictions for an extended period of time can demonstrate their identity for domestic purposes, they will be able to obtain an identity card which will be issued to the same standards as other cards but which will not be valid for travel. This will be achieved by not specifying the nationality of the card holder on the face of the card.—[Official Report, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 758W.]
We now know that we might have not one, but two identity cards, on top of all the other uncertainties that I have enumerated. This is a model of bad Government policy and bad legislation. It raises the question why the country is expected to accept the imposition of a scheme that we know is illiberal in principle and flawed and open-ended in practice. For that reason and many others, I hope that the House will support the amendments tabled by Lord Armstrong.
Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)
I feel that we are making very slow progress, but progress none the less, and I welcome that. I was delighted when the Home Secretary said this afternoon that he welcomed the positive tone being adopted.
The Lords amendments are a huge compromise. Some of us have had enormous reservations and have battled on the issue for weeks and weeks. It is almost difficult to accept but, in the interests of compromise, we must accept the Lords amendments, which are well intentioned and seem to be the only way forward that has a chance of reaching compromise with the Government. The Home Secretary said this afternoon that he will listen. That, too, is a welcome development, but only if he listens to the debate and is prepared to accept some compromise, whether the one now on offer or, later in the day, some other. Otherwise, listening and adopting a positive tone will mean nothing.
We have made some progress already this afternoon. For the first time, we have heard from the Government what the debate is not about. We had been led to believe that it was about us coming in line with an international network of information that would allow us to tackle international terrorism and international crime. It was interesting that the Home Secretary said today that Britain was not acting as part of an international network, nor in relation to any requirement from the EU. We are doing it for our Government's national reasons. There is no doubt that they have sincere reasons, which we have heard from the Home Secretary in previous debates. We have established today that the scheme will not help us internationally. It may help us inside Britain to deal with those matters, but it will not be our contribution to an international effort to tackle terrorism and crime. It is important that the Home Secretary has said that.
The debate is also not about the so-called battle between the two Houses. I do not agree that this is a constitutional matter, and it should not be. That is a bad reason. Our Whips are undoubtedly putting pressure on Labour Members on exactly that basis—"Surely you cannot want to side with the Lords and obstruct the Commons". That is crude and represents a misunderstanding of our constitution.
We are a Parliament made up of two Houses and both of them have the same job: to scrutinise and hold the Government of the day to account. We should be doing that in co-operation with each other, which is not to say that the House of the Executive, which is this House, should not have supremacy. I believe that it should, but supremacy through co-operation, argument and compromise, not supremacy because we are elected. That is a very good reason, but in my view both Houses ought to be elected. As soon as they are, and I would hasten that day, that argument will fall. Even after both Houses are elected, this Chamber should be the supreme Chamber because the Executive is located here. The House of scrutiny should be along the other end of the corridor.
We are working on the same matters and, given that the job of both Houses is to scrutinise the Government, it is right and proper that, if the other House has doubts, it should express them and refer us to reconsider what we are doing and saying. There is nothing improper or unconstitutional about it. It is wholly constructive. The Lords are demonstrating the good faith of that constructive parliamentary attitude by coming up again and again with attempts to find a compromise. In this case, they have gone very far with amendments 22J and 22K. Those are worthy of the Government's consideration.
I hope that the Government will not seek to drive the proposition through now or later today. If they do, that would demonstrate that they were uncertain about their own case. They have good cause not to be confident. The Government do not trust the public to support an Identity Cards Bill that is truly voluntary. They have cited opinion polls showing that 70 per cent. of the public support identity cards, but the public do not know what will be in the register and do not understand it. When the public scrutinise the measure, I doubt whether they will accept a voluntary scheme. If the Government were really confident of their case, they would put it to the electorate and allow them to sign up or not sign up through a voluntary scheme. If they were persuasive and articulate, perhaps they would persuade the people of this country to sign up to a voluntary scheme.
Everybody is against terrorism and everybody is against international crime. If the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister were to make a sufficiently passionate and articulate case, we would get what we should have, which is a voluntary scheme that the people of this country want to sign up to because they see it as a co-operative effort against crime and terrorism. However, the Government do not have that confidence in their case and do not think that the public will sign up.
The Government are not confident that the country would support a compulsory scheme. If the scheme were compulsory, they would not be able to compel the public to sign up and charge them £90 or £100, in which case they would have to pick up the cost themselves. I do not think that the Home Secretary is confident that he can persuade the Chancellor to provide the £13 billion that the scheme will cost—the figure is possibly greater than that. If the Chancellor had had to consider in his Budget whether to make cuts or to put up taxes to find that £13 billion, the Home Secretary would have received a very dusty answer.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his comments not to the Budget, but to the amendments on the Order Paper.
Mark Fisher (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent Central)
I do not think that the Government are as confident about the view of either the public or the Chancellor as they have suggested. If they are not confident, and if the arguments that I have suggested carry any weight or merit, I beg the Home Secretary to find a compromise. Several compromises are possible, but the compromise that has come from the Lords today is very reasonable and represents a big step towards the Government. It certainly commends itself to me, so I shall support it, and I hope that it commends itself to the Government.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. Earlier, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a point of order, and I said that I would have the matter investigated, which I have done. I am satisfied that private interests, as defined for the purposes of hybridity, are not affected in a differential way.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
If reasoned argument were to prevail, the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) would see us through this day.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has said from the Front Bench, this Bill is profoundly important. It challenges the very assumptions that many of us had about what being a British citizen is, namely the freedom to move around one's country not at the behest or let of the Government. The Government want to introduce a central data register, which seeks to look into the very depth and nature of the privacy of the citizen. That is territory that Britain has never faced before, not even through the wartime identity cards of the first world war or the second world war.
The Government are seeking profoundly to change the nature of our relationship with our state. Who is the servant and who is the master? The Government assert that the state must be the master, and they are therefore challenging our very understanding of what is personal liberty and freedom. I have always argued that the essential character of the British constitution and of how we have developed through the long march of everyman is about freedom. This scheme contradicts that central, basic principle and understanding of who we are.
The Government have called the ID card a voluntary card, and they have propelled that proposition on the basis that when one applies for a passport, it is, of course, a voluntary act. This is a trading nation, and the wealth and creativity of our people has been developed by engagement in the wider world—we have sought markets, and we have seen prosperity arise from that. The Government are now saying that one cannot engage in the very basis of the livelihood of this nation without applying for a passport and having an identity card linked to a central register. I do not suppose that many of us have the luxury of being able to say that we will desist from international trade or engagement with the outside world, so the compulsion lies in the necessity of having a passport.
The last time that we debated this matter, many of my hon. Friends asserted that we have a right to a passport, but we have no such thing. There is no common law that grants us the right to a passport, and there is no statute that defines the nature of citizenship. An article of the Canadian constitution firmly states the freedom of Canadian citizens to leave and enter Canada, but we have no such right, because it is a matter of the royal prerogative. That is what disturbs me, because it is almost a dictum of our modern constitution that we are all equal before the law.
I shall pose this question, because I want to see the Government explore the nature of our state: is the Queen to have an identity card? She is, after all, a citizen of Europe, so why should she not? Must she now have a passport—it is her prerogative, after all? Will the Prince of Wales be required to produce an identity card? I think that the Home Secretary should tell us straight whether we are all equal before the law. And why is the identity card linked to prerogative power?
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think carefully. It is inappropriate for members of the royal family to be brought into this debate.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
Of course, I accept your view, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is an enormously important constitutional debate, and we are talking about the relationships between the citizen and the state.
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. We are actually discussing Lords amendments rather than the wider context of this Bill.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
I do not mean to argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the whole point of the debate and the Lords amendments is whether to introduce compulsion or discretion, and I was inquiring as to the extent of the compulsion or the extent of the discretion. I see that the Clerk looks agitated, so I shall leave the matter there. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Home Secretary were to address that narrow point. The wider point still remains—the issue is effectively about compulsion. I do not find the Lords amendments especially attractive, but I shall vote for them. These two equal Chambers of Parliament—[Interruption.] The two Chambers are indeed equal in our constitutional terms.
We are debating the amendments, because they have been sent here from another place. The Government are threatening that if they do not get their way, they will invoke, if necessary, the Parliament Act. I will stand by the Lords amendments for the purpose of asserting the freedom of the individual.
Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)
I rise to speak as an unashamed supporter of compulsion in ID cards. I was the first to suggest the idea of an entitlement card and it was always conceived not as a compulsory to carry scheme, but a compulsory to have scheme. I regret the fact that the Government have resiled from that position. However, I now hear the words "voluntary" and "compulsory" used in slightly different ways and there may be room for, if not a compromise, at least a meeting of minds.
Lord Phillips, in the other place, and some hon. Members have described the Swedish ID card as voluntary. Indeed, the LSE document, which has been used as background by many hon. Members, also describes it as voluntary. Indeed, it is voluntary in an important sense, but it is not voluntary whether someone is on the identity register. People are placed on that at birth, and their national identity numbers include date of birth. However, if people have passports or driving licences, they do not also need to have an identity card, for the simple reason that the passport or driving licence can be used for exactly the same purposes as they might need a national identity card. It is voluntary in that sense—
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)
I am sorry, but we must all heed Madam Deputy Speaker's words of warning and we need to make our points in the short time that is available.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is moving towards that sort of voluntary scheme, and I could happily live with that. Even Lord Phillips said that his amendment
"would have meant that the citizen had an option—effectively, for five years—on whether he or she wished to have an ID card."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 645.]
If he means by that that one would be on the ID register but could choose whether to have an ID card, he should support the solution that is beginning to emerge. It is the ID register that is important, not the actual possession of a card.
When my passport runs out and I have to renew it, I cannot see that it will make much difference if an ID card is thrown in as well. I shall be happy because it provides an additional form of identity. The point was made in the last debate—it is central to the issue of voluntary and compulsory—that the information one gives to the Passport and Records Agency to renew one's passport is exactly the same as that required to go on the ID register. It consists of name, address, date and place of birth and nationality or immigration status—
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)
No, I am sorry but we are all under a time pressure—[Interruption.] If hon. Members look at the relevant schedule, they will see that it is those four pieces of information that are required—
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
You do not understand.
Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)
With respect, it is other hon. Members who have failed to understand the basic point that the information is the same, and it is the registers that are different. Indeed, the No to ID website requests people's forename, last name, house number, road, town, postcode and e-mail address. Even the organisation campaigning against ID cards requests very similar information from the people who log on to its website as that required for a passport or driving licence or by the ID register.
My central point—I think that Lord Armstrong is moving towards it—is that no compulsion should be attached to having the ID card, but people who renew their passports should have the same basic information duplicated on the ID register. I see no reason why we should therefore prolong the argument—
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)
I am sorry, but this is a one-hour debate. I consider myself lucky to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to make my points.
The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the passport is not really compulsory has been widely mocked by people on the other side of the argument, but they must address the argument that if passports are compulsory, they are surely just as objectionable as ID cards. The ID card is no more than a passport to public services. It is a different form of passport, to be used in a different context. When someone wishes to obtain a benefit or open a bank account, they will not need to take their passport, which is a bulky document, because they will be able to use their ID card. It will work exactly the same as a passport does when crossing international borders. It will be a domestic passport and I do not understand why people object to one, but not the other.
At the heart of this debate lies deep confusion about the words voluntary and compulsory. If people are prepared to go along with Lord Armstrong's approach and accept that the important aspect is not the card but the register, we can all find common ground on which to agree.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I continue to be deeply concerned about the question of compulsion. It is still inherent in the principle of the Bill and I will not change my position on that. It concerns the relationship between the individual and the state, as the Information Commissioner said. The information that will be accumulated will not be changed by a compromise along the lines that are being discussed, although I understand the motivation for the compromise.
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)
Is my hon. Friend also concerned that the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), who made the last speech that we endured, failed completely to understand the difference between the requirement for a biometric passport, so that the biometrics can be read by a passport officer at the port of entry, and an ID card, which provides the gateway into the national identity register?
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I could not agree more. The gateway is also the entry point for a form of compulsion that one would normally associate with countries that do not enjoy the freedoms of democracies such as the one in which we live—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Common law countries.
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
Indeed. The fact remains that this is an extremely important Bill. It is a very dangerous Bill, and much sophistry has been used by the Government in claiming the advantages of it. They have failed to understand how pervasive the state surveillance arrangement will be in practice and I am also deeply concerned by how it will differentiate between citizens. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned members of the royal family, but I am concerned about the ordinary man in the street and the differences in the timing of application. I have received a new driving licence and passport in the last week, because mine were stolen. Therefore, my exemption will extend until 2016.
I accept your ruling on my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I understand it, but the principle that lies behind the issue of hybridity is not just a technical question. It is about treating people equally. The common law of this country should not contain one law for one section of the community and a different law for other sections. We apply the same principle in taxation. The constitutional question at the heart of this issue is not the difference between the two Houses, but the infringement on the freedom of individuals of this country and the differentiation between individuals who should be treated equally. I am utterly opposed to the principle of the Bill and will continue to be so.
Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)
Does my hon. Friend share the confidence of the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) that the new identity cards will contain only the basic information of the four items that he listed? Might they not also, without our knowledge, contain a lot of additional information about health records, bank details, whom we know and where we go? Who would have access to that information?
Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)
I remain deeply worried about the ambit of the Bill and the powers that are being taken, which have recently been rather overlaid by much of the argument. There are powers in the Bill to make changes to the manner in which all these different requirements can be achieved.
The plain fact is that for all the reasons that I have given, I remain resolutely opposed to the Bill. I am astonished, although I should not be that surprised, by the authoritarian attitudes that are characteristic of this Government and, regrettably, of some Labour Back Benchers. That authoritarianism is reminiscent of another socialist—George Orwell.
Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)
We have only five minutes left, so I will be brief.
Members who are interested in this debate will acknowledge that I have a long-standing involvement in it. I put forward the proposal before the Government did, and I believe that it is a good one. I accept that we need to try to reach a compromise with the Lords, because it is an important issue and it is much better if we can take it forward in some degree of harmony. I should like to propose a compromise that would be acceptable to me and, I hope, to the Government and the Lords.
Let me first explain what Lord Armstrong is trying to do, as I see it. He is saying that as long as the electorate have not explicitly voted for compulsory ID cards, it should be possible for people to get a passport without having to accept an ID card. We understand the logic of that. However, the amendment has some specific problems. First, it would result in the creation of parallel registers for the passport and the ID card, which would be very similar, if not identical—we would need to debate that.
Secondly, not everyone whom we would wish to accept an ID card would do so. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), it is not true that everybody is against terrorism—terrorists are not against terrorism. Nor is it true that everybody is against crime—criminals are not against crime. If we have a voluntary scheme whereby people can say, "No, I don't want to be on it," we know that in practice people of goodwill may or may not sign up, but those who are not of goodwill will say, very politely, "No, thank you—I choose to opt out." The law enforcement objectives of the Bill would be completely undermined.
Finally, the electorate voted for us without scrutinising every line and comma of our various manifestos. I appreciate the role of Opposition Members as guardians of the Labour manifesto: perhaps they would like to stand for the party's national executive committee. The majority of our voters who took a view on identity cards simply want us to get on with it, and will be baffled if we wait until 2012 to involve a significant proportion of the population.
Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)
I cannot, because of the time available.
My compromise suggestion, which echoes that of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), is that we say that we accept—[Interruption.]
Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
Order. Will Members who have just arrived in the House please keep their conversations lower?
Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)
We should say that we accept that if people register for a passport, their entry goes on to the national identity register, but that we also accept that people can refuse to take an ID card for as long as it is voluntary. If the electorate later agree that the scheme should become compulsory, at that stage their entries will be on the register and all that we need do is to let them know that their ID card is now ready. We would not be compelling them to take the card, but merely moving forward on the register, which is essentially the same as that for the passport. It seems to me that that is a key objective of Lord Armstrong in trying to avoid the compulsory issuing of identity cards, and that it also achieves the objectives of the scheme in moving forward and giving us the chance to do what the electorate understood that we wanted to do—to move forward with an identity card scheme.
I hope that this has been a helpful contribution to the debate. I also hope that we are able to reject the amendment, because I honestly do not think that it would work, and that when it goes back to the Lords, they will accept the change.