|
Patrick Mercer: Not a moment too soon.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a need to do that. Anyone who understands the challenge of illegal working understands that we are asking people in policing to make decisions of priority, to operate quite often on intelligence which is far from reliable and to operate in an environment which is very difficult. I have nothing but praise for the people that do the work, and for the way in which they ramp up their productivity.
We then have to face the challenge that identifying those illegal workers and their employers presents in terms of further policing, prosecutions and removing people from the country. Anyone who understands the most basic things about illegal migrants knows the significant difficulties that we face in re-documenting certain individuals from certain countries—although we have been making progress on that issue. This is not just a one-dimensional argument, and to reduce it down to enforcement is to fail to understand the nature of the problem.
This is a serious problem and it generates a whole array of challenges, in relation to which the immigration and nationality directorate has been significantly improving its productivity. Just doing what it is doing—that is, the enforcement that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggested—is only part of the problem.
We must ensure that we are in a position where we can, with certainty, prosecute employers who use illegal workers, and can get the penalties that should be brought to bear on them. Another problem that we inherited from 1996 was that the offences were not prosecutable by indictment, and did not attract significant penalties. We had one example of a successful prosecution in which very small amounts of money were imposed as penalties by the court. We had to do something about that, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 passed through this Parliament last year.
Column Number: 58
Mr. Curry: We are all very mindful of the problems of gangmasters and illegal working. However, the Minister will also know that there is a considerable amount of almost official unofficial working—for example as part of the agricultural industry. That may involve students who come into the United Kingdom under special arrangements to help with strawberry harvests and people who come from eastern Europe for particular periods. Can we be confident that nothing will be proposed that will make it more difficult to recruit labour to do specific tasks or people to come in for specific purposes?
Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman can be confident that my stewardship, and that of my predecessor, has generated just that opportunity. It is one of the marked successes of the labour market in the United Kingdom that we have the flexibility to allow temporary labour to come in, to be properly supervised, to be treated properly, to make a contribution—such as at harvest time—and then to go back. Almost all are students going back to universities in their own countries. I just wish that more Opposition Members were prepared to trumpet the benefits to the British economy and were not so reticent to stand up for managed migration in its significant numbers or for the benefits that it generates, in particular, for the English agricultural economy. I excuse all the hon. Members in Committee from that charge, but it would be much more helpful if some Opposition Members were prepared to speak out rather than keeping quiet when people are described by certain publications as ''flooding the United Kingdom''. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the scheme is not intended to operate to the disadvantage of those successful schemes. I will have more to say in another context about the development and maintenance of those schemes.
The fifth point relates to the definition of public services, which in the amendment would limit the scheme to health, housing, education and social benefits. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Woking that they are the key public services for which we will need to use the ID card scheme, it would constrict the scheme severely if we were not able to set out clearly that one of its purposes is to help the efficient and effective delivery of any public service.
I will provide some examples about why the scheme is not disproportionate. Surely the scheme is in the best interests of the public, whether as taxpayers or users of services. I am not arguing that the services listed are not important for delivery, but in future, once everyone has an ID card, why should it not be reasonable to ask someone to produce an ID card when registering for VAT—not when they are going to consume a service, but registering for VAT—or for a check to be made on the register when applying for a driving licence? Why would it be considered disproportionate, for example, to try to find the address or date of birth of an individual in those circumstances through this scheme? I do not think that it would be considered disproportionate or an improper use of an identity card, and that is why I argue that the purpose as expressed is appropriate. In
Column Number: 59
any event, when we consider the powers, we will see that none of them can be exercised unless there are regulations made to govern their use.
I have made a substantial contribution, because I am confident that Members will be true to the spirit of the debate and that if they get a number of issues dealt with, we will not need to revisit them in Committee. I believe that I have addressed all the points made; if I have not, hon. Members can remind me and I will try to deal with them later. I am confident that my arguments sustain the Government's position, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Malins: I begin my concluding remarks by paying sincere tribute to the Minister for the helpful way in which he has responded to the debate. I hope he understands—I must repeat it now, and perhaps repeat it again later—that we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We had our doubts and set a number of tests. One significant thing that he said was something to the effect that if the national identity register could in some way act as a force for good in relation to incidents of terrorism, any reasonable person would accept that the register was a proper proposition. I paraphrase him, but that was the gist, and he nods in agreement. My hon. Friends and I could not agree more with that proposition.
We are extremely keen to support any measure that could help to avoid any terrorist act in the certain knowledge—the Minister said that he will return to this point—that not one single measure that we debate or put into statute can at any time guarantee the proposition that we require. It is idle for any of us to start talking about a percentage reduction in the chances of a terrorist act. We simply cannot do that; it is a meaningless debate. We are here to legislate, and the Minister is right to say that if the register can contribute to the important area of reducing terrorism or terrorist acts, it is something to which we must all give our support.
I am persuaded by the Minister's arguments against my amendment of crime being serious crime. I thought that he answered that point well, but I hope that does not mean that I was not right to raise it.
I am not so happy with the Minister's response on public services—I hope that he is taking on board what I am saying—because I believe that there is an argument for restriction to entitlement. However, I go back to the principle of clarity of purpose, words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, when he has debated the matter.
3.45 pm
The main clause of the Bill is clause 1, and its purpose is to set up a national identity register. The Bill is born out of acts of terrorism that have taken place around the world, and properly so. However, as the issue of public interest is the essential point in subsection (3)(b), it should contain a reference to preventing or detecting terrorist acts. The Minister
Column Number: 60
might have a slightly better amendment than mine. He might have an amendment that made no reference to the matters that I raise under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), but, for example, in subsection (4)(a), after the words
''in the interests of national security''
simply added ''in pursuance of preventing or detecting terrorist acts'', or something of that sort.
I shall ask my hon. Friends to support me in a Division on this amendment only because we had hoped to see, and still hope to see, a reference in the clause, the critical clause relating to the national identity register, a reference to its purpose being in part to prevent or detect terrorist acts. The Minister has sought to persuade us that the creation of the register will assist in that respect, and for that I am grateful to him. Whether he has satisfied us completely I am not sure, but I do not think that it is possible to satisfy somebody 100 per cent. However, the Minister must understand—I speak to him from my heart—that Opposition Members share his view that if the register can assist in preventing or detecting terrorism, that is a fine thing to which we should give our support, and we do.
I thank the Minister for his response, but because I want to see the word ''terrorism'' or something similar in the clause, he will understand why I want to test the Committee's opinion and press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.
Division No. 2]
AYES
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Curry, Mr. David
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Mercer, Patrick
Taylor, Mr. John
NOES
Browne, Mr. Desmond
Casale, Roger
Jones, Mr Jon Owen
McCabe, Mr. Stephen
Mole, Chris
Mountford, Kali
Robertson, John
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Mr. Martin
Tynan, Mr. Bill
Question accordingly negatived.
| 
