Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 80, in clause 5, page 5, line 12, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself'.

No. 152, in clause 9, page 8, line 28, after 'allow', insert 'all of'.

No. 97, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 98, in clause 12, page 11, line 2, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 106, in clause 14, page 13, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 107, in clause 14, page 13, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).

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

On behalf of those on the Opposition Benches, may I offer you, Ms Anderson, the warmest of welcomes to the Chair and all our best wishes? I hope that I can be forgiven for saying that our earlier debates have been constantly good humoured, which is always a bonus. We are delighted to see you in the Chair.

The amendment that was being referred to is the critical one in relation to biometrics and the Government's capability to carry out their functions under the clause in a mechanical way. I had rehearsed the arguments and was just concluding my remarks. I was saying to the Minister that it would be helpful if he could, subject to the normal rules of commercial confidentiality, give some indication about which great players in the field might take under their wing this huge enterprise of the technical side of creating the register. I also wanted to know what some of the considerations might be.

I do not think that I am breaching any confidential commerciality when I say that I have received a briefing from one of those who briefed this Committee saying that a company called Atos has reportedly expressed interest in running the national scheme. Two other major providers of outsourced services, Capita, which runs the London congestion charge scheme, and Serco, which runs the UK's ballistic missile tracking   and warning system are understood to be cautious about bidding for the contract. Misgivings are believed to relate to security, civil liberties and reputational risk.

I simply ask the Minister to tell us as much as he can on that very important area which came under the second test, to which I referred earlier. Although amendment No. 152 is not the lead one, subject to any guidance from the Chair and depending on the way the debate goes, I might seek to press the matter to a Division later in the day.

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

I join in welcoming you to the Chair, Ms Anderson. Things have been light-hearted so far. The proceedings have been extremely efficient, and I have no doubt that they will continue in the same vein.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is not in his place, because a number of his interventions in earlier debates were telling. He expressed grave concern about the need for identity cards being associated with needs other than those purely of counter-terrorism. He mentioned control of illegal immigration, assistance to track down criminals who are about to commit, or are in the execution of, serious crimes, and money laundering.

Terrorism and all those subjects are inextricably linked. That is why I want to echo the words of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). He talked about the need for two tests, as exemplified by amendment No. 152. The first is whether the biometrics of the card will work. The second is whether the Government, and, therefore, the Home Office, can put these things in place.

I will not talk about biometrics, but about previous examples where technology has either failed or been introduced too early. I will use historic examples, because that is what I am familiar with. I am not talking about biometrics, but the technology in question was the biometrics of the day. I am talking about the Northern Ireland driving licence, which was used as a form of identity card in Ulster in the '70s, the '80s and indeed the '90s. We were promised that the card would help considerably in countering terrorism. I mentioned in an earlier debate how the card came to be seen more as a pass than anything else, perhaps abetting terrorism rather than countering it.

There were practical issues with the biometrics of the day—namely, the technology of the day—which made sure that the card did not work. First, the card was extremely shoddily produced—it was not waterproof. That meant that after two or three exposures to the driving rain of Ulster the thing started to fall to pieces. Secondly, the licence was desperately easily faked. The photograph contained inside it could be levered out, replaced with another and sealed up in such a way that the card became completely meaningless. Again, that assisted terrorism rather than thwarted it.

Are the biometrics on the card that the Government are talking about going to be successful? Again I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made—when are we going to indulge in biometrics? Are we going to wait   for them to be perfect or are we going to use them now? I thought that that was a persuasive argument. The fact remains that we must not try to use a technology of biometrics which is in any way less than feasible, if not perfect. If we do, the scheme will be worse than useless. If we do, we will be making a stick with which to beat ourselves rather than an asset for our security forces.

Let me give another example. Again, I am talking about the use of technology to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the late '80s it was decided that a plate checker would be introduced for service, a piece of technology that would assist by automatically reading the number plates of cars as they passed through permanent vehicle checkpoints. It was introduced prematurely; it did not work. It did not work to the detriment of that particular brand of terrorism. Cars were able to pass unchecked. Plates were easily faked. The terrorists became used to what was required of the plate checker. In other words, the technology—for which we might substitute biometrics—was not up to it.

On the point about fingerprints mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), serious and organised crime in Ukraine has put a finger—forgive the pun—on the fact that fingerprints can be removed. The process is painful, but can be done. If we are going to have fingerprints on the card, then all eight fingerprints will have to be on there, as discussed. At this point, are we in a position to say that biometrics are useful, that we can make them work and underlie the utility of this card?

Secondly, there are the logistics of the card. We have had many examples so far showing how difficult it will be to get software and other computer programmes physically to ensure that these cards are correctly configured and distributed.

Sticking to the subject of terrorism, the Government told us last year that households were going to be warned about the threat of terrorism and how to cope with that threat. A leaflet to tell every household was produced. There are 1.5 million households that have yet to receive that leaflet—that is 1.5 million households that have yet to understand what message the Government are trying to put across. That is relatively simple stuff.

What chance do we have of ensuring that such technical details for identity cards—with all the biometrics required on them—are going to be feasible? I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those two challenges, in terms not only of the technical aspects that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and a number of my hon. Friends have outlined so clearly, but of the straightforward, practical elements of historical examples that I have seen fail.

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

I add my warm welcome to that of the hon. Members for Woking and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), Ms Anderson, and I look forward to this afternoon's sitting under your guidance. I am sure that our sittings will continue to be as good humoured   and inquisitive as they have been until now, and hopefully we will make significant progress on the work before us this afternoon.

As I expected, we have had a wide-ranging debate on these amendments about a number of issues to do with biometrics. In the spirit of my contributions thus far, I shall seek to respond to the degree that I can, subject to the general caveat that if I am unable to give detailed information that is available to be given, I will ensure that it is provided to Committee members at some time in future.

In essence the contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam raised a question of principle: why are we planning to have a biometric identity card scheme? The answer is twofold. First, the international developments, which were alluded to in interventions and responses during the course of our short debate, mean that there is a move towards document security through the introduction of biometrics. We in Britain have already agreed to be part of that drive and development across the world, and that process has the support of all the parties represented in this Committee and the House. For example, the introduction of a facial image biometric in British passports starts in about a year.

The inclusion of fingerprint biometrics in visas, which has already started, means that we need to develop biometric enrolment for other purposes. The United States US Visit biometric scheme is already in operation and means that every British citizen who wants to visit the US will need to enrol their fingerprints in anticipation of it. That measure does not affect British citizens immediately, but it will progressively do so. A substantial number of British citizens travel between the UK and the US.

Secondly, the inclusion of biometrics will allow a step change to be made in our ability to identify individuals precisely and to combat identity fraud. That means that we will be able to prevent people enrolling on the system twice and that the biometric will help to link the person to an established identity when using public services, or in commercial transactions. I use the term ''established identity'' carefully, because although the biometric is important, we need to consider its use in the context of the whole scheme. We need to combine that technology with reliable checks on an individual's identity to ensure that the identity established is the true one. That is why I am contextualising the debate. We could debate the possible flaws of biometrics in any number of circumstances until the cows come home. However, most importantly, and as the Bill spells out, the scheme is designed to operate on the basis that the biometrics are collected personally from the individual who is present. Checks will circumvent a lot of peoples' concerns about biometrics, and all the problems that others can identify will be overcome, because the person will be present and the biometrics will be taken by a trained operator.

The hon. Member for Woking quoted the National Physical Laboratory report on the use of biometrics, which is a substantial document of about 38 pages which has, appropriately, been published. That report   was commissioned by the Government to inform the discussion and to lead to informed decisions that needed to be made. It would have been inappropriate for anyone to quote from it at length, because we can all read. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to it, but, of necessity, if we choose one or two sentences from it, they must be contextualised.

The report was produced specifically for the Home Office, the UK Passport Service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to consider the feasibility of using biometrics as a means of establishing a unique identity. My argument is that the report answers many of the question asked by hon. Members about the feasibility of the use of biometrics. It concludes that, in principle, fingerprint or iris recognition can provide the identification performance required for the unique identification of the entire population. I stand by that conclusion and pray it in aid in support of the argument for continuing down such a route.

The report recognised that the system would be groundbreaking, certainly in scale and for the United Kingdom. It would be one of the largest biometric schemes to date. The report recognised the differences between a scheme for general civil application and one that was used for storing criminal data, which is the difference between the existing fingerprint database to which the police refer constantly and what is proposed under the Bill. It acknowledged that there would be cost implications, especially because of the need for personal enrolment and interaction to collect the data securely.

The National Physical Laboratory recommended that we undertake a large-scale biometrics enrolment trial. We did exactly that, which is why the Government set up the UK Passport Service biometric enrolment trial of some 10,000 people. The collection of data has recently finished. The trial tested the process of enrolling biometrics and customer experience with different user groups. The report is not available yet, not even in shortened form, but its principal conclusions will be published later.

One of the initial messages that we have gleaned from the trial is that the volunteers saw no particular problem with enrolling three biometrics and, if they were enrolled at the same time, the cost of so doing would clearly not be three times the cost of enrolling a single biometric—the implication of the short arithmetic of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam when he suggested that the cost would be £500 million or £50 million to collect a biometric, but that it might cost three times that sum to collect three.

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

In the spirit of fairness and contextualisation to which the Minister referred, he should have said that I said, ''and, if the Government are arguing that it would not cost three times, it would be helpful to know the incremental cost when it goes from one biometric, to two biometrics and then to three.''  

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

To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did say that. I am not in a position at this stage to give him a response. We are carrying out the steps that were suggested by the report that has been prayed in aid by others as an appropriate way in which to proceed.

During the procurement stage of the scheme, we will examine systems and supplier examination to compare the technology available. Perhaps I should now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Woking about which companies might be carrying out such work. We have yet to enter the procurement phase of the scheme, but the companies mentioned are known as IT integrators, such as Atos and Serco, and those that we would expect to express an interest or to consider whether they should be interested in such matters. I have no way of knowing the source of the quotation that was produced by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it was the result of an after-dinner conversation or a publication. For understandable reasons, I have no direct communication with any of those companies. I reassure members of the Committee that I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I will not have. I have no way of knowing their views and whether they will be interested in such work.

To my knowledge, several IT integrators and smaller companies specialise in biometrics. Some of them are spin-off companies from universities. From my knowledge of the university of Glasgow, I know that at least one company operates in the area. It is a spin-off from research undertaken at the university. I know of that company because I was a student there. I am sure that Committee members who have contact with other universities will know of similar companies throughout the country.

It would not be right at this stage to respond to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman. We have gone to significant lengths to ensure that the whole procurement process and the advice that the Government take is known and understood. The system that we operate will be transparent. As a Government, we have taken advice. We are being advised by PA Consulting, and we have set up a special Government biometrics group chaired by the chief scientific adviser, advised by individual academics and industry experts from the Home Office science and technology reference group and by specialist biometric system consultants. Those involved know full well that the consequence of advising the Government may be that they are disqualified from the procurement process. That has been transparent, and everyone knows that.

I can reassure the Committee that we have taken the best possible advice in this area, in the knowledge that British Governments, and Governments throughout the world, do not have the best track record of delivering IT programmes. We have all learned a lot in the last 10 years or so, and I submit that the Government are getting better at such programmes. There are still some legacy problems from projects and contracts agreed some time ago, but we must admit to the number of significant IT projects and bits of technology that work very effectively every day.

In response to the question of what trials are anticipated or planned, I can say that much larger trails are required fully to test the performance of biometrics for a population the size of the United Kingdom. They will preferably involve more than 1 million individuals. Large-scale testing is envisaged during the early phase of the implementation of the ID card scheme, and will determine the final design of the scheme—as hon. Members would expect us to proceed. That is substantially why it is an enabling Bill. The legislation before the House will enable the scheme to be introduced, but it would be wrong to commit public money to all the further detailed and very expensive testing without the legislation first being in place. That is why the Government are proceeding on this basis, recognising that it needs to be an incremental process.

We also recognise that using biometrics on such a scale is new, but there are programmes already using the technology successfully. The hon. Member for Woking probably mentioned all of them, but I will try to respond to his question with more information. For example, negative matching to avoid multiple identity enrolments is a common feature of existing biometric systems, including, not surprisingly, the police national automated fingerprint identification service. NAFIS holds more than 5 million sets of prints, and more than 500,000 crime scene maps. The asylum seeker application registration card, ARC, uses fingerprint technology for all asylum seekers coming through the asylum screening units in Croydon. Cards are issued with the holder's fingerprint biometric encoded on a chip in the card. Other examples include the FBI system. That is the largest in the world and contains the fingerprints and criminal history information of more than 47 million subjects. The United Arab Emirates has a database of more than 350,000 iris scans. We are also launching a fast-track immigration clearance system—known, I think, as ''Operation Iris''—using iris recognition technology for foreign nationals who are resident here or are frequent travellers. We are testing that through certain ports of entry.

We have already stated that our best estimates are that the annual cost of issuing biometric passports will be £415 million by 2008. Our best estimate of the additional costs of introducing a biometric ID card   alongside the passport is £85 million, including the cost of recording, matching and storing three types of biometric information.

I say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that that is the best information that I have, and I apologise that it does not answer his desire for better information. I give him an unequivocal undertaking that when we get better information, we will share it. We have no interest in keeping such information to ourselves. If the system is to work, it will need to be introduced incrementally. That incremental process will have consequences, which we will need to share. Principally, the people of the United Kingdom, who will have to pay for this, will have to have faith that the money is being invested appropriately. We will have to come back to Parliament and say, ''Have faith in making the scheme compulsory.'' What would be the purpose of keeping the information secret? There would be none.

It so happens that that is the best information that we have at the moment. There is no other way to dress that up. I would be sorry if Committee members felt that, with that amount of information at this stage, they could not continue in their support. However, I suspect that nobody will withdraw their support because of the presence or otherwise of that information.

As far as further reports on the progress of biometric developments are concerned, we will report back to the Home Affairs Committee, which has been significantly helpful in this process and made a very important contribution during the consultation. We have a duty, beyond that arising from our accountability to Parliament, to keep the Committee informed. It raised some of the better questions about biometrics in the report and it deserves a response. We have a reporting matrix in the Home Office that I check regularly to ensure that we respond as we said we would to all the issues raised by the Committee and that we are still on track to continue to do so. Over and above all that, the identity cards programme is subject to the regular Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Newark, for Woking and for Sheffield, Hallam for making their points so widely on biometrics. I hope that my response, which was intended to deal with the general points that they made, has been sufficient. I now turn to other points that deserve a response.

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

My mind goes back to my amendment and to the article by Philip Johnston in The Daily Telegraph about the need for eight fingerprints. I do not know whether the Government are saying, ''Yes, that is right'', or , ''No, that is wrong.''

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

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should be patient, as amendment No. 152, which he tabled, relates directly to that point. Presumably, that thought engendered that amendment, which I shall respond to specifically. However, I should say that I intend to deal quickly with the amendments because none of the hon. Gentlemen who made contributions   argued them in any detail. I would be wasting the Committee's time if I argued in detail in response to arguments that were not put forward.

I have been asked about what happens in other countries, and I shall give the best information that I can. Our European partners are also considering closely the role that biometrics can play in securing identity. I risk encouraging my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to think that she has at last found the link to creeping integration in Europe that she seeks. Twenty-one of the 25 EU countries have ID cards. That seems to me to provide an unequivocal answer to a question that we may need to address later, which is whether the legislation is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Only the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Latvia do not have identity cards, and we are not alone among them in considering introducing them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking says from a sedentary position that common law countries do not have ID cards. That argument contains a spurious distinction; I do not understand why the people who make it think that it somehow means that identity cards would be unsuitable for this country. We were a common law country during both world wars and we had identity cards then; that did not destroy our common law system. A common law system and identity cards are not incompatible.

That is another of those arguments that people assert and then walk away from, leaving the argument standing as if it were somehow conclusive. They say, ''Common law countries do not have them,'' and they then think, ''I have made my argument, so now I can go.'' I never understand that. To be fair to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, he at least tried to put some flesh on an argument of this nature about written constitutions yesterday, but he is the first person I have ever known attempt that.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Some countries do have identity cards, but they are not necessary compulsory. My wife is a French citizen. She is not domiciled in the United Kingdom, but she is resident here. Many years ago, her identity card expired and she found it impossible to get a new one. She asked whether the authorities would take her passport in evidence. They said that they would not, because it was un titre de transport and not evidence that she existed. When she needed to renew her passport, that was done without identity card evidence being produced. Therefore, the system in France is much more voluntary than that which the Minister has, very honestly, said that he envisages for the UK.

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

I am no expert on the details of identity card systems around the world. I suspect that if the right hon. Gentleman were living with his French-born wife in France rather than being resident in the UK, we might have some questions about whether to give him an identity card under this scheme. I understand the relationship between residence and identity cards.  

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

My wife pays tax in France.

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

The organisation of the right hon. Gentleman's family affairs and whether they are prepared to pay tax in two countries is for them to decide. I make no comment about that.

We could go into greater detail for other purposes about voluntarism and compulsory cards. Some countries have voluntary cards and others have compulsory cards. It is interesting that the concerns that some people express about a creeping process associated with identity cards is not supported by evidence in any countries that have them. Most of the countries that had voluntary cards still have voluntary cards; they did not progress to compulsory cards.

In the EU, 21 out of 25 countries have ID cards. Enhanced security features for passports are a priority for our international partners, and we will launch a British passport incorporating a facial biometric later this year. Across the world, there is a drive for more security. The Italians, the Spanish, the Greeks and the Portuguese already record fingerprints during the identity card issuing process, and some of them record the fingerprint on the card. There is an increasing interest in the role of iris recognition; the Germans are particularly keen to explore that. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are closely examining incorporating biometrics in an identity card. Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany are running visa trials involving biometric registration. EU member states routinely fingerprint asylum seekers. A number of non-European countries also use biometrics: Hong Kong and the Philippines use fingerprint biometrics in their identity cards. Around the world, biometrics are increasingly being used for this purpose.

That sets the importance of the Bill in the appropriate context for the UK in economic terms, because this is a serious opportunity. It would be a dereliction of the Government's duty if we did not play our part in ensuring that we moved at the pace of developments being made across the world. Apart from anything else, there will be increasing opportunities from around the world for companies to develop expertise and sell it on internationally. The UK is constantly accused of being too late in some of those technological areas, but recently we have got much better in that regard, and we should not lose that.

Amendment No. 152 would mean that an individual might be required, for the purposes of renewing a card under clause 9, to allow not just fingerprints and other biometric information about himself to be taken and recorded, but all his fingerprints. The hon. Member for Woking and those who support him should be satisfied that the amendment is not necessary, as we could already require any biometric that the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purposes of verifying the information placed in the register. It is our intention to use not eight but all 10 fingerprints for that purpose. That is how the biometric trial was configured, and that is what we intend for the future, for the obvious reason that that increases security.

It is not surprising that the Government's view is that the hon. Gentleman's amendments would severely limit the benefits of the scheme and represent serious threats to its security. I could go on to explain why, but the hon. Gentleman knows fine well why, because it was his intention that they should. It is the intention of the Government to preserve security and the correlation between biometrics and the information on identity gathered from persons in the way that I explained.

A further consequence of those amendments is worthy of note: they would restrict the incorporation of biometrics of the future in the Bill. The fact is that we accept that this technology, although proven to be effective in large-scale trials and operations, is comparatively young. In future, we may develop biometrics that are superior to, or more convenient than, the best biometrics that we can gather at present. If the Bill were tied to a particular biometric technology, it would not be possible to take advantage of any new technologies without further legislation. That would be an inappropriate and inadvisable position for the Government to allow the scheme to get into.

For all those reasons, an if hon. Members are satisfied that I have responded sufficiently and appropriately to the issues that they have raised, I invite the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw his amendment, which I resist.

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

I join other hon. Members in welcoming you the Chair, Ms Anderson.

I compliment the Minister once again on being sharp enough to rumble the Liberal Democrats' cunning plan to derail the Government's scheme for identity cards. His summing up was interesting, in that he was quite clear that there is still huge uncertainty on the subject. That is why we wanted to debate it in Committee. He set out an interesting additional argument for proceeding with biometrics: the US Federal Government defence spending argument. There has been a long-running debate between British and American hi-tech companies about the fact that that US Government use such spending to shove contracts the way of American companies and give them a boost. Such an argument might be relevant in   the context of the British debate, except that this Government do not offer any certainty that any contract will go to a UK company. Therefore, we do not know where the money will eventually go.

I appreciated the contributions of the hon. Members for Woking and for Newark. They seemed to be arguing for a very old technology maxim—always buy version two. Never buy version one; let other people take the pain. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the point that banks looked at biometrics before coming up with chip and pin as an alternative. That is a helpful example of where the debate needs to go.

I have started to understand that a distinction can be drawn. We could require biometrics for registration, to stop people getting on to the database unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) talked about asylum seekers; perhaps I did him an injustice. I asked who would want to get on to the asylum seeker database. Of course, no British citizen would want to get on it once, but plenty of asylum seekers might want to get on it twice, and that, I think, was his point. I can understand why biometrics might perform a gatekeeper function, but that is distinct from whether or not they will be used at the points of access to public services.

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

I am conscious that I have only just sat down, but the hon. Gentleman reminded me that I did not deal with the issue of chip and pin, which he raised. There is no reason why the ID card cannot use chip and pin. It would use it in addition to biometrics, because there is an obvious vulnerability of chip and pin: people can steal one's pin number.

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

That is a helpful clarification of the sort that we were trying to tease out with the amendments.

There a number of different ways in which the presentation of the card might take place. In a sense, passports contain a biometric—the photo of a face—and we use our eyes to scan whether or not the face matches that of the person. We are moving towards computed biometrics—numeric biometrics rather than the other sort. However, that does not mean that on many occasions the photo identification is not the only one we need and we do not need to bother with all this other stuff.

The concerns remain. The false matches raise concerns about security, because one of the temptations may be to allow people fast access through passport control on the basis of using biometrics, rather than checking them visibly. A false match clearly opens a potential security loophole in that somebody might go through who perhaps should not.

The false non-matches raise different concerns. They are more about one presenting oneself for a service or for access to something, handing over the card, going through the scanning process and the operator looking up and saying, ''The computer says no.'' One might be presented with a situation where one cannot gain access to a service. It might be that one looks like the person on the card but the computer has returned a false negative.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

On a point of order, Ms Anderson. It is a minor point of order, which relates to the Official Report of our debates on Tuesday afternoon. I am quoted as referring to the issue of clarity of purpose. The Official Report goes on to state that I referred to

''words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 2005; c 59.]

I am pretty certain that I said my right hon. Friend the Shadow Home Secretary, by which I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. It is probably not a genuine point of order and I apologise, but, if nothing else, it may enable Hansard to take a note of what I said.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of it.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 5, page 5, line 15, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.

I am simply proposing to the Committee that the Secretary of State should have a requirement imposed on him that any requirements he makes are reasonable. It is wrong for anyone to suggest that they would be unreasonable. I hope I do not get punished later for saying that I do not think that the Home Secretary of this or any other Government would ask us to do something unreasonable.

There is a strict requirement on an individual under that clause. Under later clauses, failure to attend at a specified place and time for fingerprints and photographs to be taken and recorded is punishable. It is a little wide simply to use the words

''otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary of State.''

The Secretary of State should have a test of reasonableness imposed on him—a minor matter, but one that I hope the Government will take on board.

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

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take that point on board. As a matter of fact, public law requires that of the Government. I will explain.

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

I am grateful to the Minister, who has reassured us that the Secretary of State is required under public law to act reasonably. On reflection, that is right. He would be open to judicial challenge if he did not. I felt it might be more helpful to have the word ''reasonably'' in the Bill, but I can see why it is not necessary. We have had a short but useful debate and 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. 81, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State shall make provision for local facilities to satisfy the attendance requirements of subsection (5)(a).

(8) The Secretary of State shall make provision for home visits to people unfit to travel to satisfy the requirements of subsection (5)(a).'.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

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

No. 154, in clause 6, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

'(c) the assistance available with transportation arrangements and costs to vulnerable or disabled individuals required to make an application.'.

No. 99, in clause 12, page 11, line 11, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State shall make provision for local facilities to satisfy the attendance requirements of subsection (5)(a).

(8) The Secretary of State shall make provision for home visits to people unfit to travel to satisfy the requirements of subsection (5)(a).'.

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

These are important amendments. Amendment No. 81 would add to clause 5, which is about the initial requirement to register for the national identity register or, as discussed, the initial requirement to attend a place to give biometric data—now for passport applications. That will have a speedy effect on ordinary citizens in the United Kingdom, even before discussion of any compulsion for the ID register as a whole.

Amendment No. 99 would do the same to clause 12, which deals with the alteration of any data on the database. There are various points at which the citizen may now be required to attend and, in particular, hand over biometric data in person. The Minister has made a case for why that must happen in person. We are, therefore, now considering a process that is quite different from the existing process for a passport application, in which everything can be done remotely. That will impact directly on the citizens of the United   Kingdom, and in considerable numbers. Estimates from the National Physical Laboratory of what we will have to deal with are of between 10,000 and 50,000 applicants per working day.

Subsequent to the passing of the legislation—if that should happen—in the ordinary process of reapplying for United Kingdom passports, we are talking about tens of thousands of people per working day who will have to attend these centres in person. We must get more detail from the Minister about the circumstances under which that will take place.

We are trying to deal with two groups of people with whom we are particularly concerned. Please note that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has put his name to the amendments. One concerns the locality of the places where one might have to register. That is a very significant concern for someone who lives in Orkney and Shetland, and for people in many other areas of the country. Potentially, the costs of applying first for a passport and then for an identity card—which we are requiring by compulsion under threat of a fine—will vary dramatically depending on where someone lives. The Government say the flat fee cost will be £85, though we shall bid them up to some other figure when all the true costs come out. The flat fee cost is also only the start. As I said earlier, a critical question is what time these offices will be open. If they open during working hours, there will be a significant opportunity cost if people have to take time off work to make the journey to the place, remain there—perhaps sitting in a queue—and then come back again. There are also the physical travel costs.

It is important that we tease out whether the Government intend to have a sufficient network so that if somebody in Orkney and Shetland—or elsewhere, such as the Yorkshire dales—applies for a new passport in two or three years' time, they will not be told that the only way to get it is to go to a place that is so distant that it will cost them a lot of time and money.

The Minister referred to the problems of the Passport Agency a few years ago, when the Government's requirement to register babies coincided with the introduction of a new system that caused all kinds of delay. I am sure that all Committee members are aware of the stress that constituents experienced when they were told to go to passport offices as that was the only way to get an emergency passport. People do not like having to travel to get passports; they would much rather go through the normal applications process.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

There is an important analogy here. The hon. Gentleman will recall that last year, when the Government intended that there should be voting by postal ballot only, as indeed took place, they were going to say that in each electoral district just one polling station would remain open so that people could deliver their ballot paper if they wished to do so or the ballot had been posted too late. I, among others, pointed out that there are 900 square miles of Pennines in my constituency and that only one polling station remaining open would be wholly inadequate. The   Government sensibly agreed that far more places to vote should remain open to account for those differences. Passport offices are much rarer than even polling stations, and getting to the passport office in my constituency costs almost as much as buying the passport.

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

The right hon. Gentleman gives a helpful analogy. I enjoy travelling around his constituency on holiday, but I would not were I one of his constituents having to drive across it simply to secure a passport for a planned foreign holiday in a couple of weeks' time, or in a shorter time scale, as there are cases of people needing passports more urgently. Moving everyone to something similar to the emergency passport procedure, with physical attendance being required, will cause great resentment. Locality is a very significant point that the Government need to assure themselves on. My amendments would ensure that the Government had a duty to do so and would make that duty explicit in the Bill.

Another aspect is home visits for people who are unfit to travel so that they can satisfy the requirements to provide their biometric data. Again, we are considering an important category of people, as will be remembered with Ryanair, which was found against when it said at one airport that it did not have to provide wheelchairs for disabled passengers. Those people have a right to access Government services, but they will be told that the only way to gain that access is to provide their biometric data, even though they might not find it either easy or cost-effective to get to the centre. It is entirely appropriate in the circumstances to impose on the Government a requirement to offer a home visit service. The two amendments would do that. It may well be that, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government will have to make special provision. These are not filleting amendments, but ones that would add to the substance of the Bill.

In probing the Government, we need to spend a little time discussing these two groups—people in remote areas and people who, in normal circumstances, are physically incapable of reaching the stations to which they must go in the first instance—in view of the penalty of not having a passport and being unable to go about their ordinary business. Post-2008, those people will face the full threat of legal sanctions and fines if they do not get to that place and offer their data.

Those are the reasons behind the proposals. I am sure that the Minister picked them up as soon as he read the amendments and I hope he can offer us assurances on both points.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Ms Anderson, and I look forward to our deliberations today.

I want to draw attention to an error in the report of the second sitting. I shall not do so in a point of order, but just slip it in at the beginning of my speech, unlike the hon. Member for Woking. The report said that I had tabled amendment No. 115, but it was, as all Committee members will remember, amendment No. 155. I say that today because we have a lot more time   than we had on Tuesday, when I spoke rather quickly, which is probably why the Hansard people had difficulty recognising the accent and realising what the number was. I hope that, with your indulgence, Ms Anderson, I have put the record straight.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam on his amendments, with which I have more than a little sympathy. These are probably the first amendments that he has tabled that are not intended to wreck the Bill and instead offer something constructive, so I welcome them.

I wish to make some points that probably enhance the hon. Gentleman's argument in dealing with people who have, or could have, problems putting themselves on the register and getting their biometrics in the register. I tabled the amendment because of information given to me by Royal National Institute of the Blind, which is more than a little experienced with people who are disabled either physically or in terms of sight. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is talking with the RNIB, because he told me so in his reply to my previous contribution, and I assume that he will continue to talk to it about some of the points that I am about to make.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam talked about assistance with transport and related costs. One of the points that the RNIB made very well to me was that in 59 per cent. of cases—about 10 million people—assistance with transport was required for people going on any long journeys and was sometimes needed on short journeys, because part of the problem is with pedestrian areas, not just the transport.

I ask the Minister to look at that, because if, as the hon. Gentleman says, distance comes into play, it will be the distance for not only one person, but two. That makes a good argument and a fair case for allowing visits to Orkney and Shetland, for example, which is represented by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is a friend. There should be a portable centre that could go round not just the rural areas, but those such as my constituency, Glasgow, Anniesland, where there is a high concentration of elderly who cannot get about and would find it very difficult, intimidating and scary to get into the centre of Glasgow.

On cost relating to passports, it should also be remembered that people can post their passport with a cheque and documents. They do not have to go further than the local post box. That could be done for them by a friend. Will the Minister consider that?

I should like the Minister to go into a little more detail other than simply saying that he is discussing matters with the RNIB. I want more meat on the bones. Will he say that he will examine such issues? I do not want it to be just a matter of talk. By the time that the Bill receives Royal Assent, I want people such as the elderly and the disabled and, for that matter, those in rural areas, to be taken care of and not feel as they do in many cases that no one really cares about them. 

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

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) that we are already in contact with Dr. John Gill, the chief scientist at the RNIB. Our communication at present is principally about card design, but we are discussing with the RNIB all the legitimate issues raised by my hon. Friend, which are relevant to people with disabilities. We will, of course, communicate with other organisations that represent such people.

As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, the agency will need to conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that have been enhanced significantly during the Government's term of office. It is an achievement of which I, as a Minister, am immensely proud, and I wish us to conform to its standards.

The provision should be understood in the context that we have already made the decision that all first-time applicants from 2006-07 will have to make a personal appointment. First-time applicants for passports will not be able to apply by post, for a good and sensible reason, in my view. As the Minister responsible for that decision, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Such a process will enhance the security for passports. It will ensure that there is no risk of passports being issued to people with a false identity. We will require first-time applicants to apply in person. That is a consequence of the provision. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam referred to it earlier and may have given the impression to members of the Committee that the decision to expand the UK Passport Service offices was made to accommodate identity cards. It was not. No final decision has been made about the number of front offices that will be needed for the in-person passport nor has a decision been made whether they will be stand alone, separate offices or whether we will take advantage of a network of Government or other agency offices that already exist. There is good sense in using existing networks in accessible offices in convenient spots to undertake such work, if that can be done economically.

The UK Passport Service's research into travel showed that most people who currently apply in person for a passport travel about 25 miles. On the basis of that research and other information, early signs suggest that between 70 and 100 offices may be needed to offer the appropriate opportunity to first-time passport applicants to attend in person. That is a different matter, but that network will be in place for the new agency that is being created to deliver the identity card, which includes the UK Passport Service and others.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

It is important to understand how the scheme will work in practice, so it would be helpful if the Minister spelled out what we now call a narrative, in the political language of the time. I wonder if I have understood him right. I will give an illustration of what might happen, but I will not ask him to be clear on the issue. In Skipton there is a modern Jobcentre Plus, or social security office, which is well equipped with modern communications. That is the sort of standing   establishment that could well be a front office for the UK Passport Service for the purposes that we are discussing.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I had responsibility for Jobcentre Plus for about a year when I was Minister for Work. The roll-out of the new Jobcentre Plus offices happened mostly during that time, although it is not yet completed; we were about halfway there when I moved to my present job. I am immensely pleased with how that agency has delivered a service to the public for some years now, and how it has developed open and friendly offices that are working very well.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, the offices have good, sophisticated networks of communication, and are also becoming known as established places in communities where people can go for advice. It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to hear that, when investment of £1.2 billion or more was being made in those offices, discussions were going on across Government about using them not just for delivery of advice on employment, training and benefits, but for other purposes, too. As Minister with responsibility for immigration and asylum, I expect that the executives of the UK Passport Service will report to me on the suitability of just such a network of offices as a possible place for enrolment centres for passports and, in due course, identity cards. The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right to say that that is the sort of network of which we should take advantage.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

To continue with the analogies, we on the Public Accounts Committee are constantly discussing the number of no-shows for, for example, hospital and general practitioner appointments. If we are to use an appointment system, the Minister needs to build into it assumptions about the propensity of people not to show up, even when it is clearly in their interests to do so.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his common-sense advice. I am aware of that and, from the point of view of the making the best use of public money, we will be conscious of that fact. He will bear in mind, of course, that the UK Passport Service already has significant experience of an appointment system, although in a much more concentrated fashion. I recently had to attend at the Victoria office because I had a transaction to make, so I know from experience that the system works very well. It allowed me to be dealt with within a window of about 20 minutes. I have to say, I was surprised by how well it worked, given the amount of traffic going through the office. So, that is an experience to draw on.

The UK Passport Service conducted the biometrics trial. There are two or three important points to make about that. First, the trial included 10,000 people and revealed a significant amount of information, although not yet enough for us to be absolutely certain how the enrolment system should work. However, the trial has informed further deliberations. Also, the trial required biometric enrolment from 700 disabled people so that we could do just what hon. Members are encouraging me to do: identify the problems with the   process for disabled people. When we move to the much bigger trial, which will involve in excess of 1 million people, a substantial proportion of those people will have to be disabled.

My final point about the passport biometrics trial is that part of that trial involved a mobile enrolment unit, which was put in this very building—in the car park of the Palace of Westminster—so that hon. Members could go and experience the process. That way, their understanding of it would be informed by their experience. That has happened in various locations, including some rural locations, so that the information and evidence that will inform the decisions that need to be made could be gathered. I trust that my answer has assured Committee members that the Government have thought about such issues, and that we were on to them before we started discussing the amendments. I suspect that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland appreciate that.

I shall deal with the amendments quickly, given that I have, broadly, responded with the reassurance that such issues are priorities for the Government in planning the enrolment process. The intention of amendments Nos. 81 and 99 is to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make provision for local facilities and for home visits for people unfit to travel to satisfy the application requirements of clause 5 and the notification requirements of clause 12. Amendment No. 154 would require an order to set out

''the assistance available with transportation arrangements and costs to vulnerable or disabled individuals required to make an application.''

As I hope has been made clear, there is a recognition that there are groups with particular needs, and we are considering developing ways to meet those needs as we design the system. We are proposing that enrolment centres should be located around the UK. It is intended that they should be local and convenient to everyone, but we do not need to write that into the Bill, partly because the definition of ''local'' is unhelpful; it does not fit with the different travel patterns for which we need to cater. People regularly travel to work; it may be more convenient to place enrolment centres there. Such considerations are just as important as where a home is situated; being local to residence is not necessarily that helpful.

We also need to balance such decisions against the cost of establishing a centre without a large enough catchment area to be economic. It is too early to say what that might be, although we have some information to work with and we will know about the early experience of the new UK Passport Service locations.

Other Government offices, including Jobcentre Plus offices, do not have a legal requirement to provide local offices, but they do so because that makes sense for their users and themselves. I recollect that as we rolled out Jobcentre Plus, we had continuing discussions with Members of Parliament about their constituencies and the best configuration of offices—whether a full Jobcentre Plus office was needed or whether other Government or local authority offices could provide the service. That degree of flexibility   needs to be kept, and what happened with Jobcentre Plus is a good example of how such flexibility could benefit the provision of the service.

On the question of registering people through home visits, we are conscious that such enrolment must be convenient. We are making provision to register people who live in remote areas or are unfit to travel. However, it would not be appropriate to write a duty to provide such visits into the Bill, as they are one of a range of options that we are considering. Registering through home visits raises security issues that would need to be overcome.

I have already alluded to another option: mobile enrolment centres, which we recently tested as part of the biometrics trial.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Will the Minister bear public libraries in mind? Libraries have moved on enormously; many have very good computer connections. They are used by a large number of older people learning how to use computers, and have extensive facilities. In areas with no other obvious facilities, it might be worth while using libraries to register people.

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

I will, of course, bear public libraries in mind. I was discussing just that issue with the chief executive of the UK Passport Service in connection with the programme to which I made reference earlier. We need flexibility. There are any number of possibilities, and that very fact argues against the notion that we should be as restrictive as the amendments would make us. Shortly after the enactment of the Bill, we might regret amending the provision.

The requirement to set out in the order what assistance would be available to the vulnerable or disabled is not necessary. The Bill already allows us, under clause 37, to make regulations setting variable fees for applications, for example for those on low incomes. Requiring such assistance to be written into the order for compulsion will make it difficult to change what the assistance will be as user needs change over time, harming those that the amendment is intended to help.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

Would the variation in charges include or take into consideration the cost of travel?

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

I am not going to say now that we could be as flexible as that and have a system of charges that covers every eventuality. However, my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the scheme is configured in such a way that we would not have to register every single person in the country in the same way if we did not want to. We might not need to take biometrics from some people at all. It might be pointless to do so; we might come to the view that it is not necessary to take biometrics from people over a certain age. We will need the flexibility to do such things as we move forward. We might also conclude that taking biometrics from people with certain   disabilities would be so disruptive and inconvenient of their lifestyle that we do not need to do it. We would need to address that in regulations. That is another reason why we need an enabling Bill; we might need the flexibility that allows us to do what I have described.

As I keep on saying, the success of the system will depend substantially on it being able to move to full compulsion on the basis that the people of the country support it. It will have to be able to respond to such logical and ordinary everyday issues. Such decisions will need to be made, but I am not going to make them as I speak to Committee members now. I am asking the Committee to give me the flexibility in the regulation-making powers to be able to respond to just those human situations.

A lot of common-sense decisions need to be made about this process so that we can take it forward. It is not intended to be a sledgehammer; I do not see all the people of this country as nuts and the Bill as a sledgehammer to hit them with, to adopt the earlier reference of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam.

My argument against these well intended amendments is that, unfortunately, they would unnecessarily constrain us from doing the things that we are already planning to do with greater flexibility. I ask that hon. Members do not press them.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland for his sympathy for the spirit of my amendments. I still have particular concerns about the remoteness issue. However, I welcome the Minister's final comments about the ways in which biometrics could be applied selectively; that is important.

On the remoteness issue, the ultimate test is that which will be applied by my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland and for St. Ives (Andrew George). Liberal Democrats seem to be good at winning the bits at the end of countries; it is winning the parts in between that we find more challenging. My hon. Friends will want to have more to say about this issue.

Although I may decide to come back at a later stage with better amendments on the same issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.