Clause 5 - Applications relating to entries in Register
Identity Cards Bill
10:00 am
Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
Yes. We will know who those people are, because, as we established in an earlier debate, the Government will have a huge amount of data on them in other databases. Their only defining feature, in my understanding, is that they are people who do not have passports. Again, that is where the cost issues may come into it. It is more likely that elderly people and those on lower incomes will not have passports or will have not applied for them. Therefore, they will be subject to the clause 6 compulsion. I am sure that we will debate that in detail later.
It is important that the separation of costs is clearly set out and that we know whether there is cross-subsidy in the passport system between the passport applications and the ID card system. We may end up with a situation in which those who apply for passports today and over the next few years will subsidise the free or discounted ID cards for those who are brought in under clause 6. That might be a proper policy for the Government to set out, but they need to be explicit. I fear that there is, again, a complete lack of transparency.
It would be helpful to know whether there will be full cost recovery. The Government's regulatory impact assessment says that all the money for setting up the scheme will be recovered from people who are applying. The clause and the Government's procedures clearly define a set of people who will pay for the setting up of the scheme: those who are applying for passports now. We must be clear whether all the costs will be recovered.
I want to advance the case for the amendment both specifically and in terms of saying that there should be a voluntary extension. This debate has given rise to a question: why have the Government not advanced a policy that says that getting the 80 per cent. of people who will have biometric passports on to the system correctly should be the priority? The passport database and those documents that have a defined specific purpose—making it possible for a citizen to travel—would be available to the law enforcement agencies for their purposes under all the normal procedures and with all the normal safeguards. Therefore, why has the focus not been on getting biometric passports sorted out? It should be recognised that that would cover 80 per cent. of the population? Perhaps there could be a voluntary ID card scheme for people who do not want to have a passport and who want the convenience of an ID card. However, we should not go to all the hassle, expense and fuss of coming up with this all-encompassing, all-singing, all-dancing scheme.
We should allow the Passport and Records Agency to do its work issuing passports to citizens. We should get that sorted out and deal with the challenges that it will have to face, which are big enough on getting biometric passports right. Should that not be a higher priority? Our amendment would allow it get the passports right while accepting that the only people who would go on to the ID card system are those who choose to do so voluntarily. Going for the solution that the Government have set out is overkill.