|
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 161, in clause 2, page 3, line 4, at end insert
(d) he is a citizen of a European Union Member State with an approved identity document issued by that State.'.
Mr. Allan: The amendments are designed precisely to try to tease out what will happen to EU nationals. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has already raised this issue. The Minister was right to say that there are different requirements in all EU member states. Many years ago, I worked in France for an extended period, and I needed a local social security card, which my employer obtained for me—I suspect not entirely legally, given that he entered my department as Pas de Calais. That was the most northerly part of France, and he deemed me to have come from somewhere ''Up north'', so he put that on the card. There were and still are requirements, and many of them, such as registering with a local police station after having been resident for a certain period, are far more restrictive than the UK's. We have a pattern of requirements.
I am trying to tease out the Government's long-term intention towards ID cards for EU nationals. Potentially, there is a big loophole if all 25 EU member states have different schemes and issue ID cards. Potentially, a huge number of ID cards will be floating around. I suspect that unless we have systems such as the visitors' passes in Parliament, and a bucket is left
Column Number: 92
at passport control for the ID card to be dumped on the way out, people will wander off with them because they do not know when they will return.
A French national working in London who returns to Paris for a certain period but who plans to come back to this country will not want to pay and go through the hassle of obtaining a card again, so they will hang on to their ID card. As the European Union develops, there will be more and more population flow. I tried to obtain some figures, but because they relate to the EU, we do not record them accurately. However, I found that at the last census about 1.3 million people resident in the UK were born elsewhere in the EU, but that does not tell us their nationality, and clearly a large number of them will have been Irish citizens, who, again, have a special status in this legislation.
It would be helpful at this stage to clear up some of those issues. I was trying to establish in my clumsily worded amendment—I drafted it myself, and I am sure that it is technically deficient—whether the Government intended to seek mutual recognition agreements. That would seem the sensible way forward, particularly in the context of the debate on the use of biometrics for border control. I understand that that debate is common in Europe, and not exclusive to the United Kingdom. The debate is going on anyway, and its logical extension would be for us to say, ''We will not register people who are already on somebody else's system.''
Likewise, other countries would not register such people on their systems. EU nationals could then be safe in the assumption that, having gone through the expense and hassle of getting documents in one country, their papers would be valuable and valid in other countries. Other countries might still have their own registration requirements to establish that a person was present within their borders, but citizens should not have to go through all the hoops of getting on to a fresh biometric database.
I hope that the Minister can flesh out that issue a little more. My understanding is that on Second Reading and previously a blanket statement was made: after three months, EU nationals would have to go on to the UK system. I am sure that that is not the full story. It would be helpful to get a couple of extra chapters from the Minister today.
6 pm
Mr. Browne: I can respond in short to the hon. Gentleman and set out the Government's position clearly. I add to what I said in response to the slightly premature but relevant intervention made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon in the debate on the previous group of amendments.
The amendment would mean giving up on our commitment to issue cards— functionally equivalent to those issued to our own nationals—to all foreign nationals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam intends through his amendment to ensure that free-movement rights are preserved. We intend that as well, and are committed to it by our membership of the EU. Free-movement legislation
Column Number: 93
allows EU members to register nationals of other states who are in their territory. As the hon. Gentleman has observed from his own experience, a significant number of member states do that. Let there be no equivocation: we plan to do that as well. ID cards are national and not EU documents, but they must be accepted for travel within the European Union if they are issued to nationals of a member state; that is my understanding of the status of identity cards in the European Union.
In a sense, the amendment is ahead of its time; in the future, I believe that all national identity cards will be issued to the same standard of security and all will be as reliable as each other. That does not necessarily imply a common format, just a minimum set of standards. Many member states are upgrading their identity cards to incorporate biometrics, or are planning to do so.
We as a Government are working with other states to enhance security features, and that is part of the dynamic driving this agenda in the United Kingdom. That was one of the outcomes of the Justice and Home Affairs summit in March 2004. Interestingly for those who want to know whether European Governments think that identity cards are of relevance to the interdiction of terrorist activity, that was held as a consequence of the Madrid bombings. However, the issue will take time. We certainly intend to include all EU nationals in our scheme as soon as it starts.
I do not know whether my answer has given the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he needs, but it should give the clarity sought by him and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. We intend to take advantage of the entitlement to register nationals of other states who are resident in our territory for the relevant period, but we intend to work with our European neighbours and European Union colleagues to move to a common standard of identity cards so that we can have reciprocity. However, we are not there yet.
Mr. Allan: The Minister has given me what I sought: some additional information. I will leave the question about the security concerns on the table, as it were. The history of some of the ID cards issued by other European Union states shows that they have involved some of the biggest security flaws in terms of people who should not be travelling within the European Union doing so. I recognise that we are at the beginning of a process that is being discussed in the relevant bodies in Europe and that we are a long way from reaching the end of it. I see no reason to press the matter to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert
'(4A) Details of any entry made in the Register must be provided to the person in respect of whom the entry is made.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert
Column Number: 94
'(5A) The Secretary of State must notify the person in respect of whom an entry is modified in the exercise of powers under subsection (5) of the details of that modification.'.
No. 162, in clause 2, page 3, line 11, after 'incomplete', insert 'and
(aa) shall, in such circumstances, notify in writing the individual concerned of his intention to correct the information recorded and allow the individual to make representations accordingly before making such correction;'.
Mr. Malins: We are dealing here with the person in respect of whom information is entered in the register and their being told all about it. Specifically, clause 2(4) states:
''An entry for an individual may be made in the Register (whether or not he has applied to be, or is entitled to be, entered in it) if information capable of being recorded in an entry for him is otherwise available to be recorded.''
I take that to mean that entries can be made in the register about me, which I may or may not know about.
I have proposed a new subsection 5A. It appears that entries could be made about me without my knowing and they could be modified without my necessarily knowing. As the Minister will see, the purposes of my amendments are to say that it would be a good idea if I could be told about entries and about modifications.
Mr. Allan: Amendment No. 162, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend, is another way of seeking to achieve the same objectives as the hon. Member for Woking. I will not rehearse his arguments.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Woking and for Sheffield, Hallam for the speed and clarity with which they put forward their arguments.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 162 both relate to the clause. Amendment No. 15 would require the Government to notify any person registered under clause 2(4) with the details of that entry and contains no exceptions to that requirement. It is, however, unnecessary as well as inappropriate to add specific provisions to the Bill for that purpose.
Such a provision is unnecessary because the Data Protection Act already holds general rules on notification rights. They have been very carefully considered and drafted in view of the underlying EU directive and they will apply to the ID cards scheme. So, the rules are already in place and the scheme is subject to data protection legislation. Where the holding of data brings with it a requirement to notify, those rules apply.
Such a proposal is inappropriate because the issue of notification may well come up in a number of different situations calling for different answers and solutions. For example, in certain situations, it may be impossible to notify the data subject that he has been entered in the register under clause 2(4) because we simply do not know where he lives. We might anticipate that a person may seek to act illegally in relation to the register and we may wish to put information that we have on the register to anticipate such activity, but not know exactly where that person
Column Number: 95
is. In other cases, it might not be appropriate for national security or crime prevention reasons to give the person the information that we know about them and are holding.
That is precisely why the Data Protection Act, which requires notification by data holders to those in respect of whom data are held, leaves certain discretions with the data controlling authorities when it comes to notification. For example, the obligation to notify only applies so far as practicable. The obligation to notify does not apply in situations where, for example, such an approach is necessary for the purposes of national security and the prevention and detection of crime.
Any person who is concerned that they are registered without their knowledge on the national identity register would also have data subject access rights under the Data Protection Act. Of course, most people will know that they are registered, as they will have applied for, and been issued with, an ID card.
| 
