|
Mr. Browne: With respect, I have no crystal ball. The system will develop in the way that people find convenient. That is why the word ''convenience'' is used in the provision. In an environment in which a significant number of adults, or all adults, have identity cards, the people of this country may find that the production of an identity card is a convenient way of proving who they are to a high standard and that it facilitates ordinary, everyday transactions. That does not seem to me to detract in any way from people's liberties. In fact, it may assure people that those they are dealing with are asking for, or accepting proof of, identity to a high standard, which means that their liberties and identity are being protected from any possible abuse. That is a facility that we as a Parliament should provide to ordinary members of the community and, indeed, ourselves if we can. If we can make the system work—we will, of course, have debates about that—it will be a facility that we should allow people to have. That seems to be a positive of the proposal, and it should not be described as detracting in some way from people's opportunities or liberties in life.
One of the statutory purposes of the register is to provide a convenient method for individuals to prove their identity. If there were no legal requirement to produce an ID card, it must be for the individual to
Column Number: 21
decide what is reasonable and what is not, just as people decide already for themselves whether they consider it reasonable if, for example, licensed premises require proof of age or even standards of dress to obtain entry. Such matters are up to individuals to decide in their relationship with people who provide such services. If they do not accept that level of proof or those standards, they know what to do: they do not transact with that particular organisation.
10.30 am
As for public services, a requirement to produce a card is governed by regulations made under clause 15, which require consultation with those likely to be affected as well as parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. That is enough to ensure that whatever is proposed is not unreasonable. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, I can reassure him that adequate safeguards are already in place and that we should leave it to individuals to decide for themselves when they wish to produce an ID card in certain transactions.
We should not overlook the fact that we are creating a new commissioner—the national identity scheme commissioner—who will have oversight of the whole scheme, including
''the uses to which ID cards are being put'',
as set out under clause 24(2)(d). If the commissioner believes that ID cards are being requested unreasonably, he can bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State and Parliament.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the police do not have access to the register. We might have slipped into a careless use of language when referring to access to the register and I may have conceded that, in certain limited circumstances, police would have access to it. The power under the Bill will provide them with information from the register, especially the power under clause 19(3), which I hope we will come to in due course.
In response to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, the provision is not intended to hoover up existing databases. The national identity register will be built from scratch in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, for completeness, clause 2(4) allows people to be entered on the register who have not applied to be entered. We shall debate such matters when we reach them, but the provision is intended to be used in exceptional circumstances—for example, information about deportees as a guard against attempts to re-enter the United Kingdom on a false identity. The provision makes perfect sense and it must be in the Bill for such purposes. Whether we agree in principle with such a provision or not, any such scheme could not operate without that power.
I do not think that I need to deal with any other issue at the moment, but, as we all warm up a bit in Committee, if I have missed anything I can hoover it up later. I conclude by asking the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw the amendment in light of my response.
Column Number: 22
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister, as I am to others who have spoken in this short debate. There is no doubt that there are some misapprehensions about the point of the national identity register and how it will be used in due course, as there are about the cards, who can demand them and in what circumstances they can be asked for.
The Minister reassured me by what he said about the powers of the police. I understand that the process will be one of evolution as much as anything else and that practices will be established, and if the scheme turns out to be convenient, it can be used according to how people think it will be best used.
Several issues have been raised and I understand exactly the points that the Minister made, in that there will be further expansion in other parts of the debate. I am relatively satisfied by what he has said so far and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman: Before we move on to the next group, may I make two observations to the Committee? First, the amendments are very wide ranging, so within the scope of the clause concerned I intend—I hope the other Chairmen intend this too—to be fairly relaxed about how far and wide members of the Committee range. If such a number of amendments are tabled and we have a wide-ranging debate, it is unlikely that we as Chairmen will then call for a clause stand part debate. That might help to guide colleagues in their contributions.
Secondly, if any Member wishes to force a Division on any proposal other than the principal amendment in a group we are about to deal with, it will be helpful if they advise the Clerk of that. We now move on to amendment No. 1.
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, 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—
''serious crime'' means crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out 'prevention or'.
No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, after second 'of', insert 'serious'.
No. 111, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 4 and insert
Column Number: 23
'establishing entitlement to a particular public service'.
No. 2, in clause 43, page 36, line 32, after first 'crime', insert
'(other than in section 1(4A))'.
Mr. Malins: We have had a good debate so far, simply focusing on the ability of the individual more easily to prove things about themselves to someone else, probably in a commercial transaction. We now move on to what I think will be a lengthy debate. I am grateful, Mr. Conway, for your observations about wide-ranging debate. Inevitably during consideration of a Bill of this sort, one is not always certain where one can fit in one's arguments. Of course, provided that they are made once, that can often cover the problem.
I shall speak to my amendment No. 1 and it is very likely that my hon. Friends and I will vote in support of it. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are incidental and, in a sense, encompassed within amendment No. 1, so I do not need to speak to those separately. Amendment No. 111 is slightly different and I hope to say a word or two about that. Amendment No. 2 is technical, affecting as it does clause 43.
We are dealing with the second aspect of clause 1(3). We have dealt with how I can prove things about myself to someone else. We are now focusing on the other statutory purpose, which, in the simplest of language, enables other people to check on me, when it is in the public interest.
The real focus is on the words ''in the public interest''. Subsection (4) is one that I seek to replace, because my definition of when something is in the public interest is different from that in subsection (4). When is something in the public interest? When should something be in the public interest? All this arises out of the second limb of subsection (3), enabling other people to check on me.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said on Second Reading, the Government must make clear the specific purposes for which an ID card is required. I put the same question about the national identity register. We must understand the specific purposes for which the register is required. What is its point? What is its use? Yes, it is useful, perhaps, for me to prove certain things to other people, but we are now dealing with how other people can understand 51 facts about me.
To keep it simple, I ask this: why would other people want to verify facts about me? Answer: because it is in the public interest to do so. The definition of public interest is absolutely critical. We will discuss later whether the identity card is, in itself, going to be useful in the fight against terrorism, and we must surely ask the same question of the national identity register. Hence, I want to provide that the public interest means that something is of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom.
I also want to add the words ''or elsewhere'', and I hope the Minister can respond to this. The Bill relates to the interests of national security, which implies to
Column Number: 24
me the interests of our security here, whereas I want to insert a provision relating to terrorist acts not just in the UK, but elsewhere in the world. Does the Minister agree that, if this register is going to be any help in the war on terror, the Bill should make that clear? What single event prompted the Government's initial proposals on cards and registers? We all know that it has to be the 11 September terrorist attack in New York.
This Bill has to be, in very great part, a reaction to that event and to other terrorist atrocities. There must then be some reference in the Bill to that purpose and to the public interest in relation to preventing or detecting terrorist acts. Is the register itself—forget the card—going to be of any use in relation to our attempts to fight terrorism?
The Home Secretary said, in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in July 2002, that he could not rule out the possibility of ID cards making a substantial contribution to countering terrorism. Does the same argument apply to the creation of the register and the maintenance of 51 pieces of information about so many people? I expect the Minister will argue that there is a link between the register and terrorism. If so, I hope he explains that link to us in some detail and takes on board my argument that if, as I believe, terrorism is the greatest threat facing all of us in this country, there must be a reference to it early in the Bill.
I come to the issue of crime. My amendment would insert a different test of public interest, because the Bill says in clause 1(4)(b) that something is in the public interest if it is
''for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime''.
Leaving aside the fact that ''prevention'' is such a wide-ranging word as to smack of an over-zealous state—prevention is always different from detection—it occurs to me that clause 1(4)(b) is drawn terribly widely. We all know that the Government are trying to say that something is in the public interest if it is for the purposes of sorting out very serious crime. The Bill, however, says ''crime''.
The Minister will know that day after day in the courts people face charges of careless driving and crossing traffic lights, which are at the bottom end of the criminal scale, but such offences may lead to a criminal conviction. It would be inappropriate if I asked you whether you have ever been convicted of a crime, Mr. Conway, but 20 years ago I was convicted for speeding, which is a crime, although it must be off my record by now and I could probably declare myself of good character. Does the Minister think that ''crime'' is a very wide definition? Would it not be better to have a definition of crime as I have tabled it, which is
'''serious crime' means crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment.''?
I appreciate that my amendment may be faulty, because the Minister may be interested in certain crimes. I repeat that we are talking about others having access to the register if they are trying to prevent crime. There may be a case to be made for the police having access to the register to prevent some crimes that are
Column Number: 25
not just triable on indictment. Indictable crimes, for example, murder and rape, can only be tried in the Crown court, whereas careless driving can only be tried in a magistrates court. Some crimes are triable in either court. It is worth having the debate to ask the Minister exactly what he means by ''crime'' and whether he thinks that there is anything in the argument that I have put forward that would restrict the definition to the more serious crimes.
10.45 am
| 
