|
Mr. Malins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has done the Committee a tremendous service this afternoon, because he has pointed out exactly what the Prime Minister's view is about this matter. We should be clear, for the record, that the amendment that I tabled requires someone to carry an identity card. The Prime Minister's view was expressed last month:
''We think that it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards,''—[Official Report, 1 December; Vol. 428, c. 627.]
It is as simple as that. As far as the Minister is concerned, this is now a major issue. We appear to have a Prime Minister who takes a view—we have no evidence that he has changed it—entirely contrary to that which the Home Secretary and his Ministers take.
I will make a serious proposition. There is time between now and Thursday for the Minister to speak to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he would kindly tell this Committee, by letter—it is quite unnecessary for it to be done in any other way—what his actual view is. Had I had the foresight of my right hon. Friend and recalled what the Prime Minister had said, I would have made an approach to him and asked him whether he would have been kind enough to sign our amendment.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend highlights an important point. It would be possible for him to table a written question to the Prime Minister today with a named day—by Thursday morning. We could ask the Minister to ensure that we get an answer to such a question in time for our proceedings on Thursday.
Column Number: 303
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend comes up with an excellent suggestion.
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab): Is what the Prime Minister said not exactly compatible with what my hon. Friend the Minister was saying? Expecting somebody to carry a card and asking him to do so does not tell him that he must do it.
Mr. Malins: That is an interesting distinction. If the words:
''We think that it is . . . right . . . to ask people to carry identity cards''
reflect the Minister's view, I would be very interested. It is a most important point. I know the Minister has access to the Prime Minister, probably at all times. He will have the opportunity between now and Thursday to come back to us on this key point. Of course there will be many opportunities in the Chamber tomorrow for the Prime Minister to clarify his position, because I am sure that many hon. Members will be seeking to find out what it is. Many of us in the House are influenced by the Prime Minister's views, some more so than others.
In that spirit, and certain that we shall return to the matter on Report, because I have just noticed what the Prime Minister said about the cost of the scheme—I wish I had noticed that yesterday—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Procedure for regulations under s. 15
5.15 pm
Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 16, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
'(1A) The power to make regulations under section 15 may not be exercised so as to create different requirements for identity checks in different parts of the United Kingdom, except insofar as this is necessary due to differences in the public services provided.'.
I think that the Minister largely dealt with this matter, but there were some earlier discussions on whether or not the rules would be same north and south of the border. The amendment is really to tease that out.
I hesitate to quote the Prime Minister again, although I think he might be slightly sounder on this reply than the previous one. During the opening day of the debate on the Queen's Speech, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the SNP, said:
''The Scottish Executive said this morning that identity cards would not be compulsory in Scotland for gaining access to devolved services, leading to the possibility that people will not need them to go to hospital but will need them to collect a pension. Will identity cards be compulsory in Scotland or not?''
The Prime Minister responded:
''The devolved services are a matter for the Scottish Executive under devolution legislation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, it would be our intention here to ensure that when they are compulsory—obviously, that has to go through a legislative process in the House—they are essential in order to access services.''—[Official Report, 23 November 2004; Vol. 428, c. 23–24.]
Column Number: 304
I think that the Prime Minister is saying is that there will be identical requirements north and south of the border. However, I thought the Minister said that in Scotland it might be possible to require a different form of identity in order to access of services. The amendment gives the Minister a chance to clarify where we have ended up.
[Derek Conway in the Chair]
Mr. Jones: Further to those questions, I largely understand how the system would work, but there are a few anomalies that I would like explained.
I understand that where services are arranged, organised and paid for by the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly, then they can determine the identity requirements to access those services.
For example, if primary school services in Scotland or Wales were being accessed, Scotland or Wales would determine whether they wanted ID cards to be used or not. The same would apply if general practitioner services in either of those countries were being accessed.
That is fair enough, because the money that pays for those services comes out of the Scottish or Welsh blocks. But what happens with a service such as housing benefit, which is administered by local authorities? Local authorities are administered by either the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly, but the financing for housing benefit comes direct from the Treasury. In that case, it does not make sense that the determination of whether people have entitlement or not should be a devolved matter.
Another example of a possible anomaly would be university education. Access to, and support for, university education is administered by local authorities, but, depending on the university attended, the funding may come from Welsh sources, the Scottish block or directly from Treasury support. I am not sure that it is as clear in that case where the control of entitlement should come from.
This matter may also apply to hospitals. Hospital services remain fairly integrated—although they are becoming more disintegrated by the day between Scotland, Wales and England. People may access tertiary care in any of those countries regardless of which country they are from—although they are much more likely to access it in London as this is where most tertiary care occurs. Most acute care for people who live in the border regions of mid-Wales and north Wales is accessed in England. Can the Minister explain this matter?
It is reasonable and easy to understand why there should be different arrangements for entitlement in areas where the service is supplied and administered by the Scottish or Welsh block. But there are a number of anomalies such as housing benefits, universities and access to some hospital care.
Mr. Browne: I welcome you, Mr. Conway, to our deliberations this afternoon.
While this matter may appear to very complicated, I hope that it can be unravelled quite simply. It is not about who funds the service, it is about where the
Column Number: 305
legislative responsibility for the service lies; whether it is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament or devolved to one of the Assemblies in Wales or Northern Ireland or the Scottish Parliament. It is not about who pays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) was right to identify housing benefit in the example that he gave, but housing benefit regulations are promulgated here by the Department for Work and Pensions on a UK-wide basis and although local authorities administer these as agents for it, any provisions would apply universally across the United Kingdom. I do not want to go into all the possibilities, but this matter should be entered on the record. Seven or eight sentences should be sufficient to do that.
The Government have always been clear that the primary functions of the scheme—that is, establishing nationality and identity, supporting national security and helping to control immigration—are reserved issues and therefore the legislation provides for the national identity register and the issue of ID cards to apply uniformly throughout the UK. These are clearly reserved matters.
However, it is right that the devolved Administrations decide whether the cards should be required for devolved services. It would not be right for the UK Parliament to restrict the devolved Administrations in their requirement to use cards for services for which they are responsible.
Clause 16 would allow the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland to make orders under clause 15 to require the production of an ID card to access devolved services in Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. Whether or not the ID scheme or the card is to be used for proof of identity at the point of access for devolved services—however they are delivered—is a matter for the Assemblies to legislate for.
Clause 44(2) makes it clear that this power does not extend to the Scottish Parliament. It is for the Scottish Parliament to legislate as to whether the production of an ID card or access to the register should be a condition precedent of accessing devolved services such as health or education—but not restricted to health or education in Scotland. That does not affect clause 19, which deals with the power to provide information to the police in relation to
''the prevention or detection of crime''.
That applies to the police in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the same way as it does to the police in England and Wales. I cannot make the point any clearer than that.
| 
