Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 134, in clause 5, page 5, line 16, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 46, in clause 9, page 8, line 32, after 'allow', insert 'all of'.

No. 165, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 166, in clause 12, page 11, line 8, leave out

', and other biometric information about himself,'.

No. 174, in clause 14, page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 175, in clause 14, page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).

Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)

As I was saying, the amendment would severely limit the benefits of the scheme and represent serious threats to its security.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) legitimately raised concerns about how his constituents would be able to get to enrolment centres and what would happen if they needed a passport in an emergency. We have said that the aim is to have about 70 enrolment centres throughout the country and it of course behoves us to ensure that they are fairly spread, thereby giving people ease of access. We are also considering the possibility of a mobile enrolment facility, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned people who require emergency passports, but there would not necessarily be a change for his constituents. People have to apply in person for an emergency passport at one of seven UK Passport Service offices, so the process should not necessarily change, although it may take longer for them to enrol.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) raised other points about access and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) tabled an amendment addressing similar issues, although it has not been possible to consider it in the time that we have for clause 5. I assure them both that the Government fully recognise that special   practices will have to be adopted to cater for the wide variety of special needs that people with disabilities have. During the UK Passport Service trial that the Government arranged, we were keen to listen to the concerns of people with disabilities and we have worked closely with organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West touched on. I assure him that we shall continue to do that. Our aim is to ensure that the enrolment process is as responsive as possible to people with disabilities or particular needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe tabled three amendments setting it out that reasonable provision must be made to assist those who produce medical certification showing that they are unable to comply with the normal procedures relating to registration. I understand his concerns in tabling those amendments and I am grateful to him for allowing me to put my assurances on the record. His amendments address the need for the scheme to be flexible enough to cater for the variety of situations that may make it difficult for people to comply with the requirement to enrol.

I assure my hon. Friend that that flexibility already exists in the Bill. The Secretary of State is under a duty to act reasonably, to ensure sensitivity to the wide variety of special needs that people have—because of medical reasons, for instance—and to make appropriate provision to deal with those needs. The scheme will be fully compatible with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We are confident that the scheme as conceived will take care of those points.

Amendment No. 46 would require all fingerprints to be taken. I understand why the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) tabled it, but I assure him that it is unnecessary. Under the Bill as it is drafted, the Secretary of State can take all 10 fingerprints. In fact, it is possible to take 13 biometrics—the fingerprint readings, two irises and one facial biometric. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, amendment No. 46 is not necessary.

I pick up the point that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) raised about fingerprint technology. Let me assure him about that. The biometric trial was not a trial of the technology.

It being five minutes past Four o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [5 July], as amended, [this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

The Committee will be aware of the intention to sit after supper. There is likely to be a Division on the Floor of the House at 7 o'clock. I had intended to allow an hour for Members to have supper. Clearly, a series of Divisions would eat into   that hour to an almost intolerable and impossible extent. Therefore, at this stage I propose that the Committee will sit at 8.15 pm, or 15 minutes after the start of the second Division if there is one. I hope that that is clear.