Clause 2 - Individuals entered in Register
Identity Cards Bill
1:30 pm
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 46, at end insert ‘or’.
No. 15, in page 3, line 2, leave out from ‘period’ to end of line 4.
No. 187, in page 3, line 4, at end insert
‘or,
(d)he is a citizen of an European Union Member State with an approved identity document issued by that state.’.
Hopefully, during interventions I dealt sufficiently with the points about reciprocity, standards and all the other elements relating to the European Union, so I shall simply dwell on the lead amendment and amendment No. 14.
As I read them, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 2(3) are not meant to be joined. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in amendment No. 14 is that paragraph (a) should be linked to paragraph (b). He queried the “or” at the end of paragraph (b). As I understand it, it is (a) or (b) or (c), so there is no need for an “and”.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Or an “or”.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Yes. The subsection flows; we do not have to put “or”s all over the place—the “or” is automatically assumed. It was interesting earlier to hear a very eminent lawyer attack the English language as it appears in UK legislation, but I shall let that pass. I am told that the legalese is such that the “or” at the end of paragraph (b) implies an “or” at the end of paragraph (a). It is “or”, “or”, “or”; the three are not linked together by an “or” or an “and”.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I cannot think whom the Minister was referring to just then. My complaint about the language related to the use of the word “less”, and not to the absence or otherwise of the word “or”.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I do not see how I could misread amendment No. 14, which says in all clarity—that is quite unusual for some of the amendments—“at end insert ‘or’.” That is relatively clear. If I have missed the point, we shall perhaps return to it subsequently.
Amendment No. 13 has substance; it would give an entitlement to an identity card to any foreign national who had leave to remain in the UK for more than one month. However, as I said when I made my point about reciprocity, European legislation prevents the UK from requiring European economic area nationals and their family members to register before they have been resident for three months.
In addition, I do not consider that such a short period would be helpful, either to the individual or for controlling immigration, even if it were legally possible. As I said earlier, some 91 million people arrive at UK ports yearly—that is the latest figure, from 2003. Of those, 64 million were British, 15 million were European economic area nationals and 12 million were foreign nationals subject to immigration control.
I dwelt this morning on the e-borders programme to be implemented for 2008 onwards. It will capture the 12 million foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control and visa restrictions. Clearly, in 2003, many of them will have been short-term visitors—tourists or business people—and they will be in future, and I do not see the point of providing under the Bill that a foreign national coming here for, say, a six-week holiday should be expected to register and obtain an ID card or, indeed, have an entitlement so to do.
The Bill allows us to prescribe a period after which foreign nationals would have an entitlement to register and be issued with an ID card. It is likely that that period may be three months, after which we will require them to obtain a card. However, we need to retain a power to prescribe the period so that, should it prove necessary to extend or reduce it, we have the liberty to do so. That is why the period of three months is not in the Bill.
There are good reasons for the three-month period. At present, the UK admits short-term visitors for up to six months, but internationally it is more common for people to be admitted for three months for a short visit. In the USA, for example, visitors are admitted for 90 days, while in Europe three months is the norm for a short visit. There is little point in requiring people visiting the UK for such a short period as 31 days to register and obtain an ID card, and to meet the costs of so doing. However, we clearly need to draw a line somewhere and it is more logical to expect that anyone here for more than three months is resident on a longer-term basis—as a student, for example—when the need to register and obtain an ID card would seem much more sensible. The three-month rule would capture the 840,000 Irish Republic nationals to whom the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) referred.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
The Minister talked about how there may be scope for the ID card to be used as a form of travel document in Europe. Leading on from that rationale, I suspect that some visitors who come from Europe to the UK with an EU-type ID card could enter the United Kingdom using that card rather than having to jump on to our ID card system. I accept that I am looking forward a little, but if that were the case, would there be separate registers or some form of EU-wide register?
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
That system may indeed prevail in future, but only within the context of the reciprocity, standards and data-sharing elements that clearly do not prevail at present and to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) referred. At present, after three months’ residence, EU nationals will equally have to register and secure a card. The speculative future outlined by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) may well prevail, but it will do so on the basis of similar—if not identical—standards and reciprocity in data-sharing and the format of the ID card and registration system. We are nowhere near that at the moment. Indeed, even those who have moved in the direction of limited biometrics on ID cards have, like the Spanish example, done so only provincially and not nationally. Things may well move in that direction, but reciprocity in respect of EU nationals using their ID cards will not prevail until all those other elements are in place. I think that that is clear and has some logic to it.
Sadly, regardless of whether those who seek to do us harm have been here 10 days, 31 days, one month, three months or six months, it is unlikely that the situation would be better if they registered after 31 days—but there must be a cut-off point. The commonly accepted cut-off point in the international domain between short and long visits is either 90 days or three months, and we consider that three months is appropriate. To provide flexibility and given as we all understand that this is enabling legislation, there is a prescribed period in the Bill, which will leave us the latitude either to increase or decrease that dimension—more likely decrease, if anything. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment because, in the context of the Bill and its enabling framework, we consider it otiose.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
This has been a fairly constructive debate. I should like to light upon five broad areas. First, perhaps not realising the significance of what he said, the Minister mentioned that reciprocity with the European Union is our aim: the Government want a common standard of identity card, which must imply a common system of identity registration. We do not know what the enabling regulations will be—still less does the Minister—but if the Government have their way in due course there will be, if we are to take him at his word, some sort of rolling out, to use his favourite expression, across the 25 nations of the European Union of a standard identity card and an underlying data-accumulation system into which each member state will be able to dip in order to enjoy reciprocity and ensure that all those who are registered are who they say they are and that their personal data is truthful.
The Minister said candidly that this is an enabling Bill—I applaud him for that—and, necessarily, as with all such Bills, it is difficult to know precisely what he intends to enable. We do not know the shape or detail of the various provisions that the Home Secretary will have power to create as secondary legislation if this Bill becomes an Act. However, since the Minister is bound up in that necessary vagueness, he would like the Bill to remain necessarily vague. So that is the answer; we are not to have the degree of certainty that I suggest is the better way to produce legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre produced some detailed figures on the numbers of people coming in and out of the United Kingdom during the course of a year and I think that the Minister confirmed those.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
With respect, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre cited a series of numbers about tourists coming in and out of the country; he did not—and did not claim to—quote figures that include everybody who comes in and out. Those are the ones that I quoted.
While I am on my feet, and purely for the record, I should add that it is interesting how the hon. and learned Member for Harborough misquotes and misinterprets what I say. I have sought not to rise to such provocation. What he said in his opening two paragraphs bore no relation to what I said; nor can any such extrapolation be made other than by him.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I have done no more than to draw reasonable inferences from the words that came from the Minister’s mouth. If my inferences and remarks are disobliging, I am sorry for that. However, the Minister cannot escape responsibility. It may not be his wish, but it is his duty to deal with the conduct of this Bill, which is a flawed piece of legislation, as we are endeavouring to point out. Others much wiser than me pointed that out with far greater vigour and precision on Second Reading, as have people outside the House. The clear implication of what the Minister said and of the text of the Bill is as I have suggested. It is up to others to agree or disagree, but that is my opinion based on the information that I know.
Before the Minister rose to his feet just now, I was saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre produced some detailed figures about people coming in and out of the United Kingdom and, as the Minister correctly said—and as I would have said had he not interrupted—those were confined to tourists. The Minister told us that there were approximately 64 million visitors—or that number of journeys made—to the UK. We could call them crossings of the border, and they might have been undertaken by sea, air, or train. Of those, 15 million originated in the European economic area and 12 million involved what were called foreign nationals: those who required a visa to enter. I think that the overall total is 91 million.
So, a huge number of people already come in and out of this country. We assume that as mobility across Europe and the world becomes easier that number will grow. It must follow that the number of people who stay for less than three months will grow. Therefore, there is potential for problems to arise, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. He said that terrorists do not go for the obvious target but look for the weaknesses in the security and policing systems and in our institutions. That is where they go for.
I am no expert on security, unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East and for Lancaster and Wyre, but it seems that this aspect of the Bill opens up an area of weakness, which the Government need to address. I accept that the Minister says that the three-month period is the best as far as he and his Government colleagues are concerned; other countries use other numbers. However, we must understand that if an arbitrary time limit is set below which registration on the data system and ownership of an identity card are not required, people cannot then say that the Bill and all that it will enable—whatever that might be—will provide a bulwark against terrorism, serious crime, other crime, illegal working or breaches of our immigration rules. It simply does not stack up. The Government must understand that if they wish to push the Bill through in all its vagueness, they must tell us precisely what they think the real limits of its capabilities are. As the Bill is currently presented to us, that has not been done.
I will not detain the Committee over the fascinating discussion that the hon. and academic Minister—the former admissions tutor—and I had about the use of the word “or”. Clause 2(3)(a) states:
“remain there that will end less than the prescribed period after it was acquired”.
I gently suggest to him that a better way of dealing with that would have been to have used “sooner” or “earlier” rather than “less”. That was the point I was making about the language; it was not in relation to the question of “or”. That is a side point and one that can be dealt with by an English master in due course. For the moment, I will content myself with registering my concern about the issues that we have discussed and stating that I do not believe that the Government have adequately dealt with the matter. I trust that we may be able to deal with it on Report, if not now. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 125, in clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 156, in clause 8, page 7, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
As has been observed several times, we are dealing with enabling legislation. Obviously, as a result there will be a certain vagueness in the language used. It is not anticipated, nor is it intended, that every scenario will be outlined in the Bill. That is a perfectly proper and legitimate way for the Government to proceed. I take no issue with it. However, in our view, clause 2(4) goes beyond what might be regarded as vague and creates a substantial loophole in the law. It offers the Secretary of State a range of powers that, although he might not intend to use them, go beyond what Parliament should allow.
Amendment No. 156 would have much the same effect in relation to the card as amendment No. 125 would have in relation to the ID register. We have been spared having too many debates on whether it is appropriate to use “must” instead of “may”, or “may” instead of “shall”. That is a deliberate tactic as far as I am concerned—although I cannot speak for anyone else. However, I mention in passing that clause 8(5) provides that an ID card “may” be issued to an individual who comes under the ambit of that measure, and I suggest that it would be more appropriate to replace that “may” with “shall”. It is possible for information to be held on the identity database without the individual concerned who is caught under clause 2(4) being aware of that. In these circumstances, the mandatory issue of a card might well be the best way of ensuring that somebody is aware that information on them is held on the database.
I shall address my principal remarks to clause 2(4). It is worth stating at the start that there has been some minor but noteworthy redrafting of that subsection. In the previous version of the Bill, it read:
“An entry for an individual may be made in the Register (whether or not he has applied to be, or is entitled to be, entered in it) if information capable of being recorded in an entry for him is otherwise available to be recorded.”
The current version is broadly similar, but the requirement is added that
“the Secretary of State considers that the addition of the entry to the Register would be consistent with the statutory purposes.”
That rider causes me much concern. Paragraph 25 of the explanatory notes describes a scenario with regard to the Secretary of State that is—properly and legitimately—envisaged. In relation to the holding of information on a failed asylum seeker where biometric information has been acquired for their asylum application, it is said that at the point at which the application is refused that person’s information should be added to the database. I do not have an issue with that; I think that it is not an unreasonable use of the provision, but I suggest that broader applications than that would be available to the Home Secretary.
In this morning’s sitting, the Minister said that this clause could be used if the Secretary of State thought it necessary to hold information on those who were rising 15 and who would not in the normal course of events yet be subject to the provisions of the legislation under subsection (2). We have no way of knowing who is to be added in this way. There is nothing in the Bill that would require the Home Secretary or any Minister to come to Parliament to seek approval for the addition of those people to the database. In the circumstances, it seems to me that that is a measure of discretion too far. That power is too wide. Although we would not in any way impugn the current holder of the office of Home Secretary—he is a decent and honourable man—we are bound, as parliamentarians, to have regard to the worst-case scenario. The day may come when somebody without the high standards and propriety of the current Home Secretary holds that office, and for him or her to be allowed to add people, by classification or individually, case by case as they arise, to the identity database seems a rather unnecessarily widely drawn power.
My other concern about the subsection is that it allows the importation into the identity database of information that has not been obtained specifically for the purpose of the compilation of the database. Earlier this week, the Minister kindly allowed a discussion with some of his officials and I discussed that point with them in relation to another part of the Bill. However, I am concerned that holding biometrical information that has not been specifically obtained by those charged with the compilation of the identity database could threaten that database’s integrity.
I return to an example that I used earlier this week: the use of fingerprints. The Minister may or may not be aware of a case in Scotland involving Shirley McKie, a former fingerprint officer with Strathclyde police; the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) will be familiar with it. The case has raised substantial doubts about the proper and efficient conduct of the fingerprinting database employed by the Scottish Criminal Records Office.
There is a real difficulty if one seeks to import from another source information that has not been obtained for the purpose of the compilation of the database, and the consequences of the use of that information, which may subsequently turn out to be wrong, are severe for the rights and liberties of the individual who may be required to rely on the card.
Another thing occurs to me almost as I speak. There may be an obvious answer to it, but it is brought to my mind by the question of importing information. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me an answer. It would be possible, given the drafting of subsection (4), to put a second entry in the identity database. It would not be the primary entry compiled on the basis of a visit to the ID card office, but one in which data imported from another part of the Government could be held. I may be completely wrong; I do not pretend that that point has been carefully researched. It came to my mind almost as I spoke. However, is there any barrier to there being more than one entry on the database register? If there is not, I think that it would improve the Bill if that express prohibition were put in it. Perhaps we shall consider that point at a later stage.
We all accept that enabling legislation is drafted widely. I believe, however, that the provision is too wide and that we would be failing in our duties as parliamentarians who scrutinise the Bill, if we allowed the Secretary of State the degree of latitude that it is possible for him—or her, at a future date—to take, if he or she were so minded.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
Will the Minister clarify clause 2(4), which states:
“An entry for an individual may be made in the Register”
under paragraphs (a) and (b)? Does “entry” mean a registrable fact or can it be other than a registrable fact as outlined under clause 1(5)? Does the provision give power to the Secretary of State to add extra information other than what is described at the beginning of subsection (5)? If the hon. Gentleman knows the answer, I shall not ramble on. However, if he does not, I can expand on why I fear such an outcome.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I do know, and I was about to explain to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland why paragraph (b) is so important. It concerns statutory purposes and all that flows from them are registrable facts, as determined and limited under the Bill.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister. If that is a fact, it would not allow extra information such as travel information or other matters to be added to the entry. If it did allow that, it would confirm the fears of those who said that entry on the database broadened out from verification of identity, as opposed to Big Brother tracking people throughout the United Kingdom after entry and so on. What the hon. Gentleman said goes some way to alleviate the fears that people may have.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I wish to pursue that point momentarily. If people were up to no good, the security services or the police would do far better by tracking their mobiles or conducting a credit card audit than by obtaining travel information about them. The provision is an important element, so we shall—shock, horror—resist the amendment. The point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre was discussed during proceedings on the previous Bill, which is why paragraph (b) is in this Bill. It is a safeguard in respect of statutory purposes and goes back to what I was saying in our deliberations on clause 1—lengthy, but enormous fun, though they were—about the assorted nature of statutory purposes, the public interest and registrable facts, and how they deliberately interlock.
Clause 2(4) is intended to provide the flexibility needed to allow the personal details that are already available to be recorded when it would be useful to have them on the register, despite the fact that the person is currently not entitled to register. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland cited a useful example. Moreover, those who apply for asylum are issued with an asylum registration card on which elements of biometrics are stored. If we remove someone because of a failed application, by definition that person is not entitled to register on the database and subsequently have a full ID card. However, it might be useful to have information on the database that the person with those biometrics has already been removed once, having applied for asylum status under the name, with which such biometrics are associated. That might be the way to go subsequent to a further application for asylum, for citizenship and ID cards.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the Minister. I suggest, however, that such examples could be covered by inclusion in a prescriptive order, not under the broad and general power under the Bill.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I understand that concern, but under the clause, by definition, the Secretary of State and the authorities—I was going to say “or his agents”, but that would just fire the conspiracy theorists—implicitly cannot go fishing for biometric or other data simply because the measure allows them to pop the information on the database once they have secured it, no matter how they have secured it. It is about processes outwith the process of registration for the ID card, where it might be useful to store those data on the database, even though the individual was not entitled at the time.
The hon. Gentleman suggests, as we suggested earlier this morning, that the passports for 16-year-olds can be processed months before their 16th birthday. I should add that that is all done under royal prerogative rather than by legislation, so it will not be found in any legislation anywhere. However, it might be useful if the UK Passport Service had that information to hand already, instead of having to wait until someone was 16 and one hour old, and therefore entitled to an ID card, before it was provided with that person’s permission and acquiescence—with all that I said earlier about the Data Protection Act 1998—and if the information was put into the database before the magic bewitching hour when that individual turned 16.
I emphasis that the clause is not intended to allow fishing; it should be understood entirely in the context of data from another legitimate source that could be stored on the database within the statutory purposes, and all that follows from that in terms of registrable facts; and it provides the flexibility to allow that data record to be created for an individual, even though that might be done prior to their due entitlement.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
I am sorry to labour the point, but I should like to address registrable facts, which the Minister assured us earlier were those to which the entry could be limited. His example of an individual coming back in after having been removed from the country is not a registrable fact. [Interruption.]
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I take the point, and I am sorry for intervening from a sedentary position.
The residency status is clearly defined in the Bill, as was elaborated on yesterday, and even the hon. and learned Member for Harborough found it in the end, despite an inquisitive interjection. That is a registrable fact, as are the biometrics that are captured currently by the asylum registration card system in terms of asylum seekers. That, plus the point at paragraph (b) on statutory purposes, and so on, provides an appropriate safeguard. However, we think that rising 15s, and those who are removed and may subsequently apply in other circumstances for asylum or entry, are useful areas for data that it would be a shame to miss because we were rigid, rather than more flexible, in our interpretations.
The ARC system has been enormously successful in capturing multi-applications—that is, those who apply in three or four different names, or who already have an extant application from elsewhere, or from within our own system. It would be useful if those elements were captured and flexible.
Paragraph (b), and all that flows from it in terms of that magic little phrase on statutory purposes, should give the assurance, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland seeks, that this is not a fishing and trawling exercise—I do not use those terms because he is from Orkney and Shetland—for the authorities to pick up any data that they want and bang them on the database just because they fancy them. The provision is not that broad or Orwellian; it is simply drawn in the terms that I have discussed.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
The pleasant aspect of dealing with Bills such as this is that it is a change from fishing and trawling exercises.
I do not have any difficulty with the examples that the Minister gave, or the way that he gave them. He says that it might be useful to be able to hold these pieces of information, and he is right in that. There is a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider
“that the addition of the entry to the Register would be consistent with the statutory purposes.”
The Minister said that that is also helpful. However, no parliamentary scrutiny of the executive decision is involved and it is for the Secretary of State to decide that such things are consistent with the statutory purposes. There is no oversight and no way for Parliament even to know that the Secretary of State has made, or has been required to make, that decision.
We are dealing with vagueness heaped upon vagueness. The cumulative effect of the different levels of vagueness causes me concern. The statutory purposes outlined in clause 1 are broad to say the least, and necessarily so. Some of the registrable facts are broadly defined. Again, I remind the Committee of the concerns that I expressed yesterday about the broad definition in clause 1(5)(g). I am concerned that if one gives a broad power to the Secretary of State for broadly defined statutory purposes in relation to broadly defined registrable facts the net goes rather wide—to continue the Minister’s metaphor—in terms of the information that can be caught. I do not say that that is his intention or that of the Government, but the worst-case scenario is that the provision is wide.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I rise to make some minor points. First, the provision is not that wide, because we are talking about data that are already captured rather than sought and data that must comply with registrable facts. In terms of individuals and the use of this sort of power, the Information Commissioner provides oversight. He has a duty to report to Parliament on an annual basis. Therefore, it is not entirely accurate to say that there is no oversight or scrutiny of this, or any other power.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister makes a good point about the Information Commissioner. I had not considered the possible role that he would have in this area, albeit that safeguard is one step removed. It is a cut-out and worthy of note.
I am concerned that this is not the only way in which this part of the Bill needs to be presented. It might be possible to give the power to the Government to make statutory instruments—secondary orders—to prescribe those people whose information would be held on the database under subsection (4). That would bring a degree of transparency and immediate parliamentary scrutiny, which is currently not present in the Bill.
I am not satisfied that we have covered the matter in its entirety. I raised a couple of points that the Minister has not dealt with. I do not necessarily criticise him for that, because I was raising them more or less as they entered my head. If he would have regard to the report of the Committee’s proceedings later, he might wish to drop me a note on the issue. Given that time is moving on and that we are still discussing clause 2, and mindful that we might wish to revisit the matter at a later stage, I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
‘(4A)Details of any entry made in the Register must be provided to the person in respect of whom the entry is made.’.
There was a brief discussion on this subject on the last occasion that the legislation was discussed in Committee. The Minister’s predecessor, the Chief Secretary, addressed questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who moved a similar amendment to the one currently under discussion. I did not find the Chief Secretary’s response on that occasion terribly illuminating, and I wonder whether the Minister will have a better go.
In dealing with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, the Chief Secretary said:
“Such a provision”—
a measure on the provision of entries to the person in respect of whom the entry is made—
“is unnecessary because the Data Protection Act already holds general rules on notification rights. They have been very carefully considered and drafted in view of the underlying EU directive and they will apply to the ID cards scheme.”
He went on to say:
“So the rules are already in place”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 2005; c. 94]
We therefore have absolutely nothing to worry about.
No doubt the Minister thinks that that is all fine and dandy, but in respect of this new Bill in this new Parliament, we feel that we need far greater clarification from the Minister about the rights, or the absence of rights, among people who are the subject of information on the Government computer. Without such clarification, and without assurances that information about an individual will not be stored, added to or removed without his knowledge, the citizen will be in a position of insecurity.
This is not a complex point. It is straightforward: those who are the subject of Government-controlled information should have some knowledge of the fact that they are the subject of Government attention. I would like the Minister to explain briefly why proposed new subsection (4A) should not be added to the Bill.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
There is a lot of merit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, which chimed with the point that I made in relation to amending clause 8 and the requirement to let the person know, especially if information might be imported to the database from another source. It is important not only that the person is made aware of that, but that they can check the accuracy of the information.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I was chuckling to myself, because I read a little further in the Hansard that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough quoted. The hon. Member for Woking goes on to say:
“I have never understood the Data Protection Act. The only time when it has applied to me is when I have rung up Orange to ask about my daughter’s telephone bill and they have not told me about it even though she has asked me to ring; that is the usual story.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 January 2005; c. 95]
That tickled me.
I wish to make two points. First, I must disappoint the hon. and learned Member for Harborough by simply repeating the now Chief Secretary’s earlier comments. Nothing has changed in terms of the Data Protection Act since the previous Bill was discussed in Committee. I have not read in detail the proceedings following the discussion that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to, but importantly, even if there had been changes, we would still resist the amendment, because it is far too strict.
The Data Protection Act contains the normal caveats about practicability, national security, seeking to prevent or disrupt a crime and associated elements. Ifthe amendment were accepted, it would oblige us to tell every person about the details of their entry, regardless of whether they were under scrutiny for national security reasons, with all that that entails, or whether they were being dealt with as part of the prevention and detection of crime. Under the amendment, we would have to tell them everything. That cannot be what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to prevail. As the Chief Secretary said when he was in my position, in many cases the entry will have been made at the individual’s request. The DPA already holds general rules on notification rights, with caveats on practicability, national security and the prevention and detection of crime.
Many people will know that they are registered, as they will have applied and been issued with the ID card. However, any person who is concerned that they may have been registered without their knowledge will have data subject and access rights under the DPA; that fuller position, which is rightly in place, covers what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do far better than the amendment does. The amendment is seriously deficient—I do not cast aspersions on drafting abilities—because it does not have the caveats and flexibilities that prevail in the DPA in terms of access to data.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
Will the Minister clarify whether there is any provision to prevent an employer who knows that a potential employee has an ID card from requesting a summary of what is on the register?
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
There is no provision for anyone to request and receive a summary of any item of data on the registration database. That is very clear and I have said it previously. The only “access” that anyone will get is as follows. If a person is registered as someone who seeks verification and has duly gone through that process, all they will receive is verification by those working with the database that the database verifies the facts presented by someone purporting to hold the identity of which those facts are part. No one is ever getting read-outs or hard copies of what is on the database, whether it is an employer or anybody else. No, employers cannot have a summary of what is on the database for any employee who may or may not have an ID card. That is clear.
Access, along with costs and technology and a bunch of other factors, will underpin our deliberations, but it must be access in the context of verification, not access in terms of hard copies of data or fishing exercises in the database carried out by assorted people to get what they want. All those elements and canards that I know are out there and are pursued constantly are not in the Bill. I urge the hon. Gentleman, as I did yesterday or Tuesday, to find the clause that confirms what he said, as well as the one that says everyone has to compulsorily carry a card and produce it at the request of the police force or anybody else.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
Whether the Bill is voluntary or not, some Labour Members have made it clear that they would like what the Minister describes to happen. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) mentioned yesterday that she would like to see such matters progress. It would be wrong for the Committee not to—
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
I stand corrected. I am trying to say, however, that if this is enabling legislation that could lead to the introduction of compulsory ID cards, it would be wrong for us not to bring the matter up as we are discussing things.
We are dealing with the Bill and the ability of the security forces and the police, and so on, to carry out many of their operations to make our world safer, and they will not be able to do that until we live in a compulsory environment. If I can just get back to the point—
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Gentleman may be able to get back to it later, but this is an intervention, not a speech.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
I was about to intervene on the intervention, Mr. Gale, but I thought better of it.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. Let me explain myself to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. I think that I am right in saying that this is his first Committee. Although he may not have gleaned it from the behaviour of some other Members, an intervention is intended to be incisive and brief and should relate directly to the point that is being made. Once the Minister has taken his seat again, if the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch my eye and expand on the points that he wishes to raise, he may just get lucky.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I agree entirely with the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. Collectively, it is our job—and certainly the job of the Opposition—to ensure detailed scrutiny of the Bill. However, that must be done on the basis of points that are relevant in the first instance to the amendment; I do not mean that in a patronising way. The points that are made should be germane to the substance of the Bill and not to what will or will not prevail three Parliaments down the line or to something in some newspaper or other. That is the only reason why I gently chide the hon. Gentleman and ask him to find the clause that says that ID cards are to be carried compulsorily and need to be presented, and that the police are to have all these new powers.
The amendment has been presented in the context of access and people receiving summaries, hard copies or whatever of the data, but that is not the purpose of the database. Its purpose is to verify and substantiate ID and no more. The serious point is that even if the gist of the amendment were acceptable to us—and it is not—we would not accept it in its current form because of the absence of those normal flexibilities under law that prevail in the DPA. Such things are about practicability, so that the power is not open-ended and comprehensively permissive. Crucially, elements about national security and the work of our assorted police forces are not in the amendment, so that makes the thing flawed anyway.
As I said, the Data Protection Act is a specific measure about people’s access to assorted Government and other databases. It is specifically about those areas and nothing more, and they are a far better place in which to accumulate people’s powers and rights on access to information held about them. Those issues should not be tagged on in the way that the amendment proposes.
I am sure that I have not come even remotely close to convincing the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, but I have tried. For all the reasons that I have given, I ask him to seek leave withdraw the amendment.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
First, I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Gale. As a junior member of the Committee, I have to learn the tools of the trade.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
My hon. Friend is not a junior member of this Committee; he is a member of this Committee. We are all of equal status. He should not feel that simply because he has come into Parliament in 2005, his rights to speak up for his constituents are any less than anybody else’s. The Minister may be a Minister of the Crown, but he is also a Member of Parliament. We are all equal here.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that vote of confidence.
I appreciate what the Minister has said, and I understand all the aspects that he mentioned. I apologise if I did not make my case clear. I was trying to ask whether an employer, organisation or human resources department could demand a printout. Could they tell somebody asking for a job that they were not sure about their background and get that person to pay £10 to the Home Office or the organisation from which the data could be obtained? We have established that that would be the cost. Could the employer make the person get a summary of what was on the register so that they could qualify further their knowledge about the person’s background, other than what was on the ID card?
That was the scenario to which I was referring. I was not suggesting that organisations and employers would somehow be able to have direct access to the register, as the Minister suggested. We have already established that there are strict firewalls, for want of a better word, to prevent that from happening.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Briefly, taken in that regard, the individual can clearly pass that information on if they give consent. If I misinterpreted the absence of the individual and their consent, I apologise; I took the scenario to be the employer going to the verification process or the database to seek the data. Consent of the individual is paramount in that regard, rather than otherwise. If the individual provides the consent, they can stand up various aspects of their identity with the employer. That can happen only in relation to very limited data—the front end of the data in terms of establishing who the individual is—and only with consent. That is the key point.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
The last few minutes of the exchange have proved interesting and useful. They demonstrate the number of concerns that individual members of the Committee and members of the public will have about the way in which the legislation has been framed.
There will be circumstances where some employees, particularly those of the state, may be required, as a term of their contract of employment, to provide details of residential status and so on to their potential employer. There might not be direct access by the employer to the database, but, possibly under the contract of employment, there will be a requirement for the employee to provide details.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Certainly there is such provision in the context of previous asylum and immigration legislation, but only in that limited field.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill currently wending its way through our parliamentary process there are even more demands on the employer to stand up, and to regularly touch base with, their employees in terms of that residency status. Such provision exists, but it is not germane to this Bill.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
The Minister makes the point for me. It is one that I made earlier. Things will become a matter of practice and of routine. If people want to do anything in the United Kingdom in future, they will have to flash-and-go; people will have to show their identity card. People with whom we have intercourse—Members will know what I mean—will require the presentation of the identity card, because it will act as the instant verification machinery for all that is stored about them in the Government’s machine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East did us a service today. He opened up yet another area where access creep has been revealed. This little debate has taught us that there is bound to be a growing change in the balance between the individual and the state. The Minister can do nothing to prevent us from gaining that impression.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give an example of an item of information that an employer might ask for that would be on the identity register database and is not currently on another database?
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
If I am quick enough in turning the pages of the Bill, I will. I think that paragraph 9 of schedule 1 might contain the answer. I overheard my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre say something.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
One thing that we talked about yesterday in relation to the register was the police national computer number. That would be on the register and, if I am not mistaken, an individual requesting it would be given their PNC number.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that that at least provides the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) with one example. There may be others and if he wishes me to write him an essay on the subject, I will have to let him down.
I want to focus briefly on what the Minister said. He highlighted the vagueness of the way in which the Bill is drafted. There is a lack of balance between what the Government call entitlement and the order-making power. I do not need to detain the Committee further with my worries. I certainly will not press the amendment to a Division.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
I have one query, which my hon. and learned Friend might answer. In other legislation there is protection for the individual, such as the protection that does not allow an employer to ask a female employee whether she was intending to have a baby. While it is not compulsory in the financial sector in certain parts of the country to register to vote or to have a certain credit record, such matters are hard because financial institutions operate a flash-and-go system. People are not forced to have financial records, but if they do not it is difficult to receive a loan. Will the Government put in place a measure that will protect individuals from being forced by commercial convenience to disclose information?
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I do not know is the short answer, and I do not suppose that the Minister does either. That is what worries me so much about the Bill. As we have said, it is a Christmas tree on which as yet all sorts of undescribed or undefined things will be hung. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I wish it to be on the record that Opposition Members have grave concerns about how the Bill is developing and how the Government are incapable of responding to our worries. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.