Clause 2 - Individuals entered in Register
Identity Cards Bill
9:45 am
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that, along with capping the price of ID cards, we would return before the parliamentary process had run its course with indications on concessions and other aspects of the fee regime. A later clause deals with the fee regime, and we will doubtless return to the subject.
The point made about the national children's database is entirely fair, but the database serves an entirely different purpose from the national identity register. It is clear from the Bill that the national identity register is a stand-alone database. The children's database aims to improve services for children, with an emphasis on early intervention for those with special needs, and it will improve the sharing of information between practitioners—for example, in education and health—to prevent problems from escalating. However, it is quite distinct from the objectives of the ID card scheme. It is a stand-alone scheme. Many people, including those between the ages of 16 and 18 referred to by the hon. Gentleman, may have their details held on other Government databases, but that does not lessen the need for a separate identity card scheme, supported by its own register.
There are two aspects to the amendment. The age is linked in the first instance to the roll-out of individual passports from the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman wanted to change the age to 18, and fair arguments can be made for such a change, but we do not accept them. We would prefer the flexibility offered by the Bill. It is entirely fair to say that such a fundamental change should be made by primary legislation rather than secondary legislation, but we disagree. However, we have moved from the negative to the affirmative procedure, which is appropriate. The other outstanding point is that of going further, not using primary legislation but keeping the secondary legislation route and, for want of another phrase, making it super-affirmative, with a report and other elements coming first. Again, we would invoke that process when moving to compulsion, but we do not think that a super-affirmative procedure is necessary for this part of the Bill, and we would resist it.
The only other element that was raised is the flexibility of the scheme. Provisos are mentioned in paragraph 44 of the explanatory notes that could exclude people over a certain age from the requirement to register under clause 6(1) and clause 41(4), which between them give the power to apply compulsion to different groups and to make exceptions. The hon. Member for Newark was entirely fair to say that, for those aspects, the Bill will mature. I said yesterday that further work needed to be done—for instance, to capture those of an itinerant nature and so on. It is the same for vulnerable groups when it comes to the interview and the biometrics.