|
Mr. Salter: I rise to support the programme motion. I enjoyed many happy months serving with the Minister on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee,
Column Number: 10
so I got to know him very well before he was elevated to his current position; in his defence, I want to make it clear that Einstein would not have been fit to tie his bootlaces, either intellectually or physically.
It comes as no surprise to Labour Committee members that the Conservative party should object to the programme motion, given that when this particular measure passed through the excellent pre-legislative scrutiny process, the position of Conservative Members could be described as one of complete confusion. I have sympathy with them. There have been spectacular U-turns on an issue of fundamental importance very late in the day, and I understand why they would want a lot more time to consider what the eventual position of their party is likely to be. I do not think they know that themselves. However, we cannot restrict and determine timetables for the examination of legislation in this place purely because the official Opposition are a complete and utter shambles on this issue.
I like to call the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam my hon. Friend because I hold him in great affection and I think that it is a great shame that he will be leaving this place. However, while there is some confusion on the Opposition Benches, there is a greater confusion in the approach from the Liberal Democrat party. They are going to confuse principle with the implementation of this Bill. With the general election approaching, the hon. Gentleman may well come to regret that he has described as ''a nut'' such important issues as measures to clamp down on terrorism and identity fraud, and to enable the security services and the Government to combat more effectively those who seek to deal in illegal immigration or benefit fraud.
The Chairman: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is going to address the programme motion and not the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Salter: The principle of the Bill is far more than simply a nut. To describe these issues as ''a nut'' and this measure as ''a sledgehammer'' is, I suggest, a political error. In examining this measure in the time available to us, those arguments will become crystal clear.
Mr. Malins: May I add my own warm welcome to you, Mr. Conway, as Chairman of the Committee? I have no doubt that you will conduct our business with fairness, courtesy and efficiency, spiced with a sense of humour. I also thank the Minister for being so co-operative and helpful to Conservative Members in recent weeks, not least by making experts from the Home Office available to talk us through certain aspects of the Bill. That help has been available to us all, and we appreciate it.
The Bill is very important, and I share my colleagues' doubt about whether the programme will give us sufficient time to debate it. The Bill did have pre-legislative scrutiny—the Home Affairs Committee did a lot of work and there was public consultation. Yet, as has been said earlier, much of that focus was on the actual identity card, rather than on the genus of the Bill, which is a national identity scheme requiring
Column Number: 11
individuals to supply information to the authority, under penalty if they fail to do so. I hope that on Report, when the Bill comes back to the Commons, more time will be made available to debate it. I share the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold in the prospect of all-night sittings, though my own bet with him would be nothing to do with smoked salmon and champagne—it is more likely to be gin and a Cornish pasty. In any event, we shall wait and see. Many of us recall going through nights on Bills in the past, and this Bill deserves serious scrutiny.
I believe that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently meeting, and is likely to report back in a few weeks' time. I had meant to propose that our own Committee be adjourned for six weeks so that we could work more closely with it. I do not press the proposition, but I leave the thought with the Minister. I am sure that we shall debate these matters in a friendly and constructive way, and I thank the Minister for his courtesy so far. He will however understand that his sensible comment that the time given to us is not generous requires us, on this occasion, to vote against the programme motion.
Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 5.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Browne, Mr. Desmond
Casale, Roger
McCabe, Mr. Stephen
Mole, Mr. Chris
Mountford, Kali
Prosser, Mr. Gwyn
Robertson, John
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Mr. Martin
Tynan, Mr. Bill
NOES
Allan, Mr. Richard
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Curry, Mr. David
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Mercer, Patrick
Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
(1) during proceedings on the Identity Cards Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18th January) meet—
(a) at 2.30 pm on Tuesday 18th January; and
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.30 pm on Thursday 20th January, Tuesday 25th January and Thursday 27th January;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 45, Schedule 2, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 27th January.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with this Bill. Copies of the resolution are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairmen and
Column Number: 12
I do not intend to call starred amendments, but our excellent Clerk and adviser, Mr. Lee, is always readily available to advise members of the Committee. Please ensure that mobile phones and pagers are either off or on silent during the Committee.
Clause 1
The National Identity Register
Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, after 'others', insert 'who reasonably require proof'.
It is worth bearing in mind that the national identity register will exist for up to five years before a card is physically available to the population—if that length of time is incorrect, I am sure that the Minister will correct me. My concerns are exactly that: how long this is for and what the registrable number will mean before the advent of a card. For instance, when will it be necessary to provide this registrable number? In what circumstances will it be asked for and who will ask for it? All these questions are important, because, whatever one thinks about the card itself, the introductory period of the national identity register will serve to get us used to this new atmosphere in which we will be required to exist, to get us to understand precisely when and how the card will be used and as a time for precedents to be set. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain.
Earlier comments that we have never before needed to have identity cards or a national identity register outside a time of war are not quite correct. In the 1970s in Northern Ireland we imposed a driving licence that was wholly different from anything that was used—if hon. Members will forgive the phrase; I use it for convenience—on the mainland. I have personal experience of this, which I will expand upon in a moment. The driving licence in Northern Ireland initially carried a photograph, but was later amended to have a photograph and a fingerprint. It was a wholly different document from that in force on the mainland. On top of which, of course, the security forces could demand this card. In the absence of the driving licence being available, they could ask a driver, or indeed someone who was on foot, to provide the number of their driving licence. How does that compare with the national identity register and the registrable number as a result of this Bill?
Who will ask for this number? Is it a question of being pulled over by the police or other members of the security services and this number being demanded? Or is it a number much more required, for instance, by anyone going into a bank? Will the bank clerk say, ''If you wish to withdraw money from or put it back into the bank, I need your personal number from the national identity register to identify you''? How will one's entry on the national identity register physically manifest itself? In what circumstances will it be required? Will that be an everyday occurrence? Is it something that everyone will need to know? Will they need to present it when they go, for instance, into a video store? Will one's registrable number be required at that stage? Will they have to render their number to
Column Number: 13
the person behind the counter? Will it be needed when they register at a hotel? Will there be something similar to the system on the continent at the moment—[Interruption.] I hear someone say from a sedentary position that that may completely change how people conduct their private life. Who knows? Will people have to render their registrable number in the same way that they have to hand over their passport when booking into a hotel in France or Ukraine, for example? I should be grateful for an explanation of precisely what the clause means.
My amendment is intended to find out who may reasonably ask for the number: will it just be someone in uniform, and will that include a community support officer, because that is a moot point at the moment, or will there be a much broader requirement that leaves us needing to know exactly what out numbers are? Will children or young people have to have the number written on the inside of their wallets, or will they, perhaps, tattoo it on their flesh? Will it have to be embedded in their memory so that they will be able to prove who they are? [Interruption.] Again, from a sedentary position I hear a chip being suggested.
|
