Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 35, leave out '16' and insert '18'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (7).

No. 127, in page 3, line 20, at end add— 

'(8) The Secretary of State must not make an order containing (with or without other provision) any provision that he is authorised to make by this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

(9) No draft order containing a provision that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section is to be laid before Parliament unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has prepared and published a report containing a proposal for the making of such provision;

(b) the report sets out the Secretary of State's reasons for making the proposal;

(c) the report has been laid before Parliament and each House has approved the proposal contained in the report, either with or without modifications; and

(d) the draft order gives effect to the proposal so far as approved by both Houses.'.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

These are probing amendments on which we shall not seek to divide the Committee. Their purpose is to draw from the Minister a little more detail about age.

I had an interesting letter from a pensioner in north London this morning, who asked me to put in a plea to the Minister that there be an age limit beyond which the elderly will be exempt from having to register. The argument was very well put. He did not disclose his age, but he said:

''You will appreciate that by the time identity cards are made compulsory (in perhaps seven years' time or so) most of today's pensioners will be well into their seventies and indeed quite a high percentage will sadly be dead.''—

Clearly it would not apply to them, but for those into their 70s, he says:

''To force a pensioner to go to a passport office or police station to be eye-scanned and fingerprinted would be stressful to say the least to a lot of them and really isn't needed if only travelling to the continent . . . for example, with their children by car. Pensioners are very unlikely to be terrorists or commit serious crime such as fraud . . . few will ever work especially after the compulsion date of identity cards.''

He submits that leaving all pensioners over 65 out of the scheme could save the Government time and money, and save pensioners undue stress and financial hardship. I do not know whether there is much in that, but if the Minister is considering the issue of age, does he feel there is such a role for the very elderly?

Secondly, a point arises out of the document ''Child Impact Assessment'' from the all-party group on children, which the Minister may also have seen. It is a sorry state of affairs that we sometimes receive briefing papers quite late in the day. I seem to recall that over the years I have received briefing papers and amendments for most of the debates in which I have taken part half an hour after the debate has finished. Therefore, I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not entirely grasp some of the points that are made in this debate.

The document states that the Bill contains the power to extend the requirement for ID cards to children under 16 through secondary legislation. Could the Minister make some observations on that? The document goes on to state: 

''For 16 and 17 year olds (and for all children if the powers of the Bill are extended) there will be a duplication of information on the National Identity Register and on the information sharing indexes to be established by the Children Act 2004 . . . The National Identity Register will contain information on individuals aged over 16. Cl. 2(7) provides that the Secretary of State may by order amend the age . . . meaning that the provisions of this Bill could potentially apply to everyone in the UK from birth.''

That again brings into play the question of young people being entered on the register. What ages will the provision include? The all-party group goes on to state:

''The accepted definition of a child . . . is up to 18 years, with some exceptions for particularly vulnerable groups''.

The document informs us that two databases that hold information about children will overlap with the new register. One is the Connexions card database that was established under section 117 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. This is news to me. It is for 13 to 19-year-olds and may be enhanced by a smartcard to be proposed in the forthcoming youth Green Paper. Secondly, information-sharing indexes are to be established under section 12 of the Children Act 2004, with which I am sure all colleagues are familiar. There is an issue about children, which I shall not go into in further detail. The Minister will have received some briefing papers. It would be helpful to have some response from him on those questions about age and children.

Amendment No. 127 deals with a different point. This argument will be familiar to the Minister. The Bill is described as enabling legislation, which means that the framework of powers is set out in the Bill with a view to phasing in registration and the issuing of cards over several years. The Home Office accepts that the Bill does not set out in detail how the scheme will work in practice, as it is too early in its development for such decisions to have been made. Consequently, much of the detail about the process, determining who will have to carry a card, who will have access to information and how information may be passed on is not included in the Bill. Those fairly key details have been reserved by the Home Secretary for secondary legislation.

It is inevitable that legislation creating a new scheme will allow for some future and more detailed provision, but it can be argued that it is an unhappy state of affairs that so many fundamental aspects of the scheme will not be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. Does the Minister agree? The Bill makes repeated reference to the need for affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament to extend any provisions in respect of compulsion, information recorded, sharing and so on. That provides some checks on the Government's ability to extend the provisions, but the affirmative procedure is a pretty blunt tool for legislative scrutiny, as it does not allow for amendment of a proposed regulation. It is argued that, to enable full legislative scrutiny and parliamentary debate, the power to amend regulations should be written into the Bill whenever regulations deal with categories of persons or bodies. There is something in that.

That summarises my position. There has been some recognition in clause 7 of the need to allow alteration. That clause creates an ability to amend when extending compulsion. It is argued that that is also   important in allowing flexibility when making orders about who will be placed on the register under clauses 2 and 3. That goes to the heart of how the register will operate, yet regulations under clause 2 are likely to contain information about varieties of individuals. It is argued that parliamentarians should be given the opportunity to reject parts of them, and the best way to ensure that there is full scrutiny is to require an amendable report to be prepared prior to the tabling of an order.

The children, age and accountability issues are all addressed by amendments Nos. 11, 17 and 127, none of which I propose to press to a Division, but all of which merit some debate.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

We support amendments Nos. 17 and 127. They invite the Minister to make that most magnanimous of concessions with which we have become familiar in Standing Committees—the negative to affirmative resolution concession. It is a bone that can helpfully be thrown to Opposition parties from time to time. Essentially, that is what is being done, although it is more dressed up on this occasion as there is the addition of the report, so it is a slightly fancier affirmative resolution procedure. However, essentially we are seeking to ensure that there are additional parliamentary safeguards for any potential changes.

That is significant. The very first line of the clause states:

''An entry must be made in the Register''.

In other words, this is the big measure in terms of making the register happen. The clause defines the category of people who must be put on the register and those who have no entitlement; and then there is the curious loophole in subsection (4), which we will come to when we address a later amendment.

Like the hon. Member for Woking, we examined whether the age limit should be 16 or 18. We thought about it long and hard because, in general, we are trying to make the Bill as uncomprehensive as possible. However, although one of the possible ways to do that was to raise the age limit to 18, that would have been inconsistent with other policies that we have proposed, such as for votes at 16 and the establishment of a threshold for adulthood in terms of access to services and so forth at that age—and we never like to be inconsistent, so we did not feel that we could support changing the age.

I can understand why collecting a database for people under 16 would be difficult from a technical point of view; the biometrics are not stable, certainly in terms of such things as face recognition. There are also questions that will need to be addressed about the potential interaction with other databases, such as those that are being established for child protection purposes. Again, in the context of subsection (4), there may be some interest in how the database will interact with other data sources.

We did not feel that we should support the change from 16 to 18, but we do feel that it is important that we have a more comprehensive procedure for any potential changes. For political reasons, the Government may wish to look at the pensioner issue,   which the hon. Member for Woking rightly raised. It will be politically difficult to drag 80-year-olds down to a centre to be fingerprinted and iris-checked.

One further point of clarification would be helpful. Clause 2 refers specifically to the register, but any age provisions in respect of the issuing of ID cards will be dealt with separately under clause 6, so it is perfectly possible for the Government to say that everyone must go on the register, but then to come back with an order under clause 6 saying that ID cards and the bit of that that has to be paid for is compulsory only for people in a certain age bracket—and not compulsory for those over 65, for example. Therefore, in spite of this clause, the Government still have some get-out options if they want to avoid charging pensioners £85 for the pleasure of going to have their fingerprints taken and irises scanned; they could do that under clause 6 by having a different age prescription in the regulations that impose compulsion with regard to the issuing of ID cards.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

This short and interesting debate has raised two issues: upper and lower age limits on identity cards.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam is right about the upper age limit.There is a power to apply compulsion to different groups and to make exceptions. That is to be found in clause 6(1), which is to be read along with clause 41(4). So, it is possible to exclude those over a specified age. I have some sympathy with the argument that we need to pay particular attention to the issue. Once the framework is in place, we need to develop a policy, in consultation, on how we will proceed with people who are over a particular age, principally in the early stages of the scheme. Obviously, we will have to give thought to that.

If hon. Members care to look at paragraph 45 of the explanatory notes, they will see that we have flagged up the issue, and we have done so in the past, too. No decisions have yet been made, but hon. Members will gather that I have significant sympathy with what they say. We will work out the specifics of the issue appropriately in future. We may be able to debate that in a wee bit more detail when we come to clause 6, in which, quite deliberately, there is the power to enable such decisions to be made.

The amendments that we are dealing with are more germane to the lower age limit, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam identified. We believe that 16 is the right age to fix on. I will come to the reasons for our decision shortly.

The hon. Member for Woking tabled amendment No. 11, which would change the age of entitlement to registration from 16 to 18. We have set the limit at 16 for very good reasons. I have in front of me a list of the age restrictions that apply to individuals between the ages of five and 21. Whether there is consistency in the list is for others to conclude. I will not read it out, just as the hon. Gentleman made the sensible decision not to read out the 51 registrable facts. However, I am happy to share the information with members of the   Committee, just as he was. My list will show what we expect of young people as they grow up, and the restrictions that we place on them.

We set the age in the Bill at 16, first, because that is the age at which the adult 10-year British passport is issued. There is obvious need for consistency, because the passport is the document to which we intend principally to attach the issue of identity cards. It is our intention that all new passport applicants aged 16 and over attend a personal interview, starting in 2006. A 16-year-old has to apply for a passport on his or her own account—unlike young people under 16, for whom a parent or guardian has to make the application on their behalf. In any event, from 2006, there will be an interaction in relation to identity for those who wish to apply for a passport.

Secondly, we have made it clear in the Bill that combating illegal working is one of the aims of the ID card scheme. Sixteen is the school leaving age, and the age at which young people can take up full-time employment and are consequently likely to become more economically active, needing to open bank accounts or building society accounts if they do not already have them. It is the age at which a national insurance number is issued—in fact, I think that they are issued at 15 years and nine months. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon shakes his head.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I shook my head in memory of a constituency case. A young lady—a student—has been given her university loan, but does not have a national insurance number, and has now been told that the loan cannot be continued until she gets a national insurance number. However, I have been told that she cannot be issued with a national insurance number purely to go to university. She is in a classic Catch-22 situation. I do not know what went wrong, but she has not got a national insurance number, although she is alive and well and is not a terrorist.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I am glad that I gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to bring in a constituency case, which is always a very valuable thing for a right hon. or hon. Member to do in this place, but I am afraid that I cannot respond to that individual case. I do not think he intended me to do so.

I have family knowledge of the recent issue of a national insurance number. It came at 15 years and nine months, which is why I recollected that age. I am sure that, as with other bureaucracy, mistakes are made. I am only sorry that this happened to the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. I am sure it will be resolved, but if it is not I will intercede with the relevant Department for Work and Pensions Minister.

ID cards at 16 will make it easier for employers to check entitlement to work and also the age of potential employees. Amendment No. 17 would remove the ability to modify the age at which there is an entitlement for registration and for an ID card to be issued. Amendment No. 127, which is perhaps the   substantive amendment of the group, would make the order to define the age at which the person is entitled to register affirmative, rather than an act of resolution. However, under subsection (9), additional steps would be required before laying the order to make that order super-affirmative, borrowing from the process that has been devised for moving the ID card scheme towards compulsion, set out in clause 7.

Although the ID card scheme has been designed for those aged 16 plus, in the future there might be good reasons to vary this age. I say ''might'' because there is no intention to vary the age at the moment. A change might simply extend the ID card scheme to start at an earlier age, say 14 or 15. Alternatively, as with passports, registration at birth, possibly with the issue of an ID card, might be allowed. Some countries' ID card schemes already have a separate age for registration and for card issue. For example, in Hong Kong, it is compulsory to register at birth, but an ID card is not issued until the age of 15.

I am conscious of the fact that there would be a lot of practical questions, apart from policy questions, to be dealt with were we to reduce the age for issuing ID cards to below 16—for example, the interaction with other databases and the question of biometrics collection. Also, the Bill does not cater for who would be responsible for children of that age as to other requirements of the scheme, such as compulsion and information.

I hope the Committee agrees that the age of 16, which we have set in the Bill, is right, but that we should retain the power to vary the age. There does not seem to be any argument about that. I would argue that a change to the affirmative resolution procedure is not in this case necessary. I am not throwing that like a bone to the Committee: we would not make any modification on age that significantly increased the number of people who were entitled to register without a significant public debate, because of the consequences for public policy across the board of such a decision. That is not something the Government could do without anyone noticing. The negative resolution procedure is, therefore, sufficient scrutiny for the use of this power. That is the argument I put forward; I hope the hon. Member for Woking agrees and does not press the amendment.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

This has been a very helpful short debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic approach to the queries that have been raised. I am not entirely happy about his answer on amendment No. 127, however, although his remarks in relation to children and pensioners were a combination of helpful and thorough. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out 'the prescribed period' and insert

'a period of 31 days'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:  

No. 13, in page 2, line 45, at end insert 'or'.

No. 14, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'period' to end of line 4.

No. 70, in page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (4).

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

We are still on clause 2 and we are dealing with the aspect that relates to people being excluded from being registered. That takes me on neatly to amendment No. 12. Under clause 2(3)(a), there is an exclusion from being registered where a person

''is residing in the United Kingdom in exercise of an entitlement to remain there that will end less than the prescribed period after it was acquired''.

I take that to mean that some people will be exempt from being required to register under the national identity scheme. The first group, which we are dealing with now, I take to mean those people who are in the UK for a fairly short time—for less than ''the prescribed period''.

I remember almost the first week of the period during which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was Home Secretary. He came to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I said that I had come across many people in my constituency who wanted people to come to the UK to visit them on a holiday visa for the purposes of a wedding. Those people planned to stay for two, three or four weeks. I asked him why such people were always granted a visa for six months. That is how long holiday visas are granted for, even though in most cases the stay is for only three or four weeks. I was interested to find out why the visa was for six months. Not unnaturally, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer, and I do not think he ever came back to me on that. It must be some form of tradition that if one asks to come for a three-week holiday, one is given a six-month visa.

The purpose of proposing to change ''the prescribed period'' to ''31 days'' is to probe the Government a little more on the issue of short-term visitors. I am working on the assumption that the prescribed period is three months. I have no idea why, but at some time during the past fortnight, if my brain is being accurate, I think I have read it somewhere.

Mr. Browne indicated assent.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I think the Minister is nodding, so I may have got that roughly right.

If ''the prescribed period'' is three months, how does that tie up with the six-month visa? Such visas are given. How does giving a six-month visa to come to a wedding stand up when most people are likely to visit for a much shorter period? Will the Minister also tell us the volume of people who come to this country on short-term visas of one sort or another?

The essential purposes of the register and, subsequently, the identity card scheme must obviously be, and are, connected with the prevention of terrorism, serious crime and so on. It would be quite helpful to know the range and volume of people who simply will not be required to have any formal contact with the national identity register. Does the situation trouble the Minister? If there is no requirement for a certain number of people to register, will not that lead   to an increased possibility that those who wish this country no good will come in on a short-term visa, in which case they will have no need to register with anyone?

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

Which will suit them fine.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a sound comment from a sedentary position, so I am happy to give way if need be.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

It is not good manners for someone who should know better to intervene on a colleague's speech from a sedentary position, so I shall intervene in the proper way.

My hon. Friend refers to a person who is up to no good in coming to this country under the visitor arrangement and that person not having to contact the registration scheme. My point is that that non-requirement suits that person's purposes down to the ground. That is all that I wanted to say.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.

Will the Minister deal with one or two other issues concerning people who will, in effect, be exempted from needing to apply to the registrar? Can he confirm that it is accepted that EU workers are entitled to work in this country if they have a job to go to and that they will have no need whatever to register? Can he give us some flavour of the position and role of those who come here with work permits? I ought to know the period for which a work permit operates, but I do not know whether the times vary. I think that they do. I assume that none is for less than three months. It would also be helpful for the record for us to learn this afternoon the volume of people who come to this country each year on short-term visas, but who will be exempt from the provisions.

One of my amendments would knock out from clause 2(3)(c) the words

''residing in the United Kingdom despite having no entitlement to remain there.''

I have a feeling that that little provision was not in the draft Bill. Can the Minister confirm that? Is it intended to relate to asylum seekers? Many people understand that asylum seekers are intended to be one of the first groups to be subject to compulsion under clause 6.

Will the Minister comment on the position of asylum seekers, bearing it in mind that they are issued with the cards about which we know quite a lot. I have drawn attention to the amendments tabled in my name and I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam will want to speak to amendment No. 70.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment No. 70 would knock out subsection (4). I also wish to comment on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. Given the prescribed period and the prescribed description, another category that we should consider is international students. I have a constituency interest in such matters as I have 2,000 international students in Sheffield, and most welcome they are too. They already face considerable problems with the costs and   the hassle of dealing with United Kingdom immigration services, which, from their point of view, are regarded as negative.

At times, the position of students has been far worse and their passports were held for months at a time in Croydon while their visas were being renewed. That side has improved, but the costing side has become less attractive. Large groups of students are in the country, and it is important that we are sensitive to their needs and their contribution to the United Kingdom, given that we are in a market economy, when considering whether to impose new requirements on them. Clearly, the identity card could be both a cost and a hassle requirement that they will have to face.I accept that, in such market areas, workers or students can choose which countries to visit, so understanding the impact of our regulations is important when deciding who is prescribed as being within the system and who is prescribed as being outside it.

As for the amendment, with due respect to the parliamentary draftspersons, the subsection to which it refers is lazy in the sense that it seems that they have sought to create categories of exclusion. The clause has a complex structure, but it will create a category of people to whom, if they present themselves and say, ''I want to go on the register,'' we can say, ''No, you are not allowed to go on it.'' It places an extraordinary duty on the Secretary of the State that people must be put on the register if they are so entitled and apply to do so. Perhaps the Government envisage a category of people who might apply, but whom they do not want to be entitled to apply. The Secretary of State could say that they cannot go on the register, even if they want to. I wonder which category of people that is.

Given the comments of the hon. Member for Woking, it would be helpful to understand whether categories such as asylum seekers whose claims have not yet been determined and are entitled to be in the United Kingdom will be entered on the national identity register or whether they will continue to stay in the separate system that I assume has been set up already to deal with their specific asylum-seeker applications. Where will they go in future?

On subsection (4), asylum seekers are highlighted in the explanatory notes, in which the Government say that they may want to stick them on the register, even though technically they are excluded because of other provisions in the clause. I can understand why the Government may wish to do that, but it seems to open up a hovering-up loophole. The Bill seems to say that if we have data in other databases and we want to stick people on the register, we can do so without coming back to Parliament for any scrutiny. If the Government had realised that there were categories of people such as failed asylum seekers who they did not want to be excluded, and who the Government wanted for their purposes to ensure were on the register, it would have been more satisfactory for them to have   achieved that by saying ''and there shall be regulations that will prescribe categories of people''. Then, those regulations would have been open to scrutiny.

There is a gaping hole in subsection (4), which gives the Secretary of State a permissive power to say, without any further scrutiny, ''Oh, I forgot this bunch of people'', or, ''This bunch of people have suddenly come to my attention and I want to pop them on the register.'' That provision is unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister can be clear and not simply say, ''That is a convenient way to get the failed asylum seekers on the register'', because that does not close the loophole in respect of other groups of people whom we may wish to scrutinise and decide on ourselves—rather than have it taken as read that the power exists.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I want to ask a simple question. London houses the second largest French population in Europe. A large number of citizens of European Union countries, including my wife, hold identity cards issued by their own Governments. Will there be a mutual recognition of identity cards? Will my wife, or other French citizens, be required to register in the United Kingdom, given that they are resident here and have the right to live in the UK and can visit without stating for how long they intend to remain? There must be a lot of people who find themselves in that position who could end up with two identity cards that are not entirely compatible and receiving demands for information to fill in one that has to be given officially in another country. I should like to know about that technical matter.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

Again, we have had a short but interesting and important debate, which I shall seek to answer. I cannot answer the specific questions on numbers asked by the hon. Member for Woking, but I can give him some numbers, although they do not specifically respond to his question. I shall endeavour to get that information to him.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 12 would entitle any foreign national with leave to remain in the UK for more than a month to an identity card. However, as hon. and right hon. Members know, under European legislation we are not able to require European economic area nationals and their family members to register before they have been resident for three months. That European legislation applies, and all the countries in the European Union subscribe to it.

As I understand it, British citizens who are resident in France must comply with the requirements of French law, whatever those are; I am not sure about the detail of that. I am sure that there are European countries where residential registration is required after three months, and I will try to find out in order to share that with the Committee. We are not seeking to do anything on EEA nationals that we are not empowered to do by European legislation and what other Governments do, albeit not universally. I do not consider that a period of a month would be helpful, either to an individual or in controlling immigration, even if it were legally possible—and it is not legally possible for all people who are resident in this country, for the reasons that I have stated.

The Bill allows us to prescribe a period after which foreign nationals would have an entitlement to register and be issued with an ID card. In the consultation document published with the draft Bill, we made it clear that our intention was to make that period three months, for the reasons, among others, that I have set out relating to European legislation. After that, we would require a foreign national to obtain a card. However, I believe that we need to retain a power to prescribe the period, so that, should it prove necessary to extend or reduce it, we could do so.

There are good reasons for the three-month period. At present, the UK admits short-term visitors for up to six months, as has been pointed out, but internationally it is more common for people to be admitted for three months for a short visit. In the USA, for example, visitors are admitted for 90 days, whereas in Europe three months is the norm for a short visit. I think that we shall consider moving towards that shortly.

In practical terms there is little point in requiring people who are here for so short a period as 31 days to register and obtain an ID card and to meet the costs of doing so. However, we need to draw a line somewhere, and it seems more logical to expect that anyone who is here for more than three months is resident on a longer-term basis—as a student, for example—where the need to register and obtain an ID card would seem much more sensible.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 further widen the entitlement to register by removing the ability to stop those residing in the UK without any entitlement to remain from being entitled to be entered on to the register. That would seriously restrict the scheme's ability to perform its public-interest statutory purposes of enforcing immigration controls and the prohibitions on unauthorised working and employment. If the amendments were accepted, an individual who simply met the time requirements of having been resident in the UK for what we intend to be three months would be entitled to register, even if he had no legal right to remain in the UK. That would include those who have no right to reside here but are seeking asylum, those who have entered legitimately but have overstayed, and those who have entered illegally and have remained. Therefore, we would be opening up the register to a number of people who would otherwise have no status to be on it.

Clause 2(4) is intended to provide the flexibility needed to allow a person's details to be recorded where it would be useful to have those details even though they are not entitled to be registered. Amendment No. 70 would remove that flexibility, but I believe that there are good reasons to keep it. One example of the way in which the provision could be used is to record failed applicants or those about to be deported. That would ensure that any further attempts to register would be flagged up, particularly if we register those who have been deported and they turn up later trying to register.

Another example could be of a person applying for and being issued with a biometric visa in anticipation of coming to the UK. In that case it might be useful to have the information recorded in the register, so that if the person exercised their right to stay longer than three months, the process of getting a residence permit or ID card would be made easier. There are also cases where it would be useful, for national security reasons, to have information recorded on the register about an individual who would not be entitled to register or who had not yet applied for a card.

It is important that we maximise the use of the register to obtain the most benefits. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I should like clarification about the asylum seeker system. As I understand it, the Minister has said that the intention is to maintain the two systems. Asylum seekers will stay in the asylum seeker system and will not go on to the national identity register unless and until the Government decide under clause 2(4) to include a category of them. The intention is not to have all asylum seekers on the national identity register.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. That would be contrary to the Government's intention. The Government do not intend to put asylum seekers, who are in a precarious and inconclusive position, into what would appear to be a permanent relationship with this country. That would be confusing for them and for others, and there is already a system for asylum seekers.  

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

Has the Minister covered my point about visitors' visas that are issued for six months? If somebody is going to stay for three weeks but the entitlement is six months, one will never know whether they are here for three weeks or five and a quarter months unless embarkation controls are reintroduced. What is the practicality of the period of three months?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I endeavoured to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I may have dealt with it in passing and in not enough detail. The norm in Europe is to grant visitors visas for three months. The United Kingdom is an exception, and has been historically. We are looking in the context of European legislation at falling into line with the rest of Europe. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our e-borders project, which in the fullness of time will give us the embarkation information that he and I believe will provide significant security on our borders, and information on people's movements. The register will not stand alone, and we are moving in a direction with our knowledge of people's movements that I think he would find appropriate.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

We have had a characteristically helpful if not comprehensive response from the Minister, but given that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out 'or'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

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 Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

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   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.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

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   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 Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

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 Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

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.'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert  

'(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 Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

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 Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

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 Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

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   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.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I have never understood the Data Protection Act. The only time when it has applied to me is when I have rung up Orange to ask about my daughter's telephone bill and they have not told me about it even though she has asked me to ring; that is the usual story.What kind of information might there be about me that has been modified and that is so sensitive that I cannot be told about it?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I venture to suggest that, as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, the exceptions to the Data Protection Act would not apply. I cannot imagine that it would be practicable for anyone who held information on him to notify him of that. It is also unlikely that the exception to the obligation to notify that relates to national security and prevention of detection of crime would apply to him. I cannot envisage any of the exceptions applying to his circumstances. However, I do not think I know him intimately enough to be sure that that is correct.

Clause 2(5) allows the Secretary of State to modify information where he is satisfied that it is inaccurate or incomplete. Amendment No. 16 would require us to notify a person of the details of any modification, and amendment No. 162 would require that, before any modification could take place, the person to whom that relates would be notified in writing and would have the chance to make representations before such corrections could be made.

It should be remembered that, generally speaking, a modification will take place because an individual has told the Secretary of State or the register of a change of details, as he may be required to do under regulations made under clause 12, which we will come on to in due course. In such cases, we will have processes to ensure that we are satisfied that the information provided is correct, which would include ensuring that the information was provided by the correct individual. We would confirm with the individual that the updated information has been recorded.

All applicants will have data subject access rights under the Data Protection Act, and we are looking at ways of ensuring that an individual will be able to read his or her card and register entry easily. For example, we may be able to offer a service whereby an individual could read the information held in his entry securely via the internet or public service kiosks.

For all those reasons, the amendments are unnecessary and inappropriate, and I ask for them to be withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I think that they are all very appropriate and necessary. I see that my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and for Newark, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, are all present. We are at full strength, in total contrast to those on the Government Benches, which are so severely depleted that I am tempted to press the amendment to a Division. The result would be extremely close, and I simply want to place that on the record. Of course, a time will come when my party's superior numbers will count, although that might not be the case at this precise moment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'is' to 'under'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in page 3, line 13, leave out from 'information' to end of line 14.

No. 163, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert

'save where requested to do so by the individual concerned.'.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

These amendments continue on the same theme. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 seek to correct drafting errors that have crept in. We are dealing with entries in the register that have been found to be inaccurate, but somehow the legislation says that the Secretary of State is not under a duty to correct them. I am sure that the intention was that the Secretary of State should have a duty to correct them, following the rights and responsibilities line; if the Secretary of State has the right to ask for the data, he should have the responsibility of ensuring that it is kept accurate.

Amendment No. 163 is another probing this whole area of ensuring that the interaction between the citizen and the Secretary of State as data controller for the national register is satisfactory, if there is such an interaction. I would be particularly interested if the Minister referred to subject access requests under the Data Protection Act. This is a horrible area of the law, but the principle is simple: if data is held about someone, they have a right to see that data.

There is a concern that with the national identity register the Secretary of State may seek to invoke some exemptions, which are permissible under the Data Protection Act—exemptions to do with the prevention and detection of crime, security and so on. It would be helpful to know the Minister's expectations clearly. A subject access request is how one would technically describe me getting my data off the register over the internet. With the kind of request the Minister has just described, securely over the internet—which some experts would say was on oxymoron—or from a public kiosk, is the normal expectation that for a subject access request the data will be supplied in virtually all circumstances? Is there an intention to invoke any of the exemptions in the Data Protection Act for those normal kinds of subject access requests?

Mr Chris Mole (Ipswich, Labour)

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it will be necessary to exclude from that the information that is held about access to the card, where the Government are seeking to ensure that there is no fraud around the application for and use of the card? Somebody might try to identify the information that would allow them to circumnavigate the security the Government were putting in place.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

It is good to hear from the hon. Gentleman. If those on the Government Benches are depleted in numbers, they are clearly still awake and are going to make up for that depletion with the quality of their contribution.

My assumption would be the more data the better. Potentially, the harm that could be caused by inaccurate data in the register is so significant. We have other examples of it. Criminal Records Bureau checks have been cited as a very real example of where inaccurate data have caused harm to individuals in the context of job applications. With this register, we can multiply that by several factors. If I went to one Government agency and was refused a service and it turned out that that was because they had found a record in a database of a check by another Government agency, I would want to know about it. I think that I would have the right to know.

It is important that we test this area, even if it means talking about this so-unloved piece of legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998. The principles are important, and they can be applied here. The presumption for me as a citizen is that I have the right to as much access as possible. I have the right to ensure that the data are corrected if errors have crept in because of things done by the Secretary of State or his representatives.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The discussion follows on from our discussion of clause 2(5). Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 place a duty on the Secretary of State to modify information if he is satisfied that it is inaccurate or incomplete, and would remove any discretion as to whether the Secretary of State would be required to do so. On the face of it, these amendments seem very sensible, but there are reasons why I cannot accede to them. As an alternative, amendment No. 163 would add to this clause a requirement for the Secretary of State to modify the information recorded, even if he thinks it inappropriate to do so, if this was requested by the individual.

I do not think these amendments desirable, and I will explain why. The clause as drafted provides that the Secretary of State should have the power to modify an entry but is under no obligation to do so where he considers this inappropriate. That is important as there may be cases where it is not appropriate to modify the information. One of the things that clause 3(3) would allow is the recording of details relating to an individual that are, strictly speaking, deliberately false. For example, the register will include details of individuals on witness protection programmes. If information was provided on such a person, although the Secretary of State would be satisfied that the details provided were inaccurate, we would not consider it appropriate for him to modify the register in that case. Therefore I do not think that the proposed amendments are desirable, because it is clearly desirable that we should be able to protect the identity   of people on such programmes, but still give them access to this particular database and the benefits of being registered on it.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the point the Minister is making on the issue of people on witness protection programmes, and think it very valid. However, amendment No. 163 would help him there in that presumably someone on a witness protection programme would not ask to have the information corrected if that threatened them. That just places the power back in the hands of the individual.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

In actual fact the hon. Gentleman's amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to modify information where he is satisfied that it is inaccurate and incomplete. It may well be that at some stage in the future the hon. Gentleman may want to come back with amendments that are not mutually contradictory, or that do not defeat the objective which he accepts is sensible. We could then look at them. I do not intend in the time that is available to speculate as to what he may want to do.

On amendment No. 163, I do not think it sensible to have a situation whereby, despite the fact that the Secretary of State does not consider it appropriate to modify the entry, he is compelled to do so by the individual to whom the information relates. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all the norms of data access should apply to the register. That means of course that, for example, the record of police access and an ongoing investigation of crime required to be recorded under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 would not be appropriate to disclose under the subject's access request. There would be exemptions to those norms, and we would use them for very sensible and appropriate reasons.

Any person who is unhappy with the Secretary of State's decision not to modify information would, in the way in which this scheme has been constructed, be able to complain to the national identity scheme commissioner. Although I accept he would not have the power to override the Secretary of State or direct him to reverse his decision, the commissioner would be able to examine and report on the way in which he was using his power under the section. That would be a significant compulsion on the Secretary of State not to use the power that I believe is necessary in a way that acted in the continuing interests of the individuals who were on the scheme.

For those reasons I consider the amendments to be undesirable and invite the hon. Members to withdraw them.

Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

For the speedy business of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.