Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 4, line 26, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

I welcome you back to the Chair for yet another day of delight, Mr. Conway.

The amendment will, I hope, be a relatively simple matter to explain, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister will see the sense of what we are saying and will help us with the amendment, which I think is important. Clause 4 deals with the designation of documents for the purposes of registration and the like. The clause says that

''The Secretary of State may by order designate a description of documents for the purposes of this Act.''

What are those documents? Does the provision mean that when one applies for a passport, one has to have an identity card? That would make eminently good sense as the Bill stands. But what other documents are we talking about? Would they include a driving licence, or a shotgun certificate? What documents will require us to register and to have access to an identity card?

Let us take the idea of the shotgun certificate. A fee is required for such a certificate. Would we therefore be required, under the clause, to pay two fees—one for the shotgun certificate and one for the identity card? I should be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly where the provision starts and stops, and deal in detail with the

''documents which a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department is authorised or required to issue otherwise than by virtue of provision so made.''

To clarify, we are suggesting a simple amendment that would add a subsection (3) saying that the Secretary of State must not make an order unless a draft of it is laid before Parliament and is approved by both Houses. That strikes me as being eminently sensible. It will provide a check and will ensure that there is no mission creep—a ghastly phrase—in relation to identity cards. It will ensure that we know precisely how the cards are delineated and that we understand any financial implications of applying for other documents. It will also mean that, in every case, the Secretary of State will be required to explain, first   to the Commons and then to the Lords, exactly what each document means.

Without the amendment, the number of documents designated may begin to proliferate. Each of the documents could mean the start of a Big Brother mentality. If that is not controlled by the Houses of Parliament, we could be allowing a degree of freedom that, in the wrong hands, may be abused and lead us into what most of us would agree are wholly undesirable areas.

To that end, I earnestly suggest that the Minister considers the amendment, which provides a useful safety net in this part of the Bill. It is straightforward common sense that we should have some control over those Ministers or Secretaries of State who are involved in issuing cards and permitting other documents.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that as the amendment is very broad, and as the clause is short, this may be treated as a stand part debate.

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

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Conway.

We are very unhappy with the clause. The amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) would improve it to the extent that Parliament would get the opportunity through the affirmative resolution procedure to debate more fully the orders that the Secretary of State presumably intends to bring in. We are talking about a regular affirmative procedure rather than the super-affirmative procedure, which we were discussing the other day, so I am sure that the Minister could straightforwardly agree to the measure.

The clause is difficult. The documents could be described as Trojan horse documents rather than as designated documents. They are a way of trying to introduce ID cards in a way that is sold to the public as being less painful and that disguises their true costs. The Government have come up with a cunning wheeze that means, ''We know that if we went out there today and said that everyone must get ID cards, that would be a problem, so we will designate classes of documents.'' They originally talked about passports and driving licences and now they seem to be saying that passports only will be involved. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified that.

The Government seem to be saying, ''If we designate these documents and say that everyone who applies for them must get an ID card, somehow it will have gone so far through the population that when we come along with a big stick later on and say that everyone must have them it will be a less painful exercise.'' That opens up a lot of scope for fudge, particularly over the costings. The Government have said that the cost of a biometric passport and ID card package is £85. They will designate the document and say to all of us, ''You have to pay £85 if you want a new passport, part of the cost being for the ID card.'' My fear is that there will be no clarity over which is which. Until ID cards are compulsory, I do not see why I should not have the option to say, ''No, I will just take the biometric passport.'' I accept that if I   come along later and have to get the ID card separately, because the scheme has been brought in on a compulsory basis, that will cost more than if those documents had been issued together, but I do not see why I, as the citizen, should not have that choice.

The designated documents route is a sneaky way of trying to make compulsory what is being described as voluntary. The scheme is neither fish nor fowl, neither voluntary nor compulsory with the clause included. If the clause is to be included and the legislation passed, it would be far more appropriate not to designate any documents and to accept that the Passport and Records Agency could offer the ID card as an option to people who are applying for a passport. It could be a genuinely voluntary scheme with the warning that if people come along later and want to get an ID card separately, it may cost them more than having got the package together. Let us leave the package as a voluntary option and not fudge things.

As we have said throughout, from a good governance and good order point of view there are some huge dangers of cost creep—if not mission creep. The Minister has said with a slightly nervous smile that the scheme is the largest of its kind ever to be attempted. We believe that it will prove to be extremely challenging. The people who did the assessment of the technology for the Government said that the use of three biometrics is potentially hugely expensive and, again, has not been trialled anywhere.

We think that the costs will grow out of all proportion. It will not lead to a good governance situation if they then get wrapped up and disguised in Passport and Records Agency costs. It would be far better to keep matters separate. In a sense, the designated documents route is a way of conning the public into accepting something that they might not accept if it were presented as a separate package.

I caution against allowing the clause to stand part of the Bill, but if that is to happen, I hope that the slight improvement that has been offered by the hon. Gentleman will be agreed to. When we discuss whether or not to designate a passport, I hope we will have the opportunity to do that through the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. I support the amendment.

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

It is as well to understand exactly what the clause says and what we are expected to approve this morning. It quite plainly says that the Secretary of State can by order—that is not parliamentary scrutiny—designate a document. Anyone who applies for such a document has to apply for an ID card at the same time. The restriction in the clause is that the document that the Secretary of State can designate has to be one that

''a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of provision made by or under an enactment''.

Those are interesting words.

The amendment, which we feel strongly about, has two purposes. First, it aims to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to consider the Home Secretary's proposals by way of designation. Secondly, it aims to   tease from the Government exactly what documents they not only have in mind, but may have in mind as time goes by.

That brings me to the first essential question. Does the Minister have any idea exactly how many documents there are in our society that fall within the description of

''a document that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of a provision made by or under an enactment''?

I am sure that the list of such documents is endless. We obviously have the passport, which we understand about, but the references made so far to function creep are very relevant under this clause. What about the driving licence? Can the Minister say something about that as well? But there are many other documents, which, in my judgment, are issued by an authority pursuant to an enactment, and which could, strictly speaking, come within the ambit of this clause. For example, what about a birth or marriage certificate?

I assume, by the way, that we are talking about copy documents as well as original documents. There is no reference here whatever to the documents being limited to original documents. The clause relates simply to anyone applying for a document, which brings me on to my next point. Under this clause, the person may be applying for such a document on behalf of someone else.

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

The hon. Gentleman explains the case well and brings my mind to national insurance number cards, which are issued to all 16-year-olds. The Bill as it is leaves a gaping hole, whereby ID cards could effectively be made compulsory under this clause simply by making the NI number card a designated document, which would be issued to 16-year-olds, the people to whom the Government intend to issue ID cards.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We must pause to refer to the explanatory notes, which plainly say:

''If a document is designated, anyone applying for one.''

There is no reference anywhere to applying for a passport in one's own name, which brings me to a few questions. I assume that a death certificate is, for example,

''a document that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of a provision made by or under an enactment.''

It plainly is such a document, and so is a copy of a death certificate. The purpose of the Committee is to put forward perhaps extreme examples and ask the Minister whether they could be covered by this clause or not. If they are not to be covered, where does it say that they are not covered? If, for example, I apply for a copy of a death certificate as a lawyer, on behalf of a deceased client, I am an individual applying for a document. Is it impossible for the death certificate or copy to be designated? I might be applying for such as an individual executor or a family member. I might not have a card. Could I be trapped by this clause?

Clearly only official-type documents will be designated—documents

''that a person has a power or duty to issue.''

Let us look at one or two other areas to reinforce the same point. There are a number of official documents that have to be issued by a court upon request or it has a power to issue them if it so chooses. I will not go through them in detail, but I suggest that documents such as county court judgments, or charge sheets issued by the police upon application by the defendant or by his lawyer, could fall within the clause. The list could be endless.

The purpose of our amendment is twofold. First, could the Minister be explicit on the issue of the volume and scope of documents that might be designated? Would they include or could they include officially certified copies of such documents? Could anyone applying—not for his or her own benefit but in the course of a professional duty—be caught under this wording? The Minister has much to say about that.

The second and perhaps more important purpose is because of the very wide-ranging nature of the clause itself. Will proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses be required before any designation takes place?

Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour)

Having discovered that I was on this Committee rather late, I have not been able to attend all its sittings so far, and I apologise for that. Being opposed in principle to identity cards, I find the Committee quite difficult anyway. It is just tinkering—making slight amendments that in no way change the fundamental issue. I have yet to be convinced of the need for identity cards, though admittedly I have not been here all the time.

However, I support the amendment. If we are going to go down this road, the more parliamentary scrutiny the better. The Minister said that people who were against identity cards made sweeping statements, yet we have heard a lot of sweeping statements from those in favour of them. The issue is about making sure that, as a country, we harmonise more with the rest of Europe, so that in the long term we can find different ways of integrating our justice systems. I do not want to go down that road, but, where we have the opportunity to do so, we must ensure that Parliament has a detailed look at any aspect that goes further in making citizens, or subjects, of this country end up in the longer term with a compulsory document. That is why I support the amendment.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

This is the first time I have served on a Home Office Bill, so I apologise if I am not immediately familiar with the culture of such occasions. I am a simple journalist, not a lawyer. I always thought that an advantage, but I realise that view may not be in vogue.

I want clarification, having thought about the documents in my wallet. I have my passport, my international driving licence, a vaccination certificate to go with my passport, my senior citizen's rail pass, a bus pass issued by the Harrogate and district bus service and my freedom pass, which I have just   acquired. I am proud to have achieved the age to receive that. I had thought the age had no advantages but now discover it is financially advantageous. In future, how many of those documents could be issued to me without registration for an identity card?

Secondly, what will happen if I am resident abroad and need to renew or obtain a passport—for example, if I were resident in Mogadishu or Ulan Bator and the passport was for a child? Both countries have British embassies, if the Government have not closed them down yet. If I must also go through a procedure to get an identity card or register, how long will it take? What will the procedures be at a remote British overseas post that can issue passports to fulfil also the requirements for registration? Will there be an interminable delay?

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

I rise to make my point now, lest I forget it when I respond to this short debate. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and all Committee members that although it is the Government's intention to designate passports, it will not be all passports. For example, the measure will not apply to passports for children under 16, nor to passports issued abroad.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

That is an important point, which I was about to raise. One of my granddaughters was born on 16 June. She went to France at the beginning of July and was required to have a passport and a passport photo. I never figured out the purpose of the rather incoherent blob on the page, nor what sort of identification it provided. I am glad that she did not also have to apply for her documents at that stage, as remembering where she lived might have provided some difficulty—even for somebody as outstandingly clever and well endowed with a good genetic inheritance as she.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

On the subject of genetic inheritance, I call Mr. Clifton-Brown.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

I do not know what that is supposed to mean, Mr. Conway, but there we are. I am sure it has the right, rather than the wrong, connotations.

I make one brief point to the Minister. Citizens are supposed to know—although how I am not entirely sure—about far too many enactments of bits of legislation. The other day, I came across an example involving the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 that someone was supposed to know about just because information about their land was posted on the internet. To my mind, that is not adequate notification by Departments that somebody is subject to particular legislation. My point to the Minister is very simple: it is very important that this proposal be debated in Parliament, so that whenever there is a change it is given publicity and citizens know about it. How could they otherwise?

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

You invited Committee members to treat this as a clause stand part debate, Mr. Conway, and encouraged them to be wide-ranging in their comments. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) took you at your word and appears to have moved us on to debating his amendments to   clause 5. I could deal with clause 5 in more depth in the context of whether being put on the register ought to be optional, which is one point he made. However, he has tabled a specific amendment to clause 5 to deal with that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) also took you at your word, Mr. Conway, and made very general comments. Interestingly, in her preamble she referred to the number of general statements made on both sides of the argument; she then made the most generalised criticism of ID cards that I have heard. She is to be congratulated on taking us into another realm. Nothing could be further from my mind, or those of other Ministers with whom I have spoken, than bringing us into line with the rest of the European Union in this context. That has not been my thinking, nor would I deploy such an argument. I would be proud to deploy it if it were part of my thinking—I would be happy to debate it with her and would not run away from it—but it is not.

Let me make some general observations on the clause so that Committee members get a clearer understanding of the Government's approach to the issue. Clause 4 will provide a mechanism for individuals to apply for an ID card when they apply for a designated document. That will be compulsory, and we shall deal with that issue in more depth. Since I became responsible for this area of public policy, I have been clear in my public statements and during debates that the ID card scheme is compulsory.

The first criticisms that I came across were that we would need primary legislation for an ID card scheme, that the mechanism for moving to full compulsion was inappropriate and that there would be no debate in the context of primary legislation about compulsion. My response was that there would be such a debate during discussions on the Bill. If we did not have that debate during those discussions, we would not have had it at the appropriate time. Nobody should vote for the ID card scheme unless they understand that it is compulsory. Let us put the debate out in the open and discuss the matter to make it easier for hon. Members to understand why it is progressing in such a way.

It is logical and sensible to progress in such a fashion because of the scale of the challenge to put the compulsory ID scheme into operation. That should be done incrementally and at a point at which the operation of the scheme has the confidence of the public so that we can return to Parliament and move to full compulsion. Let us be under no illusion that the Government intend to bring in a compulsory ID scheme; there is no stealth, no dishonesty and no masking of such a proposal.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he was in the middle of developing his argument. Before he completely passes on from his response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, I want him to reassure the Committee now that the exercise has nothing to do with European convergence, that it is not minded in that way and that it is not set in that form. If the Bill has merit—on which my jury is still out, by the way—it is the proper supervision of the sovereignty of the   nation and its good and efficient governance. If it brings good order to my country, I shall continue to take an interest in it. If it is part of European convergence, I may go a different way.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Before the Minister replies, the remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall in the European context were made almost as a throwaway rather than a long-standing contribution to the debate, so I urge Members not to be tempted down the road of European convergence, which is not specific to this measure. This is a point that the Minister will want to deal with at some stage, but I would rather that he did not do so while we are debating the clause.

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

Thank you, Mr. Conway, for your helpful advice. I wish to respond to the intervention by saying that the hon. Gentleman can have the reassurance he seeks.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister said, significantly, that it is the Government's intention to make identity cards compulsory. Is it also their intention to make it compulsory to carry identity cards?

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

As the hon. Gentleman should know, there is a measure that provides for the opposite by saying that it cannot be made compulsory to carry the cards. It has never been the Government's intention to make that compulsory. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam explained to some degree why that is not necessary and why we do not need to go down that route, with all the civil liberty implications of the compulsion to carry. In any event, people carry their biometrics. If people are in such a position that the police or the authorities are entitled under other legislation to establish their identity, they will have their biometrics with them and the register will allow their proper identification, if necessary.

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

Following on from that last point, the Minister has been frank in saying that the scheme will be compulsory. Does he not recognise the sheer logic of saying that if it is compulsory to have a card it must follow, as night follows day, that it should be compulsory to carry it and to produce it on request, or the compulsion in having a card will be utterly watered down?

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

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I fundamentally disagree. For the scheme to be effective, it is unnecessary to require people to carry the cards or, worse, to have to produce them on request. That would be an invasion of civil liberties and is the way to create an environment in which all the worst excesses that people attribute to the scheme, which it is deliberately designed to preclude, could creep into the society in which we live. It is unnecessary.

As I constantly repeat in these debates, if we must have a discussion on the powers that the police should have, it should be held in the context of police powers, not in the context of an ID card scheme that is designed to provide a method of giving a gold standard of identification to individuals, protecting their identity and protecting us in relation to the purposes set out in the Bill.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

That refers to production on request, but the Minister said earlier that part of the purpose of   registration is to ensure that people do not seek employment if they are not entitled to be employed. Presumably, therefore, a would-be employer is entitled to ask for evidence that somebody is employable, which will be carried on the identity card or will be registered. Equally, there is a long clause about the delivery of public services. Presumably, somebody who is delivering public services is entitled to ask whether there is proof of entitlement to them.

If I am stopped by the police and they ask to see my driving licence, I think I am right in saying that I can produce it at a police station of my choice within two weeks.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. I do not like to be a restrictive Chairman, but we are going far from the nature and definition of the clause. Perhaps hon. Members will have this discussion when we get to clause 8, and I am sure it will be in order to do so. However, we are pre-empting later debates that the Committee will want to explore.

I realise that these are important matters—I do not deny that—but they do not relate specifically to the clause, so I must insist that the Committee return to the concept of the clause. The compulsion aspects will be relevant when we get to clause 8 or another part of the Bill.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. That is most helpful.

My question is this: if people do not have to carry a document, do they have to give an assurance that they possess it? If they possess it, can they say, ''I invite someone to call next Thursday at 3.30 pm and I will show it''? That sounds absurd, but we are in a curious Catch-22 situation in which people might be required to have a document, but are not required to demonstrate that they have it, even though certain services can be obtained only if they have it. I am confused.

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

The purpose of this Committee is to try to reduce confusion and give explanations on behalf of the Government, which is my job as a Minister. I am happy to do that to the extent that I am able. I will endeavour to assist Committee members within the confines of the relevance of the debate. I shall quickly reply to the right hon. Gentleman's helpful remarks, as that will allow me to reiterate something that I have said in public on a number of occasions. Then I shall deal with the amendment and make some comments on the clause.

The current position is that in all the activities that the right hon. Gentleman identified, those people who provide the activities, or opportunities for employment, are required to establish the identity of the person to whom they are provided. Indeed, one Government—I think he was a Minister at the time—enacted legislation requiring employers to do just what he suggests employers will be required to under the Bill. That Government willed the way by saying that employers had to establish who people were and whether they were entitled to work, because there was   concern about illegal working, but they did not give employers the means to do that.

The scheme will give us—due to technological developments and the coincidence of the fact that we will be collecting biometrics in relation to a substantial proportion of the population for international travel documents and passports—the opportunity to make that step towards a system for proving people's identity to a proper, secure standard. For the first time ever, there will be a gold-plated means for people to prove who they are in all relevant circumstances.

The scheme will create that opportunity and then create opportunities for those who provide public services appropriately to designate through regulation the incremental use of that scheme and of the cards in other areas. That does not seem to be so difficult. In fact, we operate on the basis that we are not giving the police extra powers, subject to one or two minor qualifications that we discussed when we last debated these issues. We are not creating extra powers for anybody; we are just creating additional opportunities. However, this scheme will regulate the exercise of existing powers through regulation. We will address that matter later.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Will a penalty be entailed in terms of not being able to access a service if I choose not to demonstrate the existence of an identity card or similar document?

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

That will be a matter for consideration in the context of any future regulations that might be made on the use of cards for proof of identity in order to access services, rather than in this context.

Clause 4 is the key to the delivery of the ID card scheme because it provides a mechanism by which individuals can be brought into the scheme. An application for a designated document will, in effect, trigger an application for an ID card. The issuing procedures are set out in detail in clause 8, but the designation of a document must precede any of the procedures where the ID card is issued together with, or as part of, a designated document. A stand-alone card could be issued by the Secretary of State under clause 8 without any documents being designated.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggests that the advantage of proceeding in this way is that it provides a stealthy means of compulsion. That is not the case; I am absolutely open about the position in relation to compulsion. The advantage is that there are already established processes with high levels of security for issuing certain designated documents such as passports and residence permits, and those processes will form the basis of the work of the ID cards delivery agency; for passports, there will shortly be the collection of biometrics in any case. Roll-out will be incremental as people come to apply for, or renew, documents—or, in the case of foreign nationals, arrive to stay in the UK for more than three months. In that way, the problems associated with a ''big bang'' approach can be minimised. We can do a number of things. We can incrementally build the register and the database, and the confidence of the people of the UK in the system, before finally moving   to full compulsion by a process that we will debate in due course.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister said something very important when he referred to anyone who is in the UK for over three months. Does that apply to people from all European Union countries, including southern Ireland?

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

It applies to everyone who is resident in the UK.

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

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

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   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.

Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour)

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

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 David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

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.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

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.  

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

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

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

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.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

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

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.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

I take that point. I am sure that we will return to discuss the matter at a later stage. The logic still defeats me, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to illuminate me at that later stage. As a result of the discussions about the common travel area and, in particular the interventions by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and for Sheffield, Hallam, I think we have had a taste of what will come up in the future.

Mr John Taylor (Solihull, Conservative)

I think my hon. Friend was nearly at the end of his remarks, but will he join me in noting that the Minister graciously anticipated a Government amendment on the remaining stages to meet his amendment? I would like it to be on record that it will be a Government amendment. That is crucial because, as we all know, an Opposition amendment could well get stifled by the guillotine that will operate on the remaining stages. Will he reassure himself that the Minister will table a Government amendment to meet his requirement?

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which as usual sheds light and clarity on the situation. The remarks that I was about to make were exactly that the Minister has generously and graciously said that he will table a Government amendment to make the clause that much clearer. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Before I put the question on the clause, I realise that it has been a fairly frustrating debate for some Committee members. However, when we get to clauses 6 and 8 there will be an opportunity to raise their concerns.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.