|
Mr. Allan: Just to clarify the Conservatives' position, we know that they are in favour of the ID card in principle, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that they are worried about mission creep—that the function will spread in a way that was not anticipated in the original Bill?
10 am
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. We are indeed concerned that the registrable number and the card that follows it should be used for the reason for which it was established. Later amendments will probe to find out precisely the function of the registrable number and card. I am concerned that this measure will go beyond a means of combating terrorism and fraud and dealing with entitlement, and that there will be mission creep, to borrow the hon. Gentleman's phrase. I wish that the Minister would tie down the point of the number, who can ask for it and in what circumstances they can do so, and what it will become in society. Will it be accessed occasionally, or will it have to be engraved on the memory and be required several times a day?
I am used at the moment to being asked for my name and address more times than I care to mention. That has served perfectly adequately. In recent times we have all been given different numbers on payment, debit and credit cards and we are also used to giving a number of different identifying code words for banks, credit societies and the like. However, I am confused about to what this number applies, who can ask for it and in what circumstances. I should be most grateful if the Minister furnished me with some answers.
Mr. Malins: I want to add to what my hon. Friend has said. I will say this only once, but it is an important preamble. So many people out there believe that the ID scheme that we are debating is simply about a piece of plastic, but as is demonstrated clearly in the Bill, that is only one small part of a much larger scheme.
Column Number: 14
The Government are establishing a vast, complex and far-reaching system that will involve an unprecedented use of personal information. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to establish the database, and ID cards will be merely a by-product of that.
Put in simple language, clause 1(3)(a) tells us that the purpose of the register is to make it convenient for me to prove registrable facts about myself to other people. So far in our lives—the Minister may share this experience—we have all, from time to time, had to establish various facts about ourselves. It is not uncommon to be asked one's address, full name, date of birth and even one's passport number. So far, one has not often had to prove more than that.
My understanding is that the clause and schedule 1 set out no fewer than 51 registrable facts that an individual will have to establish with the database. The individual will have to provide those registrable facts and face a penalty of £2,500 if they fail to do so. It is a very heavy undertaking for an individual to have to respond to a Government who say, ''We require this information and you must provide it under penalty.''
Clause 1(3)(a) simply sets out that we are talking about
to enable an individual
''to prove registrable facts about themselves to others''.
My first question is whether the clause really suggests that the individual will have to prove all 51 registrable facts to others. Secondly, who are the ''others''? I am not talking about the part of the clause that says that other people can check on an individual; that is in subsection (3)(b). Subsection (3)(a) enables an individual to prove a little about themselves to someone else. The real question is who are the ''others''?
Mr. Browne: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has an understanding of the nature of this part of the provision. If I might say so, with respect, I am not sure whether his hon. Friend the Member for Newark had such an understanding. However, I will come to that in more detail when I respond to the debate. This matter is about writing into the Bill the statutory purpose of convenience for the individual. It is about people making decisions for themselves, and not about anybody else compelling them to do anything. The answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Woking about how much is convenient is a matter for the individual.
Mr. Malins: I am grateful to the Minister; he gave me a fairly plain answer. However, he will understand that so far in my life—and I daresay I speak on behalf of all of us—I have had to establish only a very limited number of facts about myself to other people who may reasonably require from me the establishment of those facts; I mentioned them a moment or two ago. Under the Bill, I believe that the requirement on me is to provide up to 51 registrable facts, under severe penalty if I fail to do so. I think that the Minister is saying that the purpose of clause 1(3)(a) is simply to make life easier for the individual, though I am bound to say that life is relatively straightforward at the moment. I
Column Number: 15
venture to suggest that the imposition of clause 1(3)(a) on me as an individual will not necessarily make my life easier, particularly as I will have to, if required, demonstrate every address that I have ever had.
We want the Minister's assurance that in the free world out there, during a normal commercial transaction—and that is a key point—nobody will be able to say to me for their own convenience that they think that it is for my convenience that I have to give them 51 registrable facts about myself. I undertake such transactions from time to time, when I open a bank account, book in at a hotel or book with travel agents, for example. I think that the Minister will give that assurance. He will understand why we propose inserting the words ''who reasonably require proof''. We were not sure whether during a normal commercial transaction an individual could be put in a difficult position under subsection (3)(a), which is separate from (3)(b). I hope that the Minister will confirm the position.
Mr. Curry: I want to comment briefly just before the Minister replies, to help my understanding. Clause 1(3)(a) refers to ''registrable facts'', which the Minister said are to be used for the convenience of the individual who will offer them to establish his identity. However, subsection (3)(b) also deals with ''registrable facts'' that might be required to fulfil the purposes that are specified in the following subsection. Are those the same registrable facts?
Mr. Browne: Yes.
Mr. Curry: So are the registrable facts that are used for combating terrorism merely the ones that I offer to put forward? That is what the Minister said a while ago. Is it up to the individual to decide and choose what they put forward?
Mr. Browne: I have to say that I am immediately concerned about the level of understanding that has been displayed in the contributions that have been made so far.
Mr. Malins: That is unkind.
Mr. Browne: I am not seeking to be unkind to the hon. Member for Woking; it is not my style. However, I am genuinely concerned about the level of understanding and I will seek progressively—although perhaps not in this response—to answer all the questions to the entire satisfaction of the hon. Member for Newark. With respect, it is not appropriate to answer all the questions at this stage, although I do not suggest that it is inappropriate for him to ask them, because they have to be asked.
A number of fundamental questions need to be answered at this point and I will endeavour to do so. First, I shall deal with the distinction that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon drew between registrable facts in subsection (3)(a) and (3)(b), having inappropriately ascribed that distinction to my intervention on the hon. Member for Woking. The words ''registrable facts'' mean the same thing in the
Column Number: 16
Bill, wherever they appear, and as the hon. Member for Woking has identified, those are the ones that will be entered in the register.
The specific point that I was making to the hon. Member for Woking was that subsection (3)(a) relates to the convenience of the individual, in that it allows them to make known whichever registrable facts they choose to make known in the context of private communication. I was not saying that the registrable facts under the Bill would be registered at the convenience of the individual for one purpose or another, but that they could be made known, which is precisely what this part of the provision is about. That is an important distinction. I do not want the debate to proceed on the basis that I have referred to some difference between registrable facts for different purposes, because I have not done so.
Secondly, in answer to the hon. Member for Woking, the national identity register will be available to coincide with the issue of the first identity cards, which is planned for 2008. As we will see as we go through the Bill and the structure of the scheme, people will be entered on the register as they apply for an identity card under the first phase of the scheme, whether in the context of a passport application or some other designated document. It will become compulsory to register only in the second phase of the scheme.
Mr. Allan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish this point?
Clause 8(4), which we will come to in due course—and I ask the Committee's forbearance in dealing with some of the issues as we progress—says:
''Except in prescribed cases, an ID card must be issued to an individual''
who is entitled to registration and for whom an entry has been made in the register. It is intended that there should be a coincidence between the entry in the register and the issue of the cards. It is not intended that the register will exist and people will not have cards.
The reason for the phasing, to which we will come in due course, is the scale of the project and the development of the scheme, as I mentioned in our discussion of the programme motion, and because, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, no one has devised or put in practice a scheme of this nature before. I will make a final point and take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman thereafter.
I assure Members that this Bill does not contain any power for the police or CSOs to demand the registration number of any individual in any circumstances or to demand an identity card.
10.15 am
As I clearly stated in my short contribution on Second Reading, if we were increasing the powers of the police, we should have that debate in the context of police powers. This Bill offers the police, among others, the opportunity to have certainty with regard to proof of identity in circumstances in which they
Column Number: 17
already have powers to ascertain identity. There are no additional powers for the police to demand the production of registration numbers or cards. It would be entirely inappropriate to use an identity card scheme to increase the powers of the police. The fact that people continually say that the Bill does that does not mean that that is the case. It does not and nobody can point to anywhere where it does.
| 
