Identity Cards Bill

---

 
Column Number: 79
 

Standing Committee D

Thursday 7 July 2005

(Morning)

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 2

Individuals entered in Register

9.15 am

Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out '16' and insert '18'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

No. 126, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (6).

No. 18, in clause 2, page 3, line 20, at end add—

'(8) No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision;

(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal;

(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and

(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.

Patrick Mercer: I will also speak to amendments Nos. 17 and 18, which are complementary to amendment No. 12, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will speak to amendment No. 126.

On the surface, amendment No. 12, may seem simple and straightforward, and we have already touched on one or two aspects of it. Clearly, its purpose is to try to define the individuals who will be entered in the register and the limitations that will be placed upon them. First and foremost, we would like the age in subsection (2)(a) to be raised from 16 to 18. However, before coming to that, I would be interested to know from the Minister the upper age limit at which identity cards should be carried, and information about the cards put on the register in the first place.

We have discussed on previous amendments the fact that the elderly will find the requirement extremely stressful. I fear that by now the Committee probably knows the members of my family better than the family of anyone else in the Room; that leads me to introduce my mother into the debate. My mother had an identity card, a gas mask and other bits and pieces during the war, when circumstances were in some ways not dissimilar to those we are discussing today. When I had the privilege of serving on the previous Standing Committee that considered the Bill I discussed it with my parents and my mother said, ''What's the problem
 
Column Number: 82
 
with an identity register and an identity card? I had one during the war, carried it happily and had nothing to fear. It proved and demonstrated that I wasn't a Nazi''—although that is something we sometimes doubt in the family. I told her that that made a lot of sense, but now it looks as if everyone from 16 to we know not what age will have to surrender 50 or more pieces of information about themselves and then register for the card, probably in several years' time—not to mention the cost, which I am sure we will discuss at length later.

My mother was 10 years younger than my father, but none the less she is an elderly lady in her mid-70s. She pointed out that by the time she is likely to get a card, she will be pushing 80. She asked whether it was really necessary for her to have her fingerprints taken and her iris scanned. How likely is it that she is a terrorist? Clearly, not at all. Much more importantly and realistically, how likely is it that someone will want to use the identity of an 80-year old woman to defraud the Government, or to carry out a serious crime or act of terrorism? I think that it is pretty unlikely, and I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure us that the elderly will not have to go through the stressful process of being assessed for information for the register and the card. What upper age limit does the Minister intend to introduce, to spare the elderly from those stresses and keep the cost of the card down?

When discussing amendments yesterday we heard that for every piece of information, every individual who must register, every individual who must go forward for a card and the issue of every card, there will be a cost, not just to the individual but to the Government. I would therefore have thought it sensible for the Government to tell us the upper age limit.

I shall return to the precise point of the amendment.

Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): Before this sitting, I looked at some of the preparatory information, and it seems that the problem of eye scans becomes significant beyond the 65 to 70 age group, because changes take place in the eye. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about whether the evidence presented by the Government on biometric testing—particularly eye scanning—is sufficient? I suspect that such tests would not only be awkward for the individuals involved, but might prove increasingly unreliable for people of that age group. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his useful intervention, but I shall not go into that issue in any detail now, because I know that the point will be covered by later amendments. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend has made a very good point when he says that the older a person gets, the more the retina deteriorates and changes; I think that skin patterns can also change.

The crux of one of the criticisms by the London School of Economics of the Government's intentions was that the cost would be considerably greater, particularly in relation to the elderly, because cards would have to be replaced on a much more frequent
 
Column Number: 83
 
basis than the Government claim at the moment. I do not want to get into an argument; I am sure that we shall eviscerate this subject at a later stage. None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very good point. No mention of the elderly can be made without looking in more detail at the issue that he has raised.

I shall move to the other end of the spectrum. When is a child not a child? How do we define a child—under 16 or under 18? I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen the child impact assessment from the all-party group on children, which says that the

''Bill contains the power to extend ID cards to children under 16 through secondary legislation''.

Will the Minister expand on that? I shall quote again from the same document:

''For 16 and 17 year olds (and for all children if the powers of the Bill are extended) there will be a duplication of information on the National Identity Register and on the information sharing indexes to be established by the Children Act 2004 . . . the National Identity Register will contain information on individuals aged over 16. Cl.2(7) provides that the Secretary of State may by order amend the age . . . meaning that the provisions of this Bill could potentially apply to everyone in the UK from birth.''

I appreciate that we went through the ''The Day of the Jackal'' argument yesterday, and I do not wish to be flippant or irritate the Minister more than I did then. The fact remains that I should be most grateful if the Minister cleared up that point.

The all-party group goes on to state:

''The accepted definition of a child in the UK is up to 18 years, with some exceptions for particularly vulnerable groups''.

The document also informs us that two databases holding information about children will overlap with the new register. One is the Connexions card database, which was established under section 117 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. It is for 13 to 19-year-olds, apparently, and may be enhanced by a smart card that will be proposed in the Green Paper on youth. Secondly, information-sharing indices are to be established under section 12 of the Children Act 2004.

The point of the amendment is to ask the Minister to point out whether information is to be duplicated. If so, are minors—those aged under 18—not already dealt with and registered perfectly adequately? Should not the age of 18, rather than 16, be introduced? That, combined with the earlier points that I made about the elderly, is the crux of amendment No. 12.

I shall now scoop up amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Amendment No. 17 is, I hope, fairly straightforward. It would merely strike out clause 2(6). Amendment No. 18, which is complementary to it, would insert another subsection with four paragraphs. That new subsection states very clearly that

''No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision;

(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal;

(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and

 
Column Number: 84
 

(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.''

I fully understand that the Bill is only enabling legislation, and I have no doubt that the Minister will quite rightly major on that idea. We said in our extended deliberations yesterday that the Bill needed to mature, and that the provisions would become clear only once it was put into operation. I completely accept that, and it would be immature of me, and of my party, not to. It would also be unrealistic to think that any Bill will be perfect when it has passed through the two Houses.

None the less, in the context of the enabling legislation in the Bill, amendment No. 18 would make it clearer that much of the detail will be decided only as the Act matures and as registration and the issuing of cards are phased in over several years. For instance, who will carry the cards? I know that there has been much debate on that already, but we can return to the subject if we want. How much information is to be included, both on the register and the card? Who will have access to it? Who will not be included, and, as we have already asked, what compulsion, if any, will there be to carry the card? All that seems to be open for the Home Secretary to decide via secondary legislation.

The Bill refers to an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament and that will act as some check on the Government, but the affirmative procedure is an extremely blunt tool because it does not allow for the amendment of a proposed regulation. The power to amend regulations should be written into the Bill. That would allow full legislative scrutiny and debate in Parliament. I fully understand that clause 7 allows for some alteration of powers, but I firmly believe that without amendment No. 18, we will pass a Bill that gives the Home Secretary powers to act without any further decent and detailed scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.

The nub of the amendments is simple. First, there is the change relating to the upper and lower age limits. Secondly, and probably more importantly, amendment No. 18 would mean that if those powers were introduced, the Bill would make it clear that any alterations or changes—for instance, in relation to any compulsion to carry the card—will not simply be passed via an affirmative resolution but must be placed in front of both Houses of Parliament and subjected to proper scrutiny.

---

Prepared 7 July 2005