Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Good morning. I have a couple of housekeeping announcements to make before we begin our consideration of the Bill. While I am in the Chair, hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies may remove their jackets if they choose to do so for their comfort. I cannot speak for my co-Chairman, Mr. Hood, but I am sure that he will extend a similar facility.

Those who have not served under my chairmanship before may not be aware of such issues, but for the benefit of all I must say that we will have long and complex matters to discuss when we come to the substance of the Bill. Many amendments have been tabled, and it often facilitates debate to have a fairly wide-ranging discussion at the start of consideration of each clause. I am relaxed about that, but hon. Members will understand that if we have a stand part-type debate at the outset there will be no such debate at the end. That matter is very much in the Committee’s hands.

Copies of the motion agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee this morning are available in the Room. I remind the Committee that the debate on the programme motion may continue for up to half an hour. I call the Minister to move the motion.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Identity Cards Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 5th July) meet—

(a)at 4.30 p.m. on Wednesday 6th July;

(b)at 9.15 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 7th July;

(c)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 12th July;

(d)at 9.15 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th July;

(e)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 19th July;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 45, Schedule 2, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 19th July.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and I am sure that our deliberations under your chairmanship and that of Mr. Hood will be fair, completely impartial and dispatched in a convivial manner. I hope, too, that our debates will be convivial and temperate. Without remotely trying to seem patronising, I ask new hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to reserve rhetorical flourishes, brouhaha and knockabout for the Chamber downstairs. We have serious business afoot in the Room, and I am sure we shall dispatch it in good order.

I welcome the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench with the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), to whom—misquoting Bevin, I think—I wish to say, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The hon. Gentleman and others were members of the Committee that discussed the previous Bill, so we ask their forbearance as this is essentially the same Bill that was before the House then. Some drafting changes have been made and I shall make available to the Committee a brief summary of the distinctions between the Bill as it is now and what it was last time we discussed it.

I welcome the northern wing of the Liberal Democrat party—the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—to the Committee. They will have a journey to travel, especially on Thursdays, so we shall try to dispatch our proceedings on that day in good order for them.

The programme motion was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, and our sittings on Thursdays will start at 9.15 am, not 9 o’clock. We consider that to be fine. The motion provides for 10 sittings and an out date of Tuesday 19 July. The Bill has not received excessive scrutiny—there is no such thing—but it has received plenty of scrutiny at various stages. We have deliberately avoided introducing knives and having a segmented debate, but, as I have been told by my Whip, and as an ex-Whip I listen to her, we reserve the right to introduce them should progress not be as forthcoming as we want. I hope that we shall progress without them. I offer the motion agreed in the Programming Sub-Committee in all humility and look forward to our deliberations.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I join the Minister in welcoming you, Mr. Gale, and, in due course, Mr. Hood, to the chairmanship of the Committee. As the Minister said, the Bill has been round the houses before, but we must remember that we now have a new Parliament and that this is a new Bill, and that it should not be allowed to escape scrutiny because it contains words that others, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, have seen before. I am sure that the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Westmorland and Lonsdale agree that our duty as Opposition Members on this Standing Committee is to hold the Government to account.

Our view is that this is a bad Bill that does bad things, and it is our job to ensure that its terms are properly scrutinised, so that if it is to pass muster, it does so having been thoroughly and properly looked into and debated. So, we will not be embarrassed if our debates last long into the evening, or if we are criticised in rumblings from silent members of the Government team.

John Robertson (Glasgow North West, Labour)

Well, they will not be silent then.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and I shared a bedroom in Basra. He proved himself a highly accomplished member of the   armed forces parliamentary scheme, and I admired his performance during our time there. I trust that I shall be able to be equally complimentary about his performance in our Committee’s deliberations over the next two weeks.

I welcome the Minister to the Committee. He used to be the aviation Minister at the Department for Transport, and I was in regular contact with him—both speaking to him across the Chamber when the opportunity arose and corresponding with him—to try to get across my concerns about the activities of Nottingham East Midlands airport. He thought he had escaped me when he moved to the Home Office, but, under the new dispensation following the election, I was moved to a new post, so here I am, ready to talk to him again.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

Delighted.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

As the Minister correctly says, he is delighted to see me.

I also welcome the Under-Secretary, who is new to Government service, at least from the elected point of view. I welcome him to his post and to the part that he may play in our deliberations. I do not know whether it is proper for me to describe the ministerial team as Little and Large. This morning, I learned on the “Today” programme on Radio 4 that the Minister is a former university admissions tutor. We learn something new every day of our political lives, and that was certainly new to me. We will soon discover whether that experience informs his approach to the issues before us.

On Second Reading last Tuesday, 34 people had spoken by the time that I made the winding-up speech for the Opposition. Some 24 of those—they included Members from the Government party—spoke against the Bill. Not one of those from the Government party who spoke against the Bill is on the Committee. Only nine right hon. and hon. Members spoke in favour of the Bill. Not surprisingly, all were Government Members. Of those, three were equivocal in their support for the Government. Again, not one of those three is a member of the Committee.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) on being a member of the Committee; I anticipated having to do so. She made the last Back-Bench speech on Second Reading, and I said that she had made a career-enhancing speech. She takes her first step in a great career as part of the Labour party’s representation in the House of Commons by being appointed a member of this Committee. I look forward to hearing her speak frequently and with enthusiasm as we discuss clauses and amendments.

Interestingly, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is on the Committee, but she is here as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary. She was not permitted to speak on Second Reading, and I dare say that she may not be able to contribute to our deliberations. None the less, her presence is to be welcomed.

The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) did not even attempt to speak on Second Reading, as far as I remember, but I am sure he will have read in detail all that was said and that he will wish to play a lively part in Committee. I believe that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is way over on the far left of our Committee Room, also did not feel it necessary to contribute on Second Reading.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I have my views.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, he is a man who has his views. I am glad to say that somebody does.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) did speak on that occasion—she made a very loyal speech and no doubt wishes to say similar things in Committee—as did the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). I wrongly described the newly identified constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), and I apologise for that. He is a personal friend of mine, and I know he will wish to play an active part in today’s consideration of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark is also present. He has been through this hoop before and it may be that he could recite everything to do with the Bill without even looking at the Committee proceedings in Hansard.

John Robertson (Glasgow North West, Labour)

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale? May I also thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for all the gracious things he has said about me? He has just ruined my career, before it has even started.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I am truly sorry about that. If I have made the career of the hon. Member for City of Durham while ruining that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West, I suppose there is some justice in the world.

May I welcome my hon. Friends to the Committee, two of whom are new to Parliament and to Committee work? I look forward to hearing from them both and, indeed, from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).

I would like to repeat my welcome to you, Mr. Gale. While we have serious business to do, I trust that we can do it with good humour and that, as the days get longer and tempers get shorter, we shall none the less remember what our job is: to ensure that the Bill is vigorously and properly considered.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

May I add my voice to the welcome that has been given to you, Mr. Gale, and your chairmanship of the Committee? Such is the weight of the Home Office business before the House and in Standing Committee that I am beginning to feel that I have probably seen more of you than I have of my wife and children. We will both have to deal with that situation in the next two and a half weeks. In common with the Minister, I   have no doubt that your chairmanship, and that of Mr. Hood, will be hallmarked, as ever, by the courteous but efficient running of our deliberations.

I welcome the Minister, with whom I have never served in Committee, and the Under-Secretary, with whom I have had the privilege of serving on one or two occasions, to their posts. In common with the Minister, I hope we will be mindful of the fact that we are all here with work to do and that some of the more extravagant rhetorical flourishes might be saved for later stages in the Bill’s consideration.

I also welcome the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, with whom I have never served, and the hon. Member for Newark, with whom I have, to their respective posts. I am pleased to welcome all the Conservatives to what I hope is their final and settled position on this Bill, which is one of opposition. I hope it is a position worth waiting for because, in terms of consistency, we have been waiting long enough for them to catch up with us.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that the hon. Member for City of Durham made a career-making speech. It may be that in the next couple of weeks she has cause to reflect on whether this is necessarily the career she would have wished for at the time that speech was made, but she and other new Members on the Committee will no doubt acquire such experience for themselves.

I want to touch briefly on the relevance of the terms of the motion. We will have sufficient time to consider the Bill, if we are fairly economical with our submissions, and I am pleased to see that, as things stand, we shall not have to contend with knives. However, as the Minister said, that situation could always be addressed at a later stage.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. You have guided me during at least two Finance Bills in the past couple of years, and it has been important guidance. I know that everyone here will welcome your presence today. I shall leave the complimentary remarks there, and I would not wish to damage the career of any Labour Member by making unduly flattering remarks.

What we are considering today is perhaps the most important legislation before this Parliament at this juncture. After all, it is very rare that we can honestly say as Members of this House that a Bill, by its very nature, affects every single person living in these isles. Inevitably, most legislation is about certain groups or certain parts of the country. It is unusual for a Bill to be specifically intended to affect every citizen—in this case, by seeking to clarify their identity, as the Government might put it.

In that sense, the Committee has a tremendous challenge. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered the previous Bill during   the last Parliament; I am new to these deliberations. I note that we have 10 sittings in which to seek to consider 45 separate clauses, two schedules and the explanatory notes, and in which to draw out the distinctions, questions and uncertainties. That is a challenge of which I am sure all Committee members are aware.

As to the motion, I note the hours proposed and I welcome the small amendment regarding the 9.15 start on Thursdays. Perhaps not all Committee members have noticed that change, but they may wish to note it now. As you will know, Mr. Gale, it was discussed in the Programming Sub-Committee and its purpose is to try to ensure that not only Committee members, but others who serve the Committee, can proceed in the best possible way.

Many people in the workplace outside this House would say that 9 o’clock is not a particularly early start. However, for a Committee to do its job properly, officials need to be up and early a good hour or more before that. We can afford a little courtesy on this matter to the Officers of the House and also the civil servants who support the Government, let alone Opposition Members’ support staff. That small change may not necessarily mean an extra slice of buttered toast in the morning, but it may mean that those who support the Committee can do so in a better fashion. I also note that it has been generally agreed that we should sit for an extra 15 minutes in the afternoon so as not to lose any time from the total.

I concur with the Minister’s opening remarks. This Bill is very important and it is incumbent on us all to seek to engage in our deliberations in a convivial and temperate manner. He is right to say that the legislation has not had excessive scrutiny. We shall seek to ensure that the scrutiny that it receives is thorough and purposeful. I hope we will be given the opportunity to improve the legislation, bad though it is in principle and practice.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

I welcome you to your place, Mr. Gale. In advance of our appearing in front of Mr. Hood, I should say how glad I am to hear that he has recovered. All those who served during consideration of this Bill previously will remember that he was absent through illness, but I am glad to say that he is better. I am sure that under your guidance, Mr. Gale, we shall have a precise, clear and concise discussion of the issues.

The object of debate is to convince. The phrase “déjà vu” has already been used. Several months ago, I sat in a Room very similar to this with one or two faces who are now here and who are, agreeably, very familiar to me. Among those now present were the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), and the hon. Member for Colne Valley. They and others who have been through this process before will know what awaits us.

When we on the Conservative Benches sat here last time we had a completely different view of the Bill that   we were about to consider. As we proceed, hon. Members will find that a number of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have joined me today have a lot of personal experience of problems that arise in the field. Speaking personally, however, I was well disposed towards identity cards. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Colne Valley is grinning; I am sure that she could acknowledge what I said.

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the expanded knowledge of the Committee whether there were probably at least three Conservative positions at that time? That is the explanation for my broad grin.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

The hon. Lady’s broad grin is enormously welcome; it lightens our lives and brings a levity to our discussions, which is always welcome. The fact remains that, speaking personally, I approached the Bill last time with an open mind, and I was probably much better disposed towards it than many of my colleagues.

As everybody in this Room will know, we set out five tests for the Bill that were comprehensively failed, both during general debates and in Committee. As a result, my mind was made up for me, against the Bill, by the Minister and those who spoke with him. In the intervening months between the first attempt to enact the Bill and now, we have seen that public opinion has changed hugely as well. Currently, if we are honest, the public are still ambivalent and undecided on the rights and wrongs of the Bill. My mind, and that of my party, is made up. We need a considerable and detailed amount of time to scrutinise the Bill.

Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

I am not sure whether we are rehashing what was said on Second Reading, but as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned his party’s position, I want to clarify whether the Conservative party would reintroduce identity cards in a way that met their five criteria or whether it is against identity cards in principle at this point.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. Perhaps I can clarify the position. We are not rehashing Second Reading; we are debating the programme motion.

Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Gale, for your clarification. None the less, I am enormously pleased to hear from another Nottinghamshire Member, who of course suffers day to day from the rash of uncontrolled crime in that county, which he may wish to speak about later.

Last time, we had eight sittings in which to debate the Bill. We constantly overran, and the discussion went from good-tempered to bad-tempered at times. The Government chose wrongly to introduce knives into the debate, yet at the end of the proceedings a large part of the Bill remained undebated. Many   clauses were not properly considered or scrutinised and we did not do justice to the Bill. This time, the usual channels have kindly and sensibly agreed to extend this set of discussions to 10 sittings, but I wonder whether that will be enough time, given the amount of amendments that have been tabled and the size of the Bill; I hope that it is.

None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford has already pointed out, this is one of the most serious Bills that has come before the House for many years. It is likely to affect every person on the street and huge amounts of national treasure and taxation. I plead with the Minister to listen carefully and take on board what we have to say in the next few sittings and not, like his predecessor, be so obdurate as to agree to no amendments. We have an interesting time in front of us, but I wonder if there will be enough of it.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

As one of the new Members of the House and a new Committee member, I want to express my hopes for the programme of this Committee. I was informed when I came to the House that the a lot of work was done in Committee and that that was where we would get a balanced and reasoned debate on any subject that the House was considering at the time. With ID cards, of course, that is very important. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, this matter will affect everybody in the United Kingdom.

I have already noticed that what the Committee lacks in balance of representation, due to the Government, it makes up for in experience. I am a new member of the Committee, and I hope that a full and robust debate between all parties will be allowed throughout our considerations, so that everyone can contribute. I and my two gallant colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Newark and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), bring to the Committee considerable experience of counter-terrorism and associated issues. I hope that the Committee can use that experience to ensure that the Bill is fully considered and not cut off in its prime, so that when the legislation progresses to the next stage, all Members and everyone in the United Kingdom will fully understand the impact. I hope that the new Members on the Opposition and Government Benches get a chance to contribute, and that the Committee lives up to what it has always promised to be.

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

I, too, am honoured to have been selected to serve on the Committee.

The House had an interesting debate on ID cards on the same day as the Trafalgar anniversary celebrations. As those events took place on the same day, many Members were unable to participate in the debate. However, there were many contributions—   according to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, there were 34—which demonstrates that there is substantial interest in this subject. It was also interesting that many of the questions asked in that debate, such as those on cost and technology, for example, were left unanswered, and I hope that the Committee will have an opportunity to probe them further.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, this legislation affects every UK citizen, and a running debate on ID cards is taking place concurrently in the media. It is interesting that as the nation has become more familiar with the arguments about ID cards, its support for the concept has started to decline.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was the first Member to raise the interesting position that the Conservatives adopted the last time this matter was brought to the attention of the House; the Conservative position has matured since then.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

If my hon. Friend is saying that the Conservative party’s position on this subject has matured, that makes me very mature indeed, because I refused to support the position adopted last December.

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

That is very mature. The Conservative party has many mature Members; that is useful to know. [Interruption.]

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order.

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Gale.

I am trying to stress what happens when legislation is rushed through—when there is not enough time to debate issues or to scrutinise the Government’s ideas or the impact that they will have on the nation. On ID cards, there are issues to do with cost and technology, for example, that we need sufficient time to discuss so that we can understand them. Those issues were raised when we debated the matter in the Chamber. Although some of us might agree in principle with the concept, the question of practicalities and whether ID cards will be of benefit or target the people whom they are intended to target is another matter. Originally, the nation supported the general concept, but when we consider the benefits that such cards will bring to society as a whole, their cost and the question whether the people whom they are supposed to target will be affected, it becomes clear that there is not really an appetite for them.

On the general concept of ID cards, I also hope that we will get a chance to debate some of the arguments that were not thoroughly debated, such as our requirement to link with the United States in respect of some form of biometric solution. When we debate these matters, we will show that the position that the Conservatives are now taking is the correct one.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Before I put the Question to the vote, for the convenience of any Members who did not attend the Programming Sub-Committee, I may say that we have discussed the possibility of sitting later on   Tuesday evenings, should—and only should—that become necessary. I have asked the usual channels to ensure that, if that becomes necessary, all Members will be given advance notice so that they can adjust their diaries.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I remind Committee members that adequate notice should be given of all amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments. Will all Committee members please ensure that mobile phones, pagers and other electronic toys are turned off or in silent mode during Committee sittings?

I would like to extend a personal welcome to new Members of the House who have not sat on a Committee before. The proceedings are occasionally arcane, but, broadly speaking, the conventions follow those for proceedings on the Floor of the House. However, if new Members have questions about any procedure that they do not understand, please do not hesitate to ask. In doing so, they may well be asking questions that older Members, or Members of longer standing, have always wanted, but have never had the courage, to ask.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. This may be that first opportunity, although I am not sure. During our earlier deliberations, the Minister alluded to a paper, which sounded extremely helpful, that distinguishes between this Bill and the one considered   previously. I am new to this debate in Committee, so I think the document will assist us, but I am not clear about when that paper will be made available to Committee members. The Minister might be able to clarify that. May I have clarification through you, Mr. Gale?

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Yes, I can clarify that immediately; it is probably one of the easiest questions that I shall be asked. The Minister has placed that paper on the Table, and it is available as of now.