Identity Cards Bill

---

 
Column Number: 43
 

Standing Committee D

Wednesday 6 July 2005

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: Mr. Roger Gale, †Mr. Jimmy Hood

†Baird, Vera (Redcar) (Lab)

†Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

†Borrow, Mr. David S. (South Ribble) (Lab)

†Burnham, Andy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

†Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

†Drew, Mr. David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)

†Ellwood, Mr. Tobias (Bournemouth, East) (Con)

†Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

†Garnier, Mr. Edward (Harborough) (Con)

†McNulty, Mr. Tony (Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality)

†Mercer, Patrick (Newark) (Con)

†Mountford, Kali (Colne Valley) (Lab)

†Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab)

†Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

†Robertson, John (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab)

†Ryan, Joan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

†Wallace, Mr. Ben (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con)

John Benger, Emily Commander, Committee Clerks

†attended the Committee

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Identity Cards Bill

Clause 1

The National Identity Register

Amendment proposed [5 July]: No. 2, in page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

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

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

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

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

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

''relevant public services'' means the public provision of—

(a) healthcare,

(b) housing,

(c) education, and

(d) social benefits;

''serious crime'' means crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment.'.—[Mr. Garnier.]

4.30 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'prevention or'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 17, after second 'of', insert 'serious'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 3, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 4 and insert

'establishing entitlement to a particular public service'.

No. 43, in clause 8, page 7, line 8, leave out 'and'.

No. 44, in page 7, line 10, at end insert

'and

(c) is issued for the following purposes only—

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

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

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

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

(a) healthcare,

(b) housing,

(c) education,

(d) social security benefits.

(1A) In subsection (1)(c)(ii), ''serious crime'' has the same meaning as in section 1(1A).'.

 
Column Number: 46
 

No. 120, in clause 43, page 37, line 23, after first 'crime', insert

'(other than in section 1(4A))'.

The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr. Tony McNulty): Thank you, Mr. Hood. It is a pleasure to serve under your tutelage and chairmanship. I hope that you and Mr. Gale will enjoy the Committee's deliberations as much as the members of the Committee will.

I was saying in the course of clearing my throat—no more, really—when our proceedings were terminated yesterday, that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) had done the Committee a great service by tabling the amendment, as it has prompted a good debate about the key issues in clause 1. My closing line before I was so rudely interrupted was:

''Very often during my brief, fleeting time in this House''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2005; c. 42.]

and then Hansard inserted a dash. Let me resume from that spot: as and when I have been in Committee dealing with various bits of legislation in various roles, the constant refrain has been ''undue specificity''. There are those who seek to put specific elements in a Bill in an effort to improve and enhance the legislation, but such elements have entirely the reverse effect, hence undue specificity.

That is the case with the amendment. I do not want to review in elaborate detail all the unduly specific elements, but if we went with the amendment rather than with what is in the Bill, we would achieve a result contradictory to what I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to achieve.

Let us start in the first instance with

''in the interests of national security''

in clause 1. That is deliberately vague. Much of the debate has centred around saying terrorism if one means terrorism, but ''national security'' clearly means far more than just terrorism. The clause is drawn widely because we do not want, in any way, shape or form, narrowly to define what is in the public interest in respect of national security. Of course terrorism is included, but national security involves so much more, including many of the activities that go up to the execution of a terrorist attack but are not of themselves terrorist acts.

Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): That was precisely the point of the amendment. In defining national security, we wanted to include the words ''terrorist acts'' in order to focus minds more carefully. We went to some length—I am sure that the Minister will remember—to try to discover what was meant by national security, with a view to adding to and reinforcing the legislation with the words in the amendment. I fail to see how the Minister can argue against that, but I am sure that he will.

Mr. McNulty: I take the point, but many activities that are party to a terrorist act could not in any sense be defined as terrorism; for example, using a false identity to hire a car, house or hotel room, or creating a misleading trail through credit card payments on a false credit card. Such acts would not be covered by
 
Column Number: 47
 
the amendment either as an act of terrorism or as a serious crime

''giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment'',

which is another part of the amendment. Nevertheless, they would be elements of a terrorist act that we would need to chase down in the public interest to secure our overall goal of wider national security.

I appreciate that the amendment refers to

''preventing or detecting terrorist acts'',

but that is also too narrow in terms of the broader definition of national security, not least in the context of actions and activities that could be remote from the end game, the terrorist act, but that are ultimately part of it, because of what the intelligence forces or otherwise know.

Patrick Mercer: That is precisely the point. That is why we have the definition of national security. To enhance exactly that phrase, we wish to use ''terrorism'' or ''terrorist act'', or whatever it is that we included in the amendment, in order that there should be no doubt that the Bill concentrates not exclusively but carefully and particularly on an act of terrorism. It is merely a question of adding a harmless but helpful phrase to this particular provision.

Mr. McNulty: It is not, because, with respect, the amendment is unduly specific. In one interpretation, it could mean that many matters deemed to be in the interests of national security, which are not part of any stage of the process of the commission or execution of a terrorist act, would remain outside the scope of public interest as defined in the Bill, precisely because they would have no direct and germane link to terrorism. The Bill must contain plenty of areas that are captured by the broader element of national security, but that are not specific to terrorism as configured in the Bill.

Patrick Mercer: Why not therefore add ''terrorism'' to the Bill? Every other act that falls short of an act of terrorism is swept up by national security. The word ''terrorism'' helps to focus on that particular point. If the two are juxtaposed, surely all eventualities are covered.

Mr. McNulty: No; I am afraid that we are looking through opposite ends of the same telescope. I would argue strongly that national security at its broadest encompasses anything specifically captured by the amendment, and that the broader definition is far more relevant to a definition of the public interest and national security than a narrower definition that specifies terrorism. Terrorism is embraced by the phrase

''in the interests of national security'',

as indeed are an array of other matters that may be above and beyond terrorism, and that might—it is not for me to question unduly the drafting on this matter—not be included were we to include in the Bill

''of assistance to the Secretary of State in the prevention or detection of a terrorist act in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security''.

In the politest terms possible, that prelude to

''in the interests of national security''

 
Column Number: 48
 

is dangerously over-specific and superfluous. We prefer the wider, catch-all phrase ''national security''.

Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): From the research undertaken in preparation for the drafting of the Bill, which has led us to debate how threats of terrorism can be thwarted by the introduction of an ID card, will the Minister cite examples either in this country, or abroad where there are voluntary and compulsory requirements to carry ID cards, of how carrying an ID card has helped to prevent terrorist threats? I appreciate that that may be difficult from the point of view of national security.

---

Prepared 6 July 2005