Identity Cards Bill |
|
The Chairman: Before I put the Question to the vote, for the convenience of any Members who did not attend the Programming Sub-Committee, I may say that we have discussed the possibility of sitting later on
Question put:— The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 7. [Division No. 1] AYES Baird, VeraBlackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta Borrow, Mr. David S. Burnham, Andy Drew, Mr. David McNulty, Mr. Tony Mountford, Kali Palmer, Dr. Nick Robertson, John Ryan, Joan
NOES Carmichael, Mr. AlistairEllwood, Mr. Tobias Farron, Tim Garnier, Mr. Edward Mercer, Patrick Prisk, Mr. Mark Wallace, Mr. Ben Question accordingly agreed to. Ordered,
11 amThe Chairman: I remind Committee members that adequate notice should be given of all amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. Will all Committee members please ensure that mobile phones, pagers and other electronic toys are turned off or in silent mode during Committee sittings? I would like to extend a personal welcome to new Members of the House who have not sat on a Committee before. The proceedings are occasionally arcane, but, broadly speaking, the conventions follow those for proceedings on the Floor of the House. However, if new Members have questions about any procedure that they do not understand, please do not hesitate to ask. In doing so, they may well be asking questions that older Members, or Members of longer standing, have always wanted, but have never had the courage, to ask. Mr. Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. This may be that first opportunity, although I am not sure. During our earlier deliberations, the Minister alluded to a paper, which sounded extremely helpful, that distinguishes between this Bill and the one considered
The Chairman: Yes, I can clarify that immediately; it is probably one of the easiest questions that I shall be asked. The Minister has placed that paper on the Table, and it is available as of now. Clause 1 The National Identity Register Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after “others”, insert “who reasonably require proof”. We shall deal with this amendment in the context of clause 1 as a whole, although I do not intend my remarks to be taken as an attempt at a clause stand part debate because the issues we need to discuss are discrete to subsection (3)(a). This Bill is called the Identity Cards Bill, but in many ways ought more properly to be called the national data register Bill or the national identity register Bill. As I understand it, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with 60 regulation-making powers to set up a national identity register. The identity card, which we shall come to when we discuss later clauses, is the shop front of that national identity register. In clause 1, however, we are concerned with the register and registration. Subsection (1) says:
That is essentially everybody in this country over the age of 16, subject to certain exceptions, including, for example, people who are in this country for less than three months. We shall discuss those exceptions in greater detail in due course. The purposes of the register are described in outline but not detail in subsection (2). However, under subsection (3) the purposes are to
That is as may be, but it seems to the official Opposition that it provides an open door for all sorts of people to make inquiries about us and the facts that have been registered about us. Subsection (3)(b) refers to
That is essentially an attempt to provide some reassurance for the citizen, but I am not convinced that without our amendment it is worth anything at all. Mr. Prisk: This is the third or fourth time that I have read the Bill through and the words “convenient method”, which my hon. and learned Friend quoted, concern me. The question in my mind is, convenient
Mr. Garnier: Oh yes, and we shall discuss in due course the change in the relationship between the individual citizen and the state that the Bill will introduce. One always needs to be careful when a Minister says, “This will be helpful to the citizen,” or, “This will be convenient for them.” They mean that it will be helpful for the political party that happens to be in government at the time, or for the government machine that is being managed by the political party in government. My hon. Friend is entirely correct to highlight the word “convenient” in subsection (3)(a). It is as well to be aware that we are talking about the national identity register, not the identity card. It will be easy to conflate the two concepts and easy for the Government to say that the identity card, as a piece of plastic, is a convenient method for individuals to prove registrable facts about themselves. Of course, we are talking about what is on the register and recorded about the citizen by the state, which is not a question of convenience but a matter of compulsion. We will be required under penalties ranging from £2,500 to £10,000—it does not matter whether that is a civil or a criminal penalty—to register certain facts. The facts that have to be registered are dealt with later in the clause and we shall consider them in a moment. The facts have to be registered compulsorily. The Government say that is wonderful, because one purpose of this register is to facilitate a convenient method for you and I, Mr. Gale, other Committee members and other citizens of this country to prove facts about ourselves to others. Why should I prove facts about myself? Why, when I leave my house, should I have to demonstrate who I am, what I am doing or why I intend to do it? It is for the Government—the state—to demonstrate and build a case against me showing that I am doing something contrary to the national interest or the criminal law, or something that offends against statute or common law in some other way. I ask that only those with reasonable reason to require proof of the compulsorily assembled facts about me be entitled to inspect the register or interrogate me about the facts about me on the register. We are increasingly becoming all too familiar with petty interference of the sort that citizens have to put up with from those whom I would loosely call jobsworths. Nowadays, one cannot go into a Government building, a public place or a park, or drive a car, without someone asking, “What are you doing and why are you doing it?” Those people have absolutely no right in law to require us to tell them what we are doing, but the Bill will build a culture of public interference into the private lives of individuals. Kali Mountford: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider what he says carefully, as he seems to be impugning the character and nature of civil
Mr. Garnier: I see that we will get some really high-class interventions during our debate. I have not mentioned civil servants, and I have not impugned their quality or integrity. If the hon. Lady’s constituents do not come across jobsworths such as those I am talking about they are very fortunate. In due course, she may well be able to support the Government—[Interruption.] Does she wish to intervene again? Kali Mountford: I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain exactly who the jobsworths are. Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady might care to drive her car and park it somewhere, and she might find that some privately employed official—not a civil servant—will require her either to move it and have the car photographed or to answer to him. Such a person has no statutory right to do that, but we are creating a culture of interference in the life of the citizen, and the Bill is the latest representation of that. If the hon. Lady finds that an acceptable way to go, she wants to live in a different sort of country from the one that I want to live in, and a different sort of society from the one in which most of our fellow citizens want to live. What possible objection can the Government have to the amendment? What possible objection can there be to a requirement that only those “who reasonably require proof” should have an entitlement to ask for it? If “convenient method” is to have any meaning, it must mean convenient for us, the individuals whose registrable facts are on the database. It should not mean convenient for the Government, who should be the servants of the people. It should be the right of the people to ensure that the Government and their servants behave correctly and appropriately. Those who want the national identity register to come into being should at the very least ensure that the standards of behaviour and conduct of those who wish to operate the system are of the highest. I therefore require the Government to explain, to the Committee and to the public at large, why our amendment should be considered controversial in any way. I urge the Committee to accede rapidly to my request that the amendment become part of the clause. 11.15 amMr. Carmichael: I can be brief. I presume that this is a probing amendment, but the hon. and learned Gentleman raises a good point. Many of my concerns, and those of people outwith this place, relate not just to the nature of the proposed scheme but its possible development and the manner in which the database will be used. There are concerns about what has been called function creep—which is also known by that ghastly word “incrementalism”. The test of reasonableness is fairly well known in law, leaves a
I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on tabling the amendment and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Dr. Palmer: I, too, welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Gale. I want to draw attention to one point. The amendment, as it stands, would mean that individuals who wished to use an identity card, believing that it would be convenient to do so, would not be allowed to do so unless they were able to demonstrate that the person to whom they were showing it could “reasonably require” it. That seems to be an unreasonable restriction on the individual. If I find it convenient to use a card, why should I not do so? Patrick Mercer: Even if one agrees with the idea of a national identity register and an identity card, one must point out that the provision that we are debating is loosely drawn. It states that
Who exactly are “others”? Mercifully, despite the threats that we face, we live in a country that, as a general rule, is free on a day-to-day basis of violence, intrusion and very serious crime on our streets. If Members present have spent any time in countries such as Israel, they will know that completely different states of affairs exist. One’s identity is demanded on a regular basis by policemen, soldiers and civilian security workers. It could be argued that that is right and proper; perhaps it is reasonable in a country that faces such a threat. I just wonder how far we will go with the national identity register and the cards that are likely to follow in a country where we frequently see arbitrary notices in car parks saying things such as, “£25 for misparking your car here”. I allude to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. People get their cars clamped if they mispark. That is just one of the pettifogging restrictions on our privileges and rights, and, frankly, they do not stand up. The Government might wish the Bill to refer merely to “others”, but who else will start demanding access to the register? Who else, in due course, will start demanding access to our cards? That is why the amendment is not only powerful, but sensible. If we introduce the simple words “who reasonably require proof” into clause 1 and they are in the legislation from its inception, we will get a clear idea of where the register starts and stops and where, in due course, the cards will start and stop. I appreciate that we are talking about registration at the moment, but as we will find out later, people will not be compelled to carry the cards—at least not in the early stages of their introduction. I believe that there will be a gap of about four years between the inception of the national identity register and when it will become necessary to carry a card. During that time, will we have to get used to the fact that “others” can
This is a sensible amendment. I was surprised that it was not agreed to when we considered the previous Bill in Committee. The amendment would tie the Bill down and make it much more precise. If we knew who is to have access to the countless number of pieces of personal information that will be required for the register and who is to be entitled to look at details, things would be much clearer. I commend the amendment to the Minister, and I hope that he addresses it with an open mind; I am sure that he will. Mr. Prisk: I had not initially intended to contribute to this debate, but I have decided to do so after having listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark. I suspect that the crueller Labour Committee members will have realised that I am the only Conservative Committee member who is neither gallant nor learned—but I am, nevertheless, honourable. Patrick Mercer: Deeply. Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The question that underlies the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend is this: where should the burden of proof rest? Should it rest on the shoulders of the individual, or should the agents of the state have to demonstrate why they wish us to prove who we are? These things should be accurate, and the best and most convenient method for me to identify who I am is to look in the mirror. I do not need a registration scheme, let alone a card, to do that. Therefore, I ask the Minister to address two points. First, does he believe that putting the burden of proof on the individual, as set out in the Bill, is right, and, if so, why? Secondly, can he define the term “others”? If he cannot do so, and intends to tell us that that will be done in due course by regulation, will he confirm the method of regulation that will be presented to the House? All too often, the ability of Members to scrutinise legislation when it is delegated is far more curtailed than it is in Committee. Those who will be affected by the Bill—let us face it, that is every citizen of this country—will want to know exactly who, on the basis of the words in the clause, can and cannot require the information as set out. The amendment is eminently sensible, and it would improve the clause. Mr. Ellwood: An analogy can be drawn. The police are currently required to have a reason to stop and search someone—or, indeed, to question them. There are regulations that protect the individual from being stopped for no reason. We require a valid reason to take action. The same principle applies to the ID card register. There should be a valid reason for somebody wanting to look up somebody else up on a system. Column Number: 18 Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should also be a valid reason in law for an individual voluntarily to use the card in order to show who he is? Mr. Ellwood: At present, there are many different forms of ID cards that we use voluntarily. Someone wanting to show such a card to prove their identity to someone else is a different matter from someone wanting to check the register itself. Are we going to open the door for anyone? The hon. Member for Colne Valley rightly referred to the integrity of the civil service. We are talking not so much about the civil service, but about anyone with access to a database who might be able to take advantage of the information that it holds. That is what concerns us. We are talking about the creation of a huge database. How it will be used, by whom and for what reason, and whether the details are accurately stored, are questions fundamental to its integrity. For example, if a life assurance company finds out via the database, through my surname, that my father has an hereditary disease, the decision whether to give me life assurance could be affected. The company will have taken advantage of the database. I am not saying that that would happen, but hon. Members can imagine such situations developing unless we make law under which people must have a justification to open up the database and check on someone. The amendment would make such a law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark asked, what is meant by “others”? Who are they? When the Minister replies, it will be interesting to hear who they are and what justification they will have. Why should not individuals be protected? Why should they not know that anyone who switches on the machine to check who is listed on the database has a valid reason for so doing? Mr. Wallace: I, too, want to speak specifically on the question of “others”. It is important that the term “others” is not exploited. I was involved in creating intelligence records and, as other agencies do, I would exploit the grey area in which there was a gap in legislation. When legislation had not been closed or limited, I would browse people’s records, without hindrance, because I knew that the law had been drafted loosely enough to allow me to do so. By reasonably requiring proof, the amendment would help narrow the field of those who can browse through people’s records and who can investigate or go into people’s backgrounds and activities. If we do not do that, nothing in the Bill will prevent the meaning of “others” from changing under secondary legislation or at the whim of a Secretary of State. The “others” may initially be police forces and social workers, but that might spread from those in social work to quangos, and “others” could quickly become financial institutions. Several press reports have alluded to the charging of a fee. I know that that was denied by the Government—perhaps too quickly denied—but without the amendment, “others” could broaden the provision and who knows where we would be in 25 years? I am sure that several Labour Members
The amendment is reasonable. It would help to narrow the provision and to protect the individual. Accepting it would ensure that, from the very first amendment discussed, the Committee were doing something good and improving the Bill. The Chairman: I appreciate that during proceedings on a Bill of such length and complexity there will be times when members of the Committee who do not have the floor wish to discuss other issues. The Serjeant at Arms has thoughtfully placed green Benches in the Corridor outside the Room for people who wish to have private conversations. I should appreciate hon. Members using them. Mr. McNulty: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I apologise if your comments about conversations were aimed at me, among others. I understand what members of the Committee want to achieve with the amendment, but to paraphrase an old television advert, it is the “wrong place, wrong time”. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested, the clause concerns the statutory purpose of the national data registration scheme, and not the powers and not who can or cannot access the data. By the time that we get to clause 45, hon. Members will be bored rigid with the notion that nobody can access the data. People can seek verification of it, but nobody, but nobody, can access it, short of those public agencies that can do so for the national security purposes outlined in the Bill—period. We are talking about a verification process, not an access process. 11.30 amThe hon. Member for Bournemouth, East used a nice example, but it is completely and profoundly wrong. By way of homework, I task him to find out where the Bill says that health records such as those that he mentioned can be kept on the database or that his records and his father’s can be accessed and compared. He will not find any such provision in the Bill. Mr. Ellwood: The Minister misses the point, which is not so much about access; it has been illustrated that a number of organisations will have that access. The concern is whether such access will be spread to other organisations, which is a separate issue. The amendment is about ensuring that people who have access to the database have legitimate reason for having it. They must have a real reason for switching on the machine in the first place. People cannot be allowed merely to wander through the information, as has been mentioned. If there is no legislation to prevent them from doing so, the provisions could have an adverse affect. Individuals would end up taking advantage in one way or another. If there is no robust legislation to restrict such actions or to capture any
Mr. McNulty: Let me readjust my challenge to the hon. Gentleman: it is now that he should go away and read the Bill. Given his comments, it is clear that he has not done so yet, and I do not want to start on a discordant note. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough was entirely right that clause 1(3) is about purposes, not powers. No one could demand to see a card on the basis of clause 1, to answer the question of the hon. Member for Stansted, as I call him. The situations in which people are empowered to access the register and demand to see a card are governed by later clauses—precisely the clauses that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East has clearly not read. Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way? Mr. McNulty: Let me finish my point, after which I shall, of course, revert to using the hon. Gentleman’s formal title, instead of the vernacular one relating to aviation duties. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East should read clauses 15 and 18 to 23, as they contain the answer as to who has access on demand to the register to see what details lie within. Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister. Evidently, there is a new registrable fact about me: my constituency has changed names during this sitting. Ignoring his light jibe, which I must say was neither convivial nor temperate, he said earlier that he believed that the provision did not mean that people could access the data. Our concern is that, as we all know is the case with Government information systems, once registration is established, there will be the opportunity for people to access the data. We are well aware that the Government will seek not to allow that to happen, but he must recognise that once the register is in place, he cannot guarantee that people will not have the opportunity to access it for malicious or other purposes. We recognise that that is not the intent of the Government, but the opportunity will be there. One of the concerns is that people will hack in and get the information. His use of the word “will” is therefore wrong. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 6 July 2005 |