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

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 4, page 4, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 207, in clause 4, page 4, line 25, leave out

'otherwise than by virtue of provision so made'.

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

Clause 4 deals with the designation of documents for the purposes of registration and other unspecified purposes. Amendments Nos. 206 and 207   would affect subsection (2). At the moment, the clause reads:

''(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate a description of documents for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The only documents that may be the subject of an order designating a description of documents for the purposes of this Act are—

(a) documents that a person has a power or duty to issue by virtue of provision made by or under an enactment; or

(b) documents which a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department is authorised or required to issue otherwise than by virtue of provision so made.''

Subsection (3) deals with the manner in which the orders are to be made.

I wish to register my usual complaint about the powers given to the Secretary of State to make orders that we have not yet seen. I shall bank that argument as one that will recur, which it does with particular force under the clause. What documents under subsection (2) do the Government have in mind? What is their description? What is their category or class? It would be useful to know what the Government are thinking. Short of compulsion, the principal means of creating an incentive to register is through designated documents, so the definition of which documents may be designated needs to be tied down.

At present, the category of documents is so broad or undefined that it could refer to a television licence, a fishing licence or another sort of promissory licence. Which documents will a person have the power or duty to issue by virtue of a provision under an enactment? What Acts will be involved? What earlier provisions define the category of document?

The question that must follow is which parties, be they human beings or institutions of the state, or perhaps not of the state, will have the power or duty to issue the documents? Do the Government intend the statutory order that will come into force at some stage—we know not when—to give power to local authorities, quangos or private organisations to introduce themselves to the identity card system by becoming issuers of documents that will then be designated for the purposes of registration?

It follows that amendment No. 207, which would delete the words

''otherwise than by virtue of provision so made''

under subsection (2)(b), must go if the Committee accepts my arguments about subsection (2)(a). It is one thing to have a Secretary of State designating through an unknown statutory instrument particular documents as coming within the necessary category, but quite another for unknown people or institutions to have that power over unknown documents. I urge the Minister to help me to understand what he is about.

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

I wish to follow on from what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I am worried about the width and breadth of the unknown documents under clause 4. I am worried especially about the ability of local authorities to introduce documents, given the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. It is now more understandable how that the   provisions of the Act might be enacted in national emergencies. Given what happened recently, it is much clearer how, in the event of a catastrophe occurring in a discrete part of the world, local authorities might suddenly be given much greater powers and that they might wish to introduce documents to assist them with identity and the general clear-up in the aftermath of a disaster that might then be considered documents to be designated for the purposes of registration. I would be grateful if the Minister cleared that point up for me. I hope that it is not too abstruse; I think it important, given our lengthy deliberations during the passage of the Civil Contingencies Bill, and also given how the subsequent Act might affect those documents.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

I seek further clarification from the Minister on the relationship between clauses 3 and 4, and therefore on schedule 1. As I said in the previous debate, schedule 1 is far too widely drawn. What documents that could form a constituent part of the register are we expecting the ordinary person to bring forward?

Without trying to rerun the previous debate, I should say that there is one issue about what is on the register and a second about how people are asked to add to what is on the register. Later, we shall no doubt consider how people might take things off the register. However, I wish to get much greater clarification on the relationship of those different parts of the legislation, and, dare I say it, to chide the Minister.

We are making things terribly and unnecessarily complicated. As I said, I have a problem not with the principle of ID cards, but with the practice. If I read clause 4 correctly, it puts the onus on the individual to provide more and more information that could then go on the register. Will the Minister at least clarify why that is necessary? Why can we not simplify the process so that people can bring forward documents, as they do in banks? Banks, however, are unduly complicated in asking for a number of pieces of information. If we had ID cards, banks might benefit from a simplification of that process.

To me, clause 4 is ladling it on thick and needs to be streamlined. If we had had a vote on schedule 1, we might have been able to do some of that streamlining. Clause 4 is overcomplicated and needs clarification.

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

May I start by responding to the contribution from my hon. Friend? Absolutely nothing in clause 4 adds any documentation or data to those already predefined in schedule 1. Clause 4 is about the mechanism for individuals to apply for an ID card when applying for a designated document, and no more than that. It is, if I may put it this way, the piggy-back clause that says, as we have said time and again, that we will start implementing this system by adding ID cards as part of a package when people receive biometric passports from 2008 onwards.

We can do that only if, via clause 4, the biometric passport is designated as an appropriate document to hook up with the ID card. This is not about building a system that would introduce an entirely stand-alone ID card system. That might be perfectly appropriate,   but we have decided that it is not the way we want to go. However, I repeat that clause 4 bears no relation to adding to, subtracting from or doing anything to what is already predefined in schedule 1. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

Why do we not make the biometric passport the basis of the ID card?

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

As we have said elsewhere, that is our additional intention. What I was about to say—at the risk of boring the Committee—was that this is enabling legislation. There may well be other more appropriate documents that could equally be so designated and form part of the implementation of the scheme. The issue has been debated, and it might well be the case that driving licences are another appropriate designated document that can assist in the implementation of the scheme. We are not simply saying, ''Here is a national register and here are the parameters for an ID card associated with that register; it will be introduced only on the back of the introduction of the second-generation biometric passports from 2008 onwards.''

We have said elsewhere, outwith the legislation, that this is the way in which we are minded to go. We want to draw it as broadly as possible, and that is deliberate because there might well be other routes. When the time comes for substantive implementation of the scheme, there might be provision for the issue of stand-alone ID cards—for example where, even if both driving licences and passports were designated documents, someone, for perfectly valid reasons, were never in their life to want either of those documents. Therefore, I make no apologies for this being drawn broadly.

Let me put this matter in context. Clause 4(2) is drafted in such a way as to cover two different types of document that we might wish to designate. Subsection (2)(a) covers any document issued under an enactment. That would allow us to include documents such as residents permits issued under immigration powers to foreign nationals, or—the point we were just debating—driving licences issued under the Road Traffic Acts. Subsection (2)(b) covers documents issued by a Minister not under any enactment or law, but under royal prerogative. Passports are one such document; they are not issued by any enactment of this place. That explains why we need both elements of this measure.

I entirely understand why Members desire to know more precisely how the designation powers in clause 4 could be used, but the amendments would create an unwelcome limitation on how those powers might be used in future. I repeat that the Government's intention under clause 4 is to designate British passports issued to UK residents aged 16 or over, so that an ID card would be issued alongside the passport as a package with the implementation of the second generation of biometric passports. It is no secret that we intend to designate residents permits issued to foreign nationals resident in the UK for more than 3 months, so that the residents permit will also become valid as an ID card. We also intend to issue stand-  alone ID cards, but that will be done under clause 8 rather than by using the designation power. However, as we have always made clear, this is enabling legislation designed to allow for the possibility of designating other official documents in future, either as documents alongside which an ID card would be issued or as documents which could be treated as an ID card.

Taking out the reference to documents issued ''under an enactment'' would mean that it would not be possible to designate documents not issued by a Minister of the Crown. We have no plans to do that at this stage, but we should leave open the possibility of doing so in future, should it be required to link the registration and issuing of a card to the application for an official document under an Act of Parliament by a public authority other than a Government Department. Let me give an example to illustrate that. The Home Office is responsible for legislation on firearms—everyone accepts that—but not for the issue of licences, which is the responsibility of the police. Thus, if we were to decide to designate a firearms or shotgun certificate, which might well be appropriate, so that anyone applying for such a document would have to register and obtain an ID card if they had not already done so, we would need to use the powers outlined in subsection (2)(a). We must take into account all the kinds of document that we might at least consider it appropriate to designate. I think that people would agree that taking the firearms certificate route might well be a way to capture people who are not necessarily captured by the driving licence or passport routes; that might be worth exploring.

It is important to remember that every attempt to designate a document for these purposes comes back via an order, so this is not the be all and end all. I take the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough about Christmas trees, 60 regulations and all those elements; those points are perfectly fair, but this is where we are with the Bill. We will return to such issues.

Each designation order under the clause will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure, so we are not talking about something that will be done without opportunity for proper debate and scrutiny. In sum, the amendments would remove the possibility of designating any document not issued by a Department, even if there were a strong case for doing so and if it was a document, such as the firearms certificate, which was the responsibility of the Home Office but not issued by that Department.

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

I do not know whether the Minister was about to finish; I think that he probably was. Could he make reference to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and say how it might be affected?

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

The provisions simply will not impact on the 2004 Act in any way, as I understand it. I was in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister when that Act began its progress—at least, that was where the Act started; I have no idea where it ended up. [Interruption.] Via which Department, I meant. I shall ignore sedentary comments in future, in line with your earlier exhortation, Mr. Hood.  

The 2004 Act has a specific set of purposes and powers for particular circumstances. Some way down the line, when the system is in place, there may well be some link-over between this Bill and the 2004 Act in the case of an emergency involving authorities, whether local, regional or national, for the statutory purposes of the Bill. But in normal circumstances—for which the Civil Contingencies Act is clearly not designed—the overlap between the two is minimal..

Several hon. Members rose—

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

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newark and then the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

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

I was being inattentive; I hope that the Minister will forgive me.

I am very interested in this point. What I say is not intended to be antagonistic in any way; I merely want to assist. I had the privilege of sitting on the Committee that considered the Civil Contingencies Bill, and there were many vague points in it. I think that the Minister sees what I am driving at. It would be enormously helpful if he could provide some guidance on what would happen if a state of emergency was declared under the 2004 Act; perhaps he could do so later, in writing. I appreciate that there is no precedent for such a situation, but any guidance would be of enormous assistance to me.

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

If there is anything further to say in writing, then of course I shall write, but the starting position is simply this: in some years, well down the line, in a civil emergency of any description—local, regional or national—and within the context of the statutory purposes of the Bill and the equivalent elements in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, there may well be some interplay between the two. Now, in the context of two separate and distinct pieces of legislation, I do not think that there is quite the interplay that the hon. Gentleman suggests. But if the situation is otherwise, I will certainly come back on the subject in writing.

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

I, too, served on the Committee considering the Civil Contingencies Bill, but privilege is not quite the word that I would use to describe the experience. My recollection is that, in the four schedules to that Act, there is fairly significant provision for information sharing among certain Government agencies. I do not expect the Minister to answer my point now, but perhaps he could consider it and write to Members of the Committee. To what extent is there potential, because of those information-sharing provisions, for a widening of scope in terms of access to the information held on the database?

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

I shall say again what I said to the hon. Member for Newark: if it is within the context of the statutory purposes of this Bill, which I hope will eventually be an Act, there may well be uses to which this Bill could be put from a civil contingencies perspective. But that will not allow people to browse or fish or so on. All the other arguments that we have already rehearsed would apply, too. Everyone can see how there could be some utilisation of the register and the data therein in the context of a national, regional   or local emergency. If there is more to say on the matter, and on the points that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about data sharing, I will happily write to the Committee.

I was deeply worried by a comment made earlier by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He seemed to take great enjoyment from the debate we had about rebuttable versus conclusive presumption, which I am sure did not last too long but felt like it did. If he enjoyed it as much as he implied, I would urge him to get out more.

I take the points made by a range of hon. Gentlemen. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that this matter is not about adding to schedule 1 and its breadth and width. We can return to some of the points that he made when we consider clause 5(3), which is about the documentation needed when registering in the first instance.

While I understand what the amendments seek to do, they are far too narrow and far too restrictive on what is enabling legislation. For the interplay and differences that I have suggested between documents under enactment, documents by royal prerogative and documents that another produces in relation to the police and firearms, rather than ultimate responsibility being with the Home Office, we would prefer the degree of flexibility implied by clause 4 as it stands. I ask the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw the amendment.

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

I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud. We need to know more about what is intended by schedule 1 and by the sorts of documents that are to be designated, either under the royal prerogative or under some enactment by virtue of clause 4. My concern is that we are legislating in ignorance. Having heard the Minister, what concerns me even more is that he is bringing forward a Bill without any real idea about the sorts of documents that he will ask us in due course, under the statutory instrument and the order-making powers, to designate.

I will not divide the Committee, but in exchange for not doing so, I urge the Minister to provide us with a public list of the sort of documents involved between now and consideration on Report, although I do not expect him to say social security document A, B, C and D, fishing licence, driving licence and so on. That would give us a general idea of what he thinks he is doing. Knowing the Minister as I do, I suspect that he is not entirely happy with the way in which the clause is crafted. I think he would like to help us a lot more than he is able to do at the moment. The summer recess will intervene. I suspect that by October he will find it within his powers and grace to return to us on Report with a slightly fuller picture of what the Government hope to do under clause 4. I know that he wants to help the House to do its best with this legislation. I will leave things there, in the strong and happy knowledge that come October he will have a little list. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.  

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.