|
Mr. Browne: It applies to everyone who is resident in the UK.
Mr. Allan: I thought that we established in earlier debates that people who are covered by the common travel area scheme because they are from the Republic of Ireland would not need an identity card if they were frequent visitors to the UK. If they then decide to stay in the UK for an extended period, will there be a trigger of some kind after three months which means that they suddenly have to get one?
Mr. Browne: With respect, the hon. Gentleman indicated that he did not think that I was giving the right answer to the question that had been asked, then he intervened and asked a different question.
There is a difference with regard to people who move regularly within the common travel area; we have an agreed relationship with Irish citizens. On Second Reading, a contribution was made that identified that. This scheme applies to everybody who is resident in the UK for three months or more. It is as simple as that; there are no qualifications. The hon. Gentleman implied that he understood that, but then he asked about other people.
On clause 4, it is important to bear in mind that the Bill does not designate any documents. It gives the power to designate documents by order. In the way in which the Bill is currently framed that is a process that Parliament will be involved in, although it will be done by the negative resolution procedure. I know that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) thinks that that is no parliamentary scrutiny at all. It is parliamentary scrutiny; it is just not parliamentary scrutiny to the standard that he wants.
It is important to note that the only documents that can be designated are those that are issued with statutory authority, or those
''which a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department is authorised or required to issue''.
The hon. Gentlemen who contributed to the debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall by implication, although she did not say this—rightly pointed out that that covers a very wide range of documents.
The clause is drafted in that way to make the distinction between documents issued by private organisations and those issued by governmental organisations. The Government have always made it clear that we intend to designate British passports issued to people who are aged 16 or over and resident in the UK and residence permits issued to foreign nationals. We also considered designating driving licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Great Britain and driving licences issued in Northern Ireland. However, for reasons to do with the regulations, and particularly the EU regulations, that
Column Number: 128
relate to the nature of those documents, we concluded that it would not be appropriate at this stage to designate them, although we will keep open that possibility, and look at how the documents develop.
We have no plans to designate other official documents such as the national insurance number card, although the clause as it is currently framed makes that possible. Although the hon. Member for Woking was to a degree caricaturing the situation with regard to that power, the way in which the clause is drafted would allow the designation of a significant number of documents, including some of those that he mentioned. However, there is no intention to designate any of them.
Kate Hoey: May I probe the Minister slightly further on the Republic of Ireland question, as I do not know whether it would be more appropriate to do so in the context of any other part of the Bill? Will we have two classes of people? Will Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and the UK be fine? As the Minister knows, there is a problem with regard to Irish citizens' special relationship with the UK. How will things work in practice for people who live one side of the border and move around on the other side, or for people who live in Northern Ireland with an Irish passport?
Mr. Browne: I cannot make it any clearer than I have done; if a person is resident in the UK for three months or more, they will be required to register under this scheme. That is how the scheme works, so let us put this matter to bed.
On Second Reading, it was noted that people could live on the other side of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and travel backward and forward. That was described as a loophole, and I understand why it might be thought to be a cause of concern given the recent history of Northern Ireland. It is the case that some people travel back and forth across that border; people live their lives in that way in all border areas. However, there is a special relationship between us and Ireland. We describe this part of the world as a common travel area and we allow people to travel freely within it; we have allowed that for a long time. This scheme does not affect the position of Irish citizens in any way. If there are concerns about this matter, they must be dealt with not now, but in another context.
Mr. Curry: The Minister has dealt with the Irish citizens question. Can he give an assurance that the legislation will be applied in an identical way north and south of the border between England and Scotland, or might different circumstances and conditions apply to people living in Scotland under the devolved Administration? In the Queen's Speech debate, in a reply to the leader of the Scottish National party, the Prime Minister suggested that the legislation was capable of different applications.
The Chairman: Order. The Minister may be tempted to reply to that, but I will not let him do so because we are miles away from the clause. We will talk about the documents mentioned in the clause, not the geographical scope of the scheme, which is not covered in what we are discussing.
Column Number: 129
Mr. Browne: Thank you, Mr. Conway. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for us to deal with the other issue shortly.
The designation order anticipated in clause 4 would specify exactly which documents were covered. The order would be limited to tying in those documents with the entitlement to registration for those over 16 who have been resident in the UK for the prescribed period. It is obvious that the provision is not intended to designate any documents other than those to which I referred. However, having listened to the debate and considered the matter in anticipation of this discussion, I have come to the view that there is some merit in the argument behind the amendment.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to concede the amendment at this stage, but there is some merit in Opposition Members' argument that we are discussing an event of such importance that it should be considered by Parliament, albeit in the context of the Bill. The affirmative procedure would allow discussion and explanation. It would give the public the opportunity to be aware that such an important step was being taken, and let them know that there would be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I undertake to think about that.
Mr. Malins: I am most grateful; what the Minister says is terribly helpful. I think that he implied earlier that he was not entirely happy with the drafting of the clause, in terms of the scope of documents and the use of the word ''anyone'' in the explanatory notes. Can he undertake to look into that, to see whether any improvement can be made before Report?
Mr. Browne: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did not make that point—or if I did, I made it accidentally. I will have to go back and look at exactly what I said. However, of course there will be an opportunity for me to look at the clause, as I will in any case be considering the amendment.
I must say, I am minded to concede the amendment, and if I am still of that view when we come to the remaining stages of the Bill, I will bring forward a Government amendment to the same effect, or, outwith the context of the Committee, I will continue to consult on the issue and discuss how we ought to do what is proposed under the amendment. I will, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, consider how the rest of the clause is drafted, but I am comfortable with it, and it does not seem to generate any other serious concerns. It creates an opportunity, and I think that we ought to have the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of that opportunity.
I invite the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw the amendment on the clear understanding that I am sympathetic to his points and will come back to the issue in the remaining stages of the Bill.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister. In my opening remarks I said that I had no doubt that he would be persuaded by the strength of our arguments, and it would seem from his comments that he was.
We have had a wide-ranging and extremely useful discussion that has put down some markers for discussion later in Committee. I am particularly
Column Number: 130
grateful to the Minister for spelling out that the scheme is compulsory. He is not trying to mask the fact that it will, in due course, be compulsory throughout the country, and that it is being introduced incrementally—and that, if one approves of the scheme, seems thoroughly sensible.
However, there is something that I still do not understand. For 26 years, I carried an identity card issued to me by the Government. I was compelled to carry it, and had to produce it on request. I do not understand the point of saying to someone, ''Here is the card, but you do not need to carry it,'' but I am sure that we will return to that later.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman refers, if I understand his personal history, to the fact that for 26 years he was a serving soldier, and there was a requirement to carry at all times an identity document that proved that he was a serving soldier. That was proof of his status and position in society, not of his identity; it was an Army identity card, not proof of his identity. It is just the same as a policeman being required to carry his warrant. ID cards are a different situation.
10 am
| 
