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

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in clause 15, page 14, line 13, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This is a quite important amendment. Clause 15 deals with powers to make services conditional on identity checks. We must be realistic and confirm what public services we are talking about. The Minister will be able to do that. I assume that he means access to the doctoremdash save for emergency treatment that must be available automatically to anybody; other medical services such as dentistry; local authority housing or education; or a variety of public services—[Interruption.].

My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has helpfully pointed out the benefits. It helps to know what public services we are talking about. The clause states that regulations can make it a condition that before I get those services I produce to the person who is going to provide them an ID card, other evidence of registrable facts about myself or both under subsections (1)(b) and (c), which I seek to omit. They are heavy handed. Can the Minister justify his position?

I do not know when the regulations will be introduced. I could be the sort of person who has not yet been issued with an identity card, but may be under an obligation to provide registrable facts to the Secretary of State. When I have done that, it may be some while before I am asked for an identity card.

I find this measure incongruous. I am used to being asked to produce a card for various functions, so that is not a problem for me, but I am concerned about the reference to

''other evidence of registrable facts . . . or

(c) both.''

That might create a burden on the individual. I ask the Minister to be kind enough to justify that requirement, and to explain the circumstances in which it might operate, in particular in relation to different people.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

The clause begins by stating:

''Regulations may make provision allowing or requiring''.

It appears that there is a permissiveness in the legislation. People might well be required to establish their identity, but what does ''allowing'' mean in that context? Does it mean that one GP surgery might require that and another might not? With regard to certain public services—such as when someone applies for a senior citizen's railcard or a bus pass—might   some local authorities require that and others might not? What are the circumstances in which there would be that discretion?

How will I know whether the person I am dealing with has the authority to demand that, on a discretionary basis? I would expect to know for which services I need to take my card. The Minister said that we will not have to carry the cards, but the Prime Minister has used the expression ''carry the cards.'' If there will be discretionary requirements, the Minister must tell us about the circumstances for that, and the framework within which that discretion might be used.

Those wonderful expressions ''may'' and ''allow'' leave a lot more room than ''must'' and ''shall require''. I would be interested to know what thoughts the Minister has in his mind.

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

What I have in my mind is that across the public sector there are already many situations in which statutory services require an individual to produce proof of identity—for example, when receiving benefits or when initially registering with a GP. However, of necessity, people doe not need to prove their identity every time they have an interaction with any such services. Part of GP services is to build up relationships, and one would hope that a GP would come to know a person whom they see regularly, and would be able to recognise them. The idea that people will have to produce these cards in all circumstances and for every transaction is neither tenable nor logical, and it is highly improbable—impossible, I would venture to suggest—that a set of regulations would be drafted in such a way.

There are any number of potential relationships in public services where people need to prove their identity, and all of them are potentially capable of being subject to regulations under clause 15. It gives a power to make regulations requiring an ID card or ''evidence of registrable facts'', or both, in order to be provided with a public service.

This measure is not intended to facilitate interfering with or changing a person's entitlements. It is merely intended to give service providers flexibility in deciding what proof of identity is the most appropriate in particular circumstances, and what level of identity check is necessary.

The regulations that can be made under this clause require prior consultation with members of the public likely to be affected, followed by parliamentary consent under the affirmative resolution procedure. There will need to be a separate decision for each service. There will be plenty of opportunity to have detailed discussions on whether, depending on the nature of the service that it provides, a service provider should have the flexibility to require people to produce the highest level of identity. Such things can be tailored to suit individual circumstances, and we do not intend to be prescriptive in this legislation. For example, cost-benefit analysis will have to be done on benefits to ascertain whether the highest level of check would be appropriate, and for what number of transactions. Such decisions will be made in the fullness of time.  

The other important point is that, under clause 15, we cannot require a person to produce an ID card to receive payments, such as social security benefits, or free public services, such as NHS treatment, until it is compulsory for that person to register under clause 6. That seems logical as well, and is a further protection against full compulsion by the back door.

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

I wish to probe the Minister a little more on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Will local authorities be given discretion on whether they require an identity card for the payment of housing benefit, for example? If that is to be the case, how would a citizen know whether their local authority required the production of the card and whether it was legitimately able to do so?

The same could apply to hospitals. Will some hospital trusts require the cards to be produced and others not, or will there be uniformity across the country? How much discretion will there be?

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

That will be set out in regulations, which will be consulted on at the appropriate time. It is not for me to say at this stage; we are so far away from compulsion. The hon. Gentleman mentions one service, housing benefit, that provides payment and another, the NHS, that provides a service free of charge. Producing the card could not be made a compulsory condition of the provision of those services until there was full compulsion on the card itself.

At some time, there will need to be consultation with the service users and others on what is appropriate and what benefits such compulsion would bring. Regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, would have to be introduced. I cannot imagine that such regulations could be enacted without people knowing what was going on. People would be aware of such a significant step, and those providing the services would have the responsibility of ensuring that those to whom the new regulations applied were notified about them. There would have to be a lead-in time. The configuration of the regulations will be a matter for that time. Such decisions will be made once confidence in the scheme and the card has been built up.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I understand that the Minister does not want to say whether there will be regional variations on whether people will need the cards for access to public services. Given the Government's determination to use the cards to crack down on benefit fraud, surely the requirement would have to be national and uniform. Otherwise, individuals would go to different parts of the country where they would know that they do not have to have a card, and could abuse the system.

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

The simple answer is that benefit regulations apply uniformly across the United Kingdom. Regulations on NHS treatment do not apply uniformly because, for example, the Scottish Parliament makes decisions about the provision of that public service. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has raised that issue on a number of   occasions. However, that is not about the identity card scheme. There will be no discrimination in relation to the scheme across the country, although decisions may well be made, for example, by the Scottish Parliament about what level of proof of identity will be required for a person to access NHS treatment. That would be a matter entirely for the Scottish Parliament. People in the Committee may disagree with devolution, but that is what it is about.

That does not undermine this scheme, which is about providing opportunities. The Government, who are responsible for the provision of NHS services across England and Wales, will make a decision about access; that will almost certainly be uniform and there will be no discrimination. It would not be appropriate for there to be discrimination.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister is now beginning to answer the question that was put to him earlier. Would there be a difference between local authorities? Would there be a difference between primary care trusts? We are in England, never mind devolution. The hon. Gentleman is saying that there will be a uniform system throughout England and that primary care trusts, for example, will not be able to opt in or opt out of it, so there will be no particular focus in certain areas where there may be worry about so-called health tourism.

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

I cannot be prescriptive about how such matters will be phased out. It does not seem, however, that arguments can be made for discrimination of that nature. I stand before the Committee and, if there is a problem on my part, I apologise. I do not know every detail about where the powers of local authorities lie. What I am about to say might be contradicted: local authorities exercise appropriately and are answerable politically to their electorate for decisions that they make about some services.

We need some flexibility that allows those layers of responsibility to be properly reflected. The best example of that is devolution. I understand the difference between the provision of certain services and political accountability in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom and I understand, to a degree, that if there were a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland what the position would be. There will be the opportunity for flexibility for those who provide the services there. Indeed, politicians from Scotland have suggested what their attitude would be towards accessing public services via the identity card. It will be entirely a matter for them. It will not be helpful if I try to envisage each set of circumstances, because I could not do that. The clause is drawn in such a way that reflects those responsibilities. I shall not bind together other individual organisations and authorities, because I do not have the power to do so, in any event.

May I deal quickly with the points on which the amendment concentrates? Why does the provision cover ''an ID card'' and

''other evidence of registrable facts''?

Well, the answer is comparatively simple. People might need access to public services, but might have lost their   card and not received a replacement. Such people should not be denied access to services if they can via registrable facts access the services and prove their identity. That is the beauty of the system. It will not depend on people carrying cards—a point that we might come to in more detail in a couple of minutes.

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

I might have misunderstood the clause, for which I apologise. When I examined it more carefully, I realised that it says that public services are free; that they are services for which there can be no charge. Am I right? As a result, no service can demand from me an ID. That must cover most public services.

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

We may well come to such matters in more stark relief under another amendment, but the reference to public services that are free of charge does not deny the opportunity for the providers of public services to require the production of an identity card or access under clause 15 before it is compulsory to have a card. Post-compulsion is a different matter. At that time, there will be a point when registrable facts for each individual can be implied because they will be on the register. There will be a different position.

However, people may have forgotten their card, lost it or have put it into a reader that does not work because it is damaged and no one knows about it. In those circumstances, people should not be denied access to public services if, through registrable facts, they can prove their identity. Equally, there may be normal circumstances in which the public service provider would accept the card, but has suspicions about it. It may say that it wants the card and registrable facts for that individual on that occasion because it is suspicious of the circumstances and the way in which the card has been presented. It is appropriate that circumstances allow regulations to be drafted to cover those eventualities.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

A provider could ask for the card, which would presumably carry the person's current or most recent address. If it asked for the registrable facts and the person had been to prison, those facts would include the address at Her Majesty's prison, so the person's past would be revealed to a provider, although the card would not do so. Have I misunderstood it?

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

Yes. The regulations will be drawn in such a way that the person will be entitled to access information that can prove identity, not historical information that may need to be kept in relation to the card for other security reasons, or for audit reasons associated with the individual, who may want to check against facts.

I have already explained that the registrable facts to which people will have access in the context of proving identity will be restricted to proof of identity. That would not cover the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes, and would not give people access to historical information that is none of their business.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I am sorry to intervene a lot, but I am trying to be clear in my mind. If the purpose of having the card for public services is to deal with problems of benefit fraud, surely just having the identity will not be   very helpful, because we all know that identity is not the main means of benefit fraud. The real problem is individuals over-claiming, or patterns. Surely those services would need access to more than just the identity, including access to other information to prove whether a person is working and over-claiming. If they are to tackle fraud they will need access to information other than a person's identity.

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

The fact that a person is working at the time is not a registrable fact. This is about proving people's identity. The security of the benefits system is a matter for the Benefits Agency, which uses relevant regulations and requirements to obtain information from people. It is not about giving people additional information of that nature. Of course, information that proves entitlement may need to be accessed, but that will not be the sort of information, such as historical information, that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon suggests.

Why would the NHS need historical information about whether a person has been in prison to prove their identity? That is not relevant. The NHS may, however, want to know whether that person is a prisoner now, but I suspect that that would be obvious if they were brought from prison to a hospital. [Interruption.] I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's point. If he wants to try again, I may be a wee bit more perceptive.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

The Minister has accidentally answered my question. I said that people may seek the registrable facts about somebody, which may include the address of a prison, so although they may not seek that information, they may nevertheless get it.

Does the Child Support Agency count as a public service? We all know about the difficulty of tracking people—usually men—who are not paying their whack. Would the CSA be able to seek or obtain identity cards and registrable facts to track down the men who are not paying what they are supposed to pay?

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

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The CSA is a public service in the context of the clause and one can see that there would be benefits in having regulated access to information on the national identity register against circumstances in which people are avoiding their responsibilities, with which Committee members are all-too familiar.

The problem with this debate from my perspective is that it is concentrating on defeating fraud. We have to start from a different point in relation to accessing public services. People already need to prove their identity and entitlement to access them. However, because of the absence of information collected centrally, which is accessible and guaranteed to a high standard, we cannot always be certain that the people who are accessing public services qualify for them.

We are providing a regulated opportunity for those who provide public services to get access to the registrable facts that they need to establish whether people are eligible to use their services, not all registrable facts. The regulations will not allow every   public service access to all registrable facts, but they will be tailored to the individual public service.

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

Will the Minister tell us whether any of the information will have a sunset element to it? In the case of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, employers would not be entitled to know that a person has been to prison after a certain period. There are certain financial provisions that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are not able to access after a period of time—sometimes that is six years and at other times it is 12 years. Will the information that is provided under the registrable facts be able to be deleted from the card after a period of time?

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

Under clause 17(1) there is a power to set out in the regulations what information will be provided. In relation to each set of public services, these considerations can be debated, consulted upon and worked out, with the regulations being developed appropriately. It would be illegal to have regulations that were in contravention of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, so they must be drafted in such a way that they take account of that.

I repeat: those regulations will allow only some of the information, depending on the service. I do not see any reason for being concerned that registrable facts that are of no business to the particular service will be accessed. Those services will be denied access to that information, although it may be held for other reasons. Indeed, it may be held because the person whose information is held is entitled to go back and see that this is appropriate.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I will have to check Hansard, but I am pretty sure that the Minister implied earlier that the public services will have just the information about identity. He now seems to be implying that the provision will go much further and that they will have access to registered facts. That is an important difference. There is an intellectual logic as to their having access to registered facts if they are going to be able to do the things that they can clarify. For the record, will he confirm that public services will have access to the registered facts?

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

I can confirm that and I am sorry: it was an omission not to qualify identity in the context of the service.

The clause and other parts of the scheme are drafted in such a way that in the fullness of time, after the compulsion process, regulations can be drawn up that require people to produce evidence of who they are through the scheme and the necessary registrable facts for entitlement. Yes, that is exactly right, but the provision will be restricted to those facts that are necessary to prove entitlement to the particular service.

Mr Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff Central, Labour/Co-operative)

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, who has given way many times. The questions that have been asked so far are about how people ensure that they check on the entitlement according to the list of people   with ID cards. I want to ask my question the other way round.

When there is a compulsory system in which everyone who is entitled is required to have an ID card, will people be able to check who is accessing services and whether they are on the ID card list? For example, by the time the ID card system is introduced, presumably all those in England who are accessing medical care will be on an electronic medical register. If no one is inappropriately accessing that care, everyone on that medical register should also appear on the compulsory ID card register. Should there be such a system to enable us to say, ''Hey, these people are accessing medical care, but they do not appear on the ID card system—what is going wrong?''?

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

To the extent that I understand my hon. Friend's question, my answer is that we will jealously guard the register to ensure that there is not cross-referencing of the sort that some people would try to persuade us to do, for the obvious reason that this is an identity register. If we started cross-referencing with other registers, it would be possible that information that was nothing to do with people's identity would get on to this register. That is when there is function creep.

We will not put medical records, criminal records or DNA on to this register. The register is about proving people's identity, but to a level that shows whether they are entitled to particular services. Services are a function of circumstances that relate to a person's identity—the footprint of who they are.

My hon. Friend suggests that there ought, over time, to be a process whereby anybody who is not entitled to free public services but is getting them is identified through not being on the register. Our position is to rely on the providers of services to use the facility to satisfy themselves of the identity and entitlement of the people accessing the services and to make the decisions about the provision of services at the point of provision. There is not some grand sweep going on, except at the point of provision.

The integrity of the system, and its ability to work and to ensure that people are properly accessing services, will build up over time. That is how we will best ensure that those who are entitled are getting access to their services. That is why we need the part of the clause that the amendment would take out. At that point, we need to be able to offer people the flexibility necessary to allow them to check the card, to check the registrable facts or, in certain circumstances, to check both. That is why the clause is drafted in this way.

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

We have had a useful debate. It is likely that we will return to the matter on Report.

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

I wanted to ask the Minister something for the record, but he sat down too quickly. Over time—particularly when the cards become compulsory—my hon. Friend thinks that we will be able to abolish national insurance numbers, as having a national identity card system and a national insurance card system would be pointless and a duplication. Will he press the Minister for clarification?  

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

I am delighted to do so, being quite unable to speculate on the answer, although I am certain in the knowledge that the Minister cannot reply now.

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

My very quick response is that the national insurance number serves several purposes other than just identifying a person, such as purposes related to other Government functions. At this stage, I cannot see one replacing the other in a short time.

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

I am grateful to the Minister. As I have said, we will return to the matter on Report. The issue that we have been debating is very important, and it will be so to hon. Members who take part in the debate on the Floor of the House on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 15, page 14, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

'(3) Failure to produce without reasonable excuse an identity card to a police constable reasonably requiring production shall be a summary offence punishable with 6 months imprisonment or a fine or both.'.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 133, in clause 15, page 14, line 28, at end add—

'(4) Nothing in this section authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would be to require a British citizen to carry or produce an ID card before such time as when all British citizens are required by virtue of section 6 to be entered in the Register.'.

No. 134, in clause 18, page 16, line 36, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A)'.

No. 135, in clause 18, page 16, line 45, at end insert—

'(2A) Subsection (2) does not authorise the imposition of such condition or requirement in relation to or on a British citizen before such time as when all British citizens are required by virtue of section 6 to be entered in the Register.'.

No. 187, in clause 18, page 16, line 45, at end insert—

'(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further cases in which such a condition or requirement may be imposed in relation to or on an individual.'.

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

The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and could give rise to a debate that lasted for hours and hours, but is not going to, because I want to put the matter to the Minister extremely succinctly.

My amendment, on which we shall not vote, takes us back to the point made by so many people. Our constituents and many people out in the country generally know very little about the Bill. They say that if we want to succeed in the war against terror, there is little point in having an identity card that is not compulsory to carry. Furthermore, if someone cannot produce that card, they should be taken into custody until they can establish who they are.

We all know—we went over the argument many times on Second Reading—that there is a provision under which a person can be required to produce their driving licence for a police officer. Failure to do so can lead to a requirement to produce the licence within seven days at a police station of the person's choice. That would not be at all helpful with respect to   identity cards because—purely as regards terrorism, which we dwelt on so much early in the sitting—it would be of no use in dealing with the potential terrorist, who would simply say, ''Of course I'll produce the card in a few days,'' but never would.

On Second Reading, a number of distinguished right hon. and hon. Members argued that if the card is to become compulsory—we know that it will—the logic is that it should be compulsory to carry and produce it. If one wants to fight against terrorism, there is a seriously good argument for that. On the other side of the coin, that undoubtedly could be a serious infringement of civil liberties. However, the Bill infringes liberties in many ways, and parts of our argument are devoted to that proposition. We have a set of scales; we weigh one side of the argument against the other to discover the tipping point and the balance.

Let us not pretend that we are not dealing with civil liberties issues or that my probing amendment would do anything other than infringe civil liberties. I merely ask the Minister—and others, perhaps—to explain the logic in not going that extra step and telling people that they must carry the card and produce it or otherwise they may be taken into custody until it is established who they are. That—I paraphrase a possible Government line—would be one way for the police to be able to pick people up, identify them and ensure that they were bona fide citizens, not terrorists.

Conversely, if it is not compulsory to have and to carry the card, will there not be a danger of simply saying to society, ''We don't propose to pick you out in the street to see who you are.''? That is another way of saying that we could be taking steps that make it easier for the terrorist to walk the street, because he or she knows that there is nothing that the police can do if they have the card on them or not.

On amendment No. 133 and consequential amendments, the clause ensures that the provision of public services, such as NHS treatment, cannot be conditional on evidence of registration. Similarly, clause 18 prohibits a requirement to produce identity cards. However, both clauses contain exemptions, allowing refusal of services or requiring production of a card where a person has been compelled under clause 6. One imagines that that is primarily intended to ensure that certain groups, such as foreign nationals, be required to carry a card. Those safeguards are likely to be only temporary. When the compulsory scheme is finally rolled out to every UK resident, they will no longer be relevant.

There will be a number of consequences to the two-tier system until final national compulsion takes place. UK citizens who are compelled because they have not registered by the date on which the Home Secretary determines that the card shall become compulsory can be required to produce cards while other citizens are not. Do the Government intend to impose that two-tier system on British citizens? Probably not. Should not the Bill ensure that British citizens will not be required to produce a card, or need one to access services, until all compulsion has occurred? Otherwise, the impact will be discriminatory, as only people required to register by virtue of a factor such as their age will need to carry their cards. The amendment   would ensure that compulsion under clauses 15 and 18 did not take effect for British citizens until such time as compulsion became universal.

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

We alluded to this subject earlier. My hon. Friend has made the point extremely clearly, so I will therefore be brief in saying to the Minister that I see no point in having the card if an officer of the law or an officer of the security forces cannot demand that it be produced in exactly the same way that a driving licence has to be produced.

I will be amazed, fascinated and very grateful if the Minister can explain the point of the measure to me. The card will cost the individual dear. It is designed to counter all sorts of ills, not least terrorism, yet we are saying that while there is a compulsion to own the card, there is no compulsion either to carry it or to produce it at a police station or a similar establishment. It seems to me to negate completely the point of having a card—particularly the point of compulsorily owning a card—if it cannot be demanded by an officer of the law or his equivalent.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I seek clarification on the following point. The subsection that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking seeks to delete states:

''Nothing in this section authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would be to require an individual—

(a) to carry an ID card with him at all times''.

However, in Prime Minister's Question Time on 1 December, the Prime Minister said:

''We think that it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards, and that is why we will proceed with it.''—[Official Report, 1 December 2004, Vol. 428, c. 627.]

That is at odds with what is in the Bill. I ask the Minister to explain whom one has to take notice of. Will what the Prime Minister says be introduced later, or is he not wholly familiar with the Bill?

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can speak for himself, and he often does, so there are opportunities for hon. Members to question him on such issues. I was present when he gave that answer; the Bill was already published, and the provision was in place, and the Prime Minister might have—[Interruption.] Yes, he may well have inadvertently used the same phraseology that a lot of other people use in relation to identity cards.

However, in our discussions of the Bill, we need to be far more precise, and I cannot be any more precise than I have been. I said on Second Reading and I have already said in Committee that we do not intend to require anybody to carry a card at all times, and we will not give any new powers to the police to check identity.

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

What is the point, then?

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

I will come on to that in a moment. I have already tried to explain it, so it is clearly a failing on my part that hon. Members are unable to understand. I will try to explain it again, and to do so as simply as possible.

I thought I made it clear on Second Reading that if there is an argument—I do not think that there is—  that we should live in a society in which people can be stopped at random and required to prove their identity, or even that they should be required to do so if some people have suspicions about them, we must have a debate on that in a context in which it is relevant to consider police powers. If we get to a position in the UK where we need to move to checking people's identities in that way—God forbid that we do—we will need to discuss whether increased police powers are justified by the environment in which we live and the problems and challenges that we face, and then we can decide whether we want to give the police those powers.

It is clear to me that we have already made decisions about when the police should be entitled to require people to prove who they are. They do that by taking DNA samples in certain circumstances, or by taking fingerprints. Those powers are given to the police in the context of the mischiefs being legislated for and debated in this House. In developing an identity card scheme, it is inappropriate to create a series of powers that are more properly debated in the context of prevention of terrorism, and I have no intention of allowing the Bill to be used for that purpose.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the police with the opportunity to prove with certainty the identity of someone against the information on the register when they already have the power to do that, subject to one minor qualification: that the scenes of crime match can be compared with fingerprints in the register if there is no match from the police's national system of fingerprints. That would not be a consequence of an interaction between individuals and it certainly would not be a consequence of police powers over individuals when dealing with them. That is not that difficult to understand nor is it inappropriate.

I do not accept that the provision will make no contribution towards the interdiction of terrorism or terrorist-related behaviour because the police cannot stop people in the street and ask them to produce their identity card and, if they do not have it with them, ask them to produce it at a police station later on. I frankly do not consider that the analogy in relation to driving licences is true. Driving licences cannot be demanded willy-nilly by the police. They can be demanded by the police only in certain circumstances under road traffic legislation. There are good reasons for that: to drive a motor vehicle, obviously a person must qualify for a driving licence and be permitted to have a driving licence. Having the driving licence is a condition precedent on whether the person is insured to drive the motor vehicle, which has significant consequences for other road users. As I said, the analogy of driving licences is not a true one. I do not accept that such action needs to be carried out to make the provision effective and I shall resist amendments that would change the Bill in such a way.

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

I wish to clarify what the Minister said earlier when he referred to a change in circumstances. Let us assume that something like the Madrid bombing had occurred in this country and that the whole climate in which our police and security forces have to operate changed overnight as, indeed,   did the political climate. Does the hon. Gentleman foresee circumstances when, with the cards in place, legislation can be rushed through quickly by which they can be demanded by officers of the law?

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

One should be aware of Greeks bearing gifts. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down a path that I do not want to go down. We are where we are. Security services have certain powers. We have debated them and, as Parliament, we are responsible for the fact that police have those powers. We have legislated for them. We have decided what sort of country we want to live in and what police powers we want. We are now giving the police the opportunity, when exercising those powers, to have access to certainty about the proof of people's identity. I am talking about identity, not police powers.

I repeat that, for good, sensible reasons, we said that, if the police have fingerprints from a scene of an existing crime but they cannot match them with their fingerprint database, they ought to have access to the biometric database and the identity register that will be available to identify who may or who may not be the perpetrator of the crime, or who was present at the scene of the crime. That seems perfectly sensible.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister reassures us of his determination not to extend the powers. I note that he has said that several times. However, when powers exist under terrorism legislation for the police to stop individuals and identify them, does the hon. Gentleman consider it logical that the ID card could be a way in which to establish identity?

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

What is logical and what we are legislating for is that the police should have access to the means by which they can verify the identity of someone when they cannot do so from their databases—if they have the powers to do so, in any event, but not if they do not have such powers. I frankly do not understand the argument that the scheme is pointless unless we bring in that additional police power.

I do not want to live in a society in which the police can stop people willy-nilly and ask them to prove who they are. Such an environment will be subject to the worst part of the way in which identity card schemes have been abused in some other countries. It would drive us into relationships between individuals and the police that we have gone to significant lengths to move away from, especially in areas with a high number of ethnic minorities. We must protect ourselves from that. The scheme is not about police powers, but the standard of proof of identity. I cannot make that any clearer and I would defend the scheme against any suggestions that it should be extended beyond that.

I will deal quickly with the other amendments. Amendment No. 133 would mean that regulations under clause 15 could not require British citizens to produce an identity card before accessing public services until universal compulsion had been introduced, even if a requirement to register were first introduced, for example, for people in a particular age group.  

The proposal in amendments Nos. 134 and 135 would mean that British citizens could not be required to produce a card or to consent to a check on the register until all British citizens were required to register. That would apply even if the conditions in clause 18(2) were met: where the requirement was imposed under clause 15, where a reasonable alternative was permitted, or where the person concerned was subject to compulsory registration under clause 6. If the proposal were accepted, it would be unlawful for anyone to require an identity card as one means of identification before offering a service to British citizens.

There may be some circumstances in which we would wish to make regulations under clause 15 for public services that are not provided free of charge, one such example being the issue of a firearms certificate. That would affect any British citizen who applied for a certificate, as well as any non-British citizen who was in the same position, before they were required to register under clause 6. That would bring the issue of a certificate under the exemption in clause 18(2)(a) to the general principle that cards cannot be required before compulsion applies to any particular category.

It would not be of any assistance to the Committee for me to go any further in relation to these matters, as the hon. Member for Woking has not dealt with any other issues. If he thinks that I should, he should intervene at this stage. If he thinks that I should not, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has done the Committee a tremendous service this afternoon, because he has pointed out exactly what the Prime Minister's view is about this matter. We should be clear, for the record, that the amendment that I tabled requires someone to carry an identity card. The Prime Minister's view was expressed last month:

''We think that it is legitimate and right, in this day and age, to ask people to carry identity cards,''—[Official Report, 1 December; Vol. 428, c. 627.]

It is as simple as that. As far as the Minister is concerned, this is now a major issue. We appear to have a Prime Minister who takes a view—we have no evidence that he has changed it—entirely contrary to that which the Home Secretary and his Ministers take.

I will make a serious proposition. There is time between now and Thursday for the Minister to speak to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he would kindly tell this Committee, by letter—it is quite unnecessary for it to be done in any other way—what his actual view is. Had I had the foresight of my right hon. Friend and recalled what the Prime Minister had said, I would have made an approach to him and asked him whether he would have been kind enough to sign our amendment.

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

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. It would be possible for him to table a written question to the Prime Minister today with a named day—by Thursday morning. We could ask the Minister to ensure that we get an answer to such a question in time for our proceedings on Thursday.  

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

My hon. Friend comes up with an excellent suggestion.

Mr John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland, Labour)

Is what the Prime Minister said not exactly compatible with what my hon. Friend the Minister was saying? Expecting somebody to carry a card and asking him to do so does not tell him that he must do it.

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

That is an interesting distinction. If the words:

''We think that it is . . . right . . . to ask people to carry identity cards''

reflect the Minister's view, I would be very interested. It is a most important point. I know the Minister has access to the Prime Minister, probably at all times. He will have the opportunity between now and Thursday to come back to us on this key point. Of course there will be many opportunities in the Chamber tomorrow for the Prime Minister to clarify his position, because I am sure that many hon. Members will be seeking to find out what it is. Many of us in the House are influenced by the Prime Minister's views, some more so than others.

In that spirit, and certain that we shall return to the matter on Report, because I have just noticed what the Prime Minister said about the cost of the scheme—I wish I had noticed that yesterday—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.