Identity Cards Bill |
|
Mr. Garnier: It is just as well that the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not press the previous amendment to a Division, because I was having difficulty finding proposed new subsection (3A), to which his amendment referred. I am unsure whether it is to be found any more than proposed new subsection (2A) referred to in amendment No.59 is to be found. He saved himself a little trouble. The Chairman: Order. As the hon. and learned Gentleman fully understands, that is immaterial because the amendment was withdrawn. In fact, there was a printer’s error. Mr. Garnier: Let me return to the amendments. To use the expression of the hon. Member for Broxtowe, we seek some copper-bottomed assurances from the Government about the compulsory nature—or absence of it—of the identity card scheme. Amendment No. 57 would replace subsection (3), which reads:
It strikes us that, despite the Under-Secretary’s blandishments, we will increasingly have the flash-and-go society that I have described. People will carry their identity cards as a matter of routine, not because they have to under the Bill, but because it will become a necessity of everyday life. People will not be able to go into a Government office, to access a public service or to do a host of things outside their house unless they are carrying an identity card. If the Under-Secretary is prepared to rest on his fond belief that simply because the Bill does not say that people have to carry the card and because it says that they have to produce it only
Although it may not be a statutory requirement, carrying the card at all times when out in public will be a practical requirement. It would be intellectually more honest to accept that reality and to make it clear to the public, via the amendment, that that is what will happen and that it is what the Government intend. It is more honest to make carrying the card compulsory in the Bill. We have described that as function creep and access creep, but it is pretext creep that will get us. The police will invariably invite people to offer up their identity card if they stop them for a legitimate reason, and people will have to go through the inconvenience of going home and going to the police station a few days later. A practice will surely emerge, and members of the public will, in effect, be compelled to go about in public carrying their identity card. I would be interested to hear the reasons for the Government disagreeing with that prediction. We recently heard from the Australian Attorney-General that the identity card idea fell apart in Australia. Among other reasons for that, he said that it was going to be a false protection and would give a spurious sense of security to the card holder. More to the point, however, it would give a spurious sense of security to a person who wished to inspect the card. The Government need to come clean on both counts about whether they think that that is to be recommended. On amendment No. 58, if the practicality is that everybody will carry a card, we should all have compulsion on the same date, rather than have several classes of identity card carrier. The Government are trying to persuade us that we will not be compelled to carry it, but we will be compelled to have one. We should come to terms with the fact that we are going to have to have one and will be compelled, in real terms, to carry it. If that is the practical consequence, there should be some fairness and justice, and we should all arrive at that position at the same time. I shall ignore amendment No. 59, for the same reasons that I teased the hon. Member for Broxtowe about. I have yet to find proposed new subsection (2A) on what the Government now call the modification paper, so we do not need to concern ourselves with that. It may well exist, but I have not found it, and I am not going to waste the Committee’s time. Mr. Carmichael: The hon. and learned Gentleman will find subsection (2A) in his own amendment No. 60. Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): Just testing. Mr. Garnier: As my hon. Friend says, I was just checking that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was still with us, and I am glad to say that he is. The point that I was making about proposed new subsection (3A) still holds. Column Number: 318 Amendment No. 60 would amend subsection 2(2). Our amendment makes the same fairness and justice point: I do not want to see up to six classes of individuals required at different times both to register and to hold a card. That is the point of that amendment. Amendment No. 61 would add a new subsection (2B). Surely the Government cannot complain about that. The Bill is riddled with vague powers that enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about individuals, designated documents, designated document authorities and so on. If there were any doubt about the fairness and justice of the earlier amendments, amendment No. 61 would make it clear that we are not leeching any power of the Secretary of State. Indeed, we are doing him a service by providing him with what is probably the 61st regulation-making power in the Bill. It flows entirely with the grain of the Government’s policy. For the life of me, I cannot think for a moment that they will wish to oppose any of the amendments. Mr. Carmichael: I added my name to amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. I presume that I was in a happy frame of mind at the time. I have now read them again, and although I agree with the general thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument that compulsion should be done once and for all and that all should be compelled at the same point, in retrospect I am not that keen on conceding the point of compulsion at all. I presume that I signed up in a mood of good humour, but I would not wish to be seen to be too enthusiastic in my support for him. Andy Burnham: On the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I should say that he clearly has a philosophical difficulty with the Bill. However, I do not think that many Labour Members or most of the public have a problem in principle with a society in which people have an identity card or are on the register. I shall not shirk from saying it: yes, I envisage a time when there will be widespread use of identity cards to access public and private services. That is the purpose of the Bill. I am happy to confirm that for the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not understand— Mr. Garnier: Let me tell the Under-Secretary something that I do not understand. He said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to create circumstances in which people would, as a matter of routine, access private and public services by means of the identity card. That is not a statutory purpose. Andy Burnham: They would do that because they wanted to use the convenience of the identity card to access services or prevent the fraudulent use of services, given that the public services could perform checks against the register. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have a problem with that. I do not. It is the very intention and purpose behind the Bill. With that in mind, I fail to understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled amendment No. 57, which would bring to reality the situation that he has
I have lost count of the number of times that the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed a fear about that, and I am surprised that he seeks to insert such a measure. People will know that they are under no obligation to present a card. That may not stop a police officer from asking, but that is the case at the moment. A police officer can ask for a form of identity if he or she has cause to stop or arrest somebody. The Bill does not extend police powers, but amendment No. 57 would. 3.15 pmWith regard to amendment No. 58, I hope that I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a good reason why we do not want to accept his form of words. The objectionable phrase is “all British citizens”, because that would make it impossible to require the use of a card unless every citizen of the country was in the scheme. That day might never come—a fact that he may be pleased to learn. It might never be the case that all British citizens are registered. For instance, there are no plans at present for British children or British citizens abroad to register. We may well also consider exempting the very elderly from having to register, because it would not make sense for them to do so; indeed, the hon. Member for Newark mentioned that his mother would not want to do that. We might not want to put very elderly people through the enrolment process. If they did not want to do so, and it would not achieve a great deal, we would not want them to go through it. Those are just three examples of why the phrase “all British citizens” is unhelpful. Subsection (2)(b) mentions public services that are free of charge. By referring to that specific category of services, we are reserving the right to require the production of the card for a service that is not free of charge. That might be useful where public safety demands a high level of identity check—for example, in relation to applications for firearms certificates. It is therefore important to have flexibility in this area, and that would be explicitly ruled out by the amendment, because its terms are inflexible. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough did not speak a great deal to amendment No. 59, and amendment. No. 60 would have a similar effect to that which I have just outlined, as it would introduce the test of “all British citizens”, which would be neither sensible nor desirable. On amendment No. 61, we believe that the exemptions in clause 18(2) are sufficient. Paragraph (a) allows for further requirements to be imposed under other legislative powers if that is necessary. We are not
Some hon. Members seem to be envisaging a big-bang introduction of identity cards. In their amendments, they do not envisage an incremental approach to roll-out of the cards, but that is our intention; we want to take the scheme forward incrementally. A lot of the benefits of the identity card scheme will be taken away if all British citizens are required to be registered. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Garnier: If the Under-Secretary wishes to use the expression “roll-out,” he should first get the permission of the Minister of State, and, secondly, he should add a general definition of the word somewhere in clause 43(1), perhaps at lines 22 or 23. “Roll-out” is one of those new Labour terms that means nothing. Mr. Wallace: Like “step change.” Mr. Garnier: It suggests a series of step changes; my hon. Friend is entirely right. When the Under-Secretary responded to me, he demonstrated something rather charming about himself: he has absolutely no sense of the ironic. It is touching, really, that a Minister who has the conduct of a Bill that is about to change the relationship between the state and the individual in the most appalling way does not see that the Opposition sometimes table amendments that expose the Government’s intentions, even if the Government do not understand those intentions themselves. There is no question but that the Bill will eventually lead to a change in how we conduct our everyday life. We will, as a matter of practice, leave our houses every morning carrying our identity cards. As I said at the outset, that will be done not as a matter of legal compulsion, but as a necessary practice. Andy Burnham: I do not have a problem with that. Mr. Garnier: Well, I do. I think that that would be wrong and unfortunate. Andy Burnham: As a point of interest to the Committee, how many cards does the hon. and learned Gentleman have on him at the moment that would confirm or suggest his identity? Mr. Garnier: To use the Minister of State’s expression, that is a canard. I am carrying none compulsorily. One must not confuse a credit card, a supermarket loyalty card or any other card that I may buy, hire or acquire as a matter of personal choice. Perhaps the Under-Secretary is now being ironic; if so, I owe him an apology. If anybody in the real world thinks that the identity card and register schemes will be anything other than compulsory as a result either of law or of growing practice, they are mistaken. I am afraid that I am going off on a different tack. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed, it may be that the sooner my remarks come to an end, the better. Column Number: 321 To be serious for a moment, it is no good producing what I would call saloon bar arguments—and here I shall probably lose the vote of every saloon bar drinker in my constituency—which are akin to, “If you’ve got nothing to fear, you’ve got nothing to hide.” Such an argument demonstrates either a sense of humour that I had not attributed to the Under-Secretary, or a failure to understand what will happen as a result of the Bill. Let me return to the Under-Secretary’s arguments. The purpose of the amendments is to get the Government to face up to the real consequences of the Bill. If I have to pursue that purpose by tabling amendments such as amendment No. 57, I will, but I fear that I have failed to persuade them of the real consequences of what they are doing. That is deeply regrettable, although it was perhaps foreseeable. I have been here long enough to realise that I cannot always get my way, and I understand the arithmetic of the Committee. Probably the most important reason why I shall ask for permission to withdraw the amendment is that I would not want the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to have flown all the way to London just to abstain in person on amendment No. 57. Mr. Carmichael: I did not, nor would I ever, sign up to amendment No. 57. Mr. Garnier: Even I can read. However, I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman’s name has slipped on to the “modification paper”, as we now call it, as a supporter of amendments Nos. 58 to 60. I am delighted to see it there, because one way or another our two parties can achieve something good in this Committee, even if we cannot get our amendments made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 18, page 17, line 2, at end add—
This is an important clause, because as we have seen already, it underlines the prohibition on requirements to produce an identity card. We have had a number of discussions and arguments about that issue in respect of various parts of the Bill. We therefore thought it both sensible and prudent, to borrow a phrase from the Government, to introduce an amendment that would add a new subsection (5), as shown. I hardly need expound that the intention of the amendment is
The clause is important, and by adding the simple subsection proposed in the amendment, we would not only strengthen the provision, but have a clear understanding in the Bill of a number of the issues we have described already with regard to illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, Travellers and the like. Mr. McNulty: In essence, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill is in full compliance with all extant and live statues. I have yet to see the clause that says, “For the purposes of this Bill, the following statutes are not applicable”, followed by a list including the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and so on. The Bill must be in full compliance with all existing legislation. That is as it should be. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s motive, but what he wants is wrong and unnecessary, not least because he is seeking—this is the case in terms of where we are as of this date, or at least where we get to with commencement of the Bill, should it become an Act—to ensure that only the elements that are germane to legislation now should prevail. I am not sure that there is a provision in the Equality Bill that is before the House or soon will be, but sexuality may well become another area that pushes on the body of discrimination legislation. If we agree to the amendment, regardless of whether there is a subsequent Act, such measures would not apply in his terms. I am not saying that there is a deliberate ruse behind the amendment, but I think that it is right and proper—I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to use this opportunity to say so—that the Bill, along with all the others that will hopefully become Acts, must be fully compliant with everything already on the statute book, unless something says otherwise. That is not the case, so it is compliant. Whether we are talking about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, race relations, the Human Rights Act 1998 or all elements of anti-discriminatory legislation, we will ensure that the Bill is fully compliant when it is enacted and duly takes effect. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s motives, but other issues remain afoot, even with all that legislation in place, on which we need to be very careful, not least in respect of what was said earlier about those who are most vulnerable and discriminated against in some way, such as by the authority at the consent point with regard to those with a learning disability. We need to pick up such matters in compliance with other assorted legislation through the established regulations. The reasons for the amendment are utterly commendable, but the substance of the amendment is utterly unnecessary. I commend the hon. Gentleman on the spirit behind the amendment, but I ask him to seek leave to withdraw it because such matters are already embraced in the Bill. Column Number: 323 3.30 pmPatrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister, who has reassured me. Our comments have served their purpose in probing the issue and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: I did not want to intervene in the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, but it is important to bear it in mind that several worries were expressed on Second Reading, not only by Conservative Members, but by Labour Back Benchers, that the Bill might lead to a sense of alienation among the ethnic minority communities, especially in the city nearest to my constituency, Leicester, which has a 35 per cent. ethnic minority population, and in the big cities. I note that all three Government Front Benchers represent city seats. Well, Leigh is part of Greater Manchester. I have been there. It is not exactly the rolling acres of rural Leicestershire, but that does not matter. The point is that we all represent constituencies in which people will feel alienated to some extent because of things that are done to them by the Government. Given the matters under discussion and at such a time, it is particularly important that we are acutely sensitive to the need of the ethnic minorities not to feel outside the normal rights of the citizen. I hope that we can be reassured daily that the Government have that in mind. I am sure they do, but we simply cannot slide by such issues as a matter of course. Mr. McNulty: I want to endorse those points—perhaps uniquely, given my record and that of the hon. and learned Gentleman thus far in our proceedings. I take his concerns sincerely to heart. It is our intention, and it will be our endeavour, to ensure that the picture he paints will not prevail. On a personal note, my constituency has a 45 per cent. black and ethnic minority population and, much to the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it has the largest Gujarati and Hindu population in the country, which pleases me enormously. It is now the centre of British Hindu society. Of course we take such matters seriously. We must, and whether in respect of ethnicity, racial or disability discrimination, or the other worries raised under the previous amendment, we are much alive to such issues. They must and will permeate all aspects of the Bill, including the 60 regulatory powers when appropriate. On behalf of the Government, I accept with sincerity the exhortation of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to take such matters seriously. Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 324 Clause 19 Use for purposes of public authorities etc. Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 19, page 17, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 19, page 17, line 12, leave out “connected with” and insert “necessary for”. No. 239, in clause 19, page 17, line 13, after “Service’s”, insert “current”. No. 215, in clause 19, page 17, line 16, after “Service’s”, insert “current”. No. 216, in clause 19, page 17, line 19, after “the”, insert “current”. No. 217, in clause 19, page 17, line 22, after “Agency’s”, insert “current”. No. 62, in clause 19, page 17, line 22, at end insert
No. 63, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, leave out
and insert
No. 180, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, after “of” , insert “serious”. No. 64, in clause 19, page 17, line 27, leave out from “crime” to end of line 28. Mr. Carmichael: I wish first to bring the Committee’s attention to amendment No. 178. Here, as with other amendments, I am concerned about the wide drawing of the clause. This amendment would bring the provision of information back to the purposes of the Bill under clause 1. For that reason, subsections (2) and (3) would be removed. The amendment would produce a tighter definition allowing for the provision of information to a chief officer of police
that is fine; it is included in clause 1—or
which is also similarly provided for in clause 1, or, as in the existing subsection (3)(c),
Column Number: 325 That wording does not sit easily; it has a certain lightness and there is insufficient specification. I do not, on a quick reading of clause 1(4), see an equivalent provision, although if any other Committee member can find one elsewhere in the clause I will stand corrected. The newly worded subsection (2) would state:
That is preferable to the version in the Bill, which states that provision of information should be
That wording is repeated in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) in relation to the director general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of Government Communications Headquarters and the director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Those purposes may be much wider—either now or at any time in future—than those of the Bill. It is more important that the purposes of the Bill are a determining factor in the information to be disclosed. Amendment No. 179, which is probing, would change the definition, which refers to
I suggest replacing “connected with” with “necessary for”. The words “connected with” might be regarded as a loose, or tenuous, connection, whereas “necessary for” would provide a greater safeguard. Amendment No. 180 is a stray that deals with amendments on the purposes of the Bill in clause 1. Earlier, I sought to amend the purposes to read “serious crime” instead of “crime”, but that battle was lost and this is a straggling soldier from that skirmish. I do not intend to press it to a vote. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 15 July 2005 |