Clause 15 - Power to make public services conditional on identity checks
Identity Cards Bill
12:00 pm
Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 15, page 14, line 9, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Clause 15(1) states:
“Regulations may make provision allowing or requiring a person who provides a public service to make it a condition of providing the service to an individual that the individual produces—
(a)an ID card”.
That is fine, but paragraphs (b) and (c) add:
(b)other evidence of registrable facts about himself; or
(c)both.”
The clause is difficult to understand. I see how important it is, but it is incongruous and probably rather heavy handed.
There are several problems. First and foremost, which public services does the clause cover? Should I assume from the way in which the Government have framed the clause that I will need my ID card to obtain emergency treatment? I cannot imagine that being the case, but if it were, the Government would already have insisted that carrying the ID card is mandatory. I am content to believe the Minister when he says that that will not happen and that the Government do not intend to make that happen.
Dwelling for a moment on medical services, I can assume only that an ID card would need to be produced for such things as routine, extended and chronic medical care and perhaps dentistry. What else? I hesitate to use the phrase “entitlement card”, but will the Minister provide us with further evidence regarding which services the Government will make available to us only on the production of an ID card?
If my assumption is correct, I am prepared—sort of—to accept the logic of such a provision, despite my dislike and contempt for the whole idea, but I cannot understand why, if an ID card has been demanded so that a service can be provided, we should have to produce an ID card, other evidence of registrable facts about ourselves, or both. Is the Minister implying that I could go to the doctor’s for treatment for, say, a bad back and the doctor could say, “Okay, nice to see you and your bad back again. Let’s have a look at your card,” and if I produced it but the doctor said that it was not good enough, he could ask for more registrable facts to prove that I am the person who came last week? I am glad that I have made the Under-Secretary smile, but I simply do not understand why that is necessary.
Despite my general reservations, I am content that there might be some reason for requiring us to produce the card if we want public services, but what on earth do paragraphs (b) and (c) mean? To my mind, the Government would be well advised to strike them from the Bill. If we are to have the card, the simple statement that the individual must produce it is quite enough. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are needless and otiose and should be struck from the Bill.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
The clause seems to be intended to allay fears about how the card is to be used immediately before it becomes compulsory as the Government wish.
Clause 15(1)(c) questions the integrity of the card itself, because if it is robust enough to prove who a person is, why is there a requirement to produce other identification cards along with that card? In the case of stolen cards, if one card is stolen a whole array of identification cards is likely to be removed at the same time.
How will the card be ratified? Mention has been made of the flash-and-go concept of showing one’s card, which allows one to obtain a service. What services are included? Of the cards in our pockets today, bankcards are the most common. It is not simply a question of showing that card to prove ownership; a process has to take place involving confirmation of details that are separate from the card. That raises the question: how will cards be read? Will the Minister elaborate on that process?
Are we simply to accept that an individual’s production of an ID card, perhaps with a driving licence, is sufficient to enable them to receive the service, or will there be a process of ratification? If so, will there be a reader—a machine that can confirm those details?
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)
I do not know whether I can assist the hon. Gentleman, but does he not accept that to cover the possibility that someone might steal the card, it might be necessary to verify that he is the person who is entitled to hold it? He might be asked to provide a fingerprint, for instance, to compare with the card. That is an example in which both elements would be needed without calling the integrity of the card into doubt.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point which demonstrates how complicated the process could be. If the card is lost, how does one prove one’s identity? How is that done without going back to the original registration unit? My concern is how, on a daily basis, when an individual wants to use services, that can be done efficiently—how it can be proved instantaneously that an individual is the person named on the card. That is why I should like the Minister to explain whether we will go down that route.
Airports are another great example. Would transport be considered one of the services mentioned in the clause? Would cards be used to prove who one was for internal flights? Will we eventually have readers or some form of scanning systems that read the card to confirm who the person is? Although the clause is trying to allay the public’s fear that we will have to carry these cards all the time, if we get to the point at which one cannot enjoy services without having these cards, an obligation or compulsion to carry the card is being introduced by the back door. My other concern is about where that will lead. The Minister must allay these fears that we will not be able to walk around without these cards.
The Minister has repeatedly said: “Show me in the Bill where it says this, that and the other,” but many of the details are not in the Bill—many are explicitly not included. He tells us that certain provisions will not apply, but tell that to a policeman who in three or four years’ time asks for some form of identification. This is the road we are going down. Everyone will eventually feel obliged to carry their card, even though the law does not specifically say that they have to.
David Drew (Stroud, Labour)
I too see the clause as quite important, albeit for different reasons from those that have been outlined. As I said before, I have no problem with the concept of an ID card, but I have a problem with who is likely to have it and who is not likely to have it. The sort of people who would be unlikely to have an ID card are recent entrants to the country, Travellers, or those who for some reason have a fear of authority. It makes some sense, therefore, to consider clause 15(1)(b) carefully, because those people will immediately be disadvantaged if they are trying to access public services. On what basis are the deliverers of public services going to decide whether to make their service available to people? Will that decision be determined by whether those people have a card? That would put the onus on the doctor in accident and emergency, for example. There are various ways in which we can frame the legislation so that there are caveats to allow such people to function, but it needs to be spelled out clearly.
Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points. When making my point about health care, I assumed that emergency services would not depend on the provision of the card. Where does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the line would be drawn? Where does emergency become non-emergency, and vice versa?
David Drew (Stroud, Labour)
I was going to talk about that. It is a difficult question. If someone has toothache, it is an emergency for them, although to a dentist it may be something that can be treated in due course, but if someone has no ID card, they may not get treatment at all. Notwithstanding the fact that these days it is difficult to get a NHS dentist anyway, most dentists are pretty altruistic when it comes to someone who is genuinely suffering—but the clause lays on them the additional burden of whether to treat such a person.
That is not my main point. I want to talk about who will and who will not have a card. I can see the sense of subsection (1)(b) in relation to those without a card. However, it immediately gives rise to two sets of people: those who naturally choose to have and use a card and hand it over to people in public service, and those who either choose not to have a card or do not have access to it. That situation is made more difficult by subsection (1)(c), because if we may now ask people to produce both a card and other registrable details, who will be asked to give other details? Will they be people who have a card and have to provide it because the onus is on the deliverer of the public service to check the card, which may be insufficient and more proof is required for the checking mechanism?
I question whether paragraphs (b) and (c) are necessary. Paragraph (b) needs at least to be made more overt, but there is no advantage in including paragraph (c). I am interested to hear what the Minister says.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. This is becoming a stand part debate. I have no problem with that—I have always made that plain—but we can do this on the understanding that we only have one stand part debate and do not hold one at the end of this set of clauses. If Members consider that it is convenient to broaden the issue from amendment No. 56 to encapsulate the sentiment behind the whole clause, that is fine. However, please will they understand that I shall not be calling a stand part debate at the end? If they have something to say, they had better say it now.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
In many ways this interesting amendment gets to the heart of the practical operation of the scheme.
For the benefit of hon. Members who do not already know it, let me say that I am unable to hold on to anything. I will inevitably lose my card as soon as I get it. However, I will presumably still be able to see my doctor, and if they have the mechanism for reading a fingerprint, iris or other biometrics, they will read it and say, “What is your name, address and date of birth?” I will give them those details and that would be “other evidence” under paragraph (b). In that case, why do we need the card at all? I suspect that we may be going that way already.
I have some small experience of such things. When I was a solicitor, the first time I visited Barlinnie prison in Glasgow, my fingerprint was taken; presumably, some sort of facial recognition was also involved. To gain access to the visiting quarters thereafter, I placed my hand on a reader, looked at the camera and—bingo!—the door opened. The truly remarkable thing is that they let me out again as well. In time, the identity card may become redundant.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
All hon. Members have to understand that if they wish to be called, they must rise. It is not up to the Chair to decide on a whim that somebody shall speak.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. Some might say, because of my stature, that I am still sitting down while I am on my feet. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) making comments from a sedentary position. He was clearly enjoying the previous debate from the inside of his eyelids.
It is important that the provision of public services is addressed. Public services are different from public authorities. I know that an attempt is made to define public services in clause 43, but at that point we see the need to carry an ID card creeping in through the back door.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) talked about obligation. Obligation is different from compulsion, but it spreads very quickly. Hon. Members might not be aware that a person does not have to have a credit card to access or use one. If they can remember the 12-digit number, they can walk into a retailer and use it. The banks do not require the card, but allow the retailer to decide whether to use it to verify that the person is the account holder. The same goes for a cheque book. If I had any money, I could write a cheque on a blank piece of paper—“To the bearer”—it would effectively be an IOU.
Today we take it for granted that we have to have certain things with us when in fact we do not. That is because of custom. For example, we do not have to produce driving licences and insurance documents for seven days. However, we have all got used to the fact that if we are pulled over by a policeman, it is much easier to have our documents on us.
When I was patrolling in Northern Ireland, if we stopped someone who did not have a driving licence, we certainly looked harder and longer at the vehicle and the person, even though that person did not have to carry his licence. That might not have been right, but it meant that more and more people felt obliged to carry theirs. Over the years, people were—
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
Exactly. They were conditioned to that process, and we should be aware of that. When that is tied in with the provision of a public service, it involves a very wide remit. In some areas, such as the Western Isles or the highlands of Scotland, air travel is sometimes the only option. Perhaps the provision will be construed to mean that everyone getting on a plane from the Western Isles must produce their ID card. In other parts of the world, there is clearly a choice. I think that the Minister said that there would be about 45 locations where one would go to register for a card or get a new one.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Seventy.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
Not a huge number across the mass of the country, then. Some people will have to take a long journey to get their ID cards. I anticipate having to go to the centre of Manchester, which is some 65 or 70 miles away. I would have to take a number of public services to get there.
In one sense, I understand why the Government want the option of both a card and registrable facts, but we know that having an ID card will soon become compulsory. That is the stated aim, and people will quickly be obliged to carry the card. I know that the Minister will say that that is nonsense, that there will be no compulsion and that that is a canard. The reality is that the obligation will start and grow, however, and before we know it, we shall all have to carry the card. We should be aware that that will be the end result.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that he did not have a problem with compulsion in principle and suggested that if the system is to be effective, people should carry their cards all the time. There is an argument for that position, as the civil liberties debate also involves how much information cards can carry.
On the amendments to clause 15—this also applies to other amendments that we have yet to consider—provision of public services will become a difficult issue. I understand people’s concerns on A and E access. Of course, no doctor is going to look at someone who is dying at their feet, and say, “I’m not going to give you public service provision”, but what if that person is then diagnosed with cancer and they have to be referred? The doctor could be dealing with someone from the Traveller community, such as an Irish resident, or someone who does not want to have an ID card, has not got round to getting one or has lost one. The doctor would then be in the difficult position of making a referral that was outside the emergency remit, but essential to life nevertheless. We can see how that problem could arise.
David Drew (Stroud, Labour)
According to GPs in my constituency, there is a difficult issue—to be fair, the Government have begun to address it—in respect of people who come to this country specifically to use the NHS. We all know that that has been an untold story, even though the Government have begun to address it, as I said. In a sense, that is an argument for the ID card, but the problem with clause 15 is that the individual must produce either an ID card or something else. It is unclear what the Government are trying to say.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
I certainly concede to the hon. Gentleman that, on the one hand, people are trying to prevent health tourists—I think that that is the phrase. On the other hand, we are talking about the services that he, I and our constituents have a right to access, whether or not they have an ID card, as British citizens resident in this country who contribute through the tax system. It is not easy to recognise from a person’s face the difference between such people. A lot of thought has to be given to that.
On the level of identification, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East asked how and at what stage verification takes place. If someone who enters their local railway station is required to produce an ID card to access that public service, will a flash-and-go approach be used to test the biometrics, or will there be a little more? How clear will the photographs on the cards be? I had two Army identity cards—actually I had three, but I broke one, or put it through the washer—the first of which was replaced by the second. The photographs quickly became out of date. One has only to look in “Dod’s” or The Times “Guide to Westminster” to see that some MPs are fond of their school photograph, now that they are over 40. I am guilty of such a feeling, although I have not tried to use such a photo.
If we rely on flash-and-go for the provision of public services, what is the point of ID cards for general use among the population? They will constantly have to be updated. Either the private sector will have to start paying for they card—for example, Virgin Rail will have to pay for the readers—or the public sector will have to start using deeper technologies to interrogate the card and the system. That is when costs will rise.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
Amendment No. 56, which would delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), would effectively ensure that only an ID card would qualify as proof for a public service. That would create the scenario that Opposition Members seem to fear so much—the flash-and-go society would certainly be with us, because there would be no alternative to having an ID card. If we limited the clause in the way that the amendment suggests, public services would not be able to perform biometric checks, or checks using registrable facts such as the registration number, against the card or the register when checking the identity of the applicant. In essence, under the amendment, provision of a service could be linked only to the card, not to the identity held on the register. That is the problem with it.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East asked a question about how cards will be read. That question allows me to provide some useful background on the clause. The precise details of the process of checking identity will be for the public service concerned to determine in light of regulations made under clause 15, but let me lay out the stages of that process and say how it could be carried out. There could be a visual check of the card and no more. There could be a check of the card alongside verification against the register, involving use of a personal identification number, if the service concerned had a particular kind of reader. In the most extreme scenario, there could be verification against the register using biometrics. All those possibilities need to be available to public services before we are in a position to make the provision of public services conditional on identity checks as is set out in the clause.
If we accepted the amendment, it would remove our ability to check in cases in which someone did not have their card—for instance, if it was forgotten or lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the dentist. In such a case, the amendment would be limiting in a way that all hon. Members seem to fear. If people did not have their card because they had lost it, or because it had been through the wash with the person’s Army kit or whatever, it would be difficult to get treatment for toothache. It would be a limiting factor if only the card could be accepted, whereas if someone could provide their PIN, registration number or a biometric instead, the loss of the card would not matter.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
Interesting information came out just now. There was a suggestion that certain public services will have access to the register, and indeed to a method of reading the biometrics, if I understood the Minister correctly. If that is the case, can he elaborate on the type of public services that he envisages having that facility?
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
The type of public services would be laid out in regulations, and it is not for Ministers to dictate what they are, as that would be for the House to decide. However, the kinds of services involved are those that we have been talking about throughout our consideration of the Bill. They are principally health services, which have been alluded to throughout the debate. Benefits are another example of a service in which people would expect such facilities to be used, and where we would want a higher standard of identity check. People would want the ability to use the card and/or other means of verifying identity in those cases. So those are the kind of services that we have in mind.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
On health provision, the United Kingdom has, effectively, a treaty with other European countries, and that produced the E110, the health travel form—[Hon. Members: “E111.”] I hear lots of suggestions, but I think that the Committee gets the gist; I mean the national insurance certificate for us abroad. In return, European citizens have their health costs predominantly met by the NHS if they are in an emergency situation or are gravely ill while they are over here. Let me explain the issue. Currently, Britain just assesses a rough pot of money that it then exchanges. It does not do things on a per-use basis; it simply estimates that France should get X amount of money and pays that across to the French health service—and likewise for Germany. In this system, when a European citizen comes forward and says, “I am a European citizen so I do not have to have an identity card here,” how will you manage to deal with that? Under our system, you might say we cannot treat him because—
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. I have two points to make: first, I would not do that at all; and, secondly, the hon. Gentleman’s contribution is meant to be an intervention rather than a speech.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman raises the important point of how EU nationals will be treated under this system when there is compulsion. For the purposes of the Bill, EU nationals will be treated in exactly the same way as British nationals. There will be no difference; if they are here for longer than three months, they will have to produce a card to access services without charge. That is laid out clearly. It is possible that EU nationals will also have to produce further information to verify who they are, such as their ID card for their own country. Other foreign nationals might have to produce other information such as a work permit number; obviously, an EU national would not have to do that. That is why the clause is drafted in a way that provides flexibility for the system. An EU citizen who was visiting our country would have to produce their version of the E111 form. Therefore, the current situation would not be materially altered. Things would carry on in the same way. Of course, once compulsion comes in, everybody will be subject to the same requirements.
If Members want examples of why flexibility is necessary, I can provide them. It is right for the Department of Health to be able to take a biometric reading if somebody arrives unconscious at an accident and emergency department; that would help medical staff to identify that person, when they otherwise might not have any easy or ready means of doing so. The amendment would limit those staff to trying to find a card on that person, but it is in everyone’s interests for the emergency and health services to have the ability to determine identity without relying solely on the card.
The hon. Member for Newark made a valid point about emergency treatment. The Government have made it clear all along—I hope that our discussions about some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), which we are about to address, will back this up—that production of a card will never be required for access to emergency services or if somebody has a life-threatening condition.
Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)
I hope that I do not anticipate the Under-Secretary, but will he deal with the intervention that I made on the hon. Member for Stroud about where the line is drawn between emergency and non-emergency situations?
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
That, I would guess, is for health services to determine. Patients present by different means: some of them self-present, others present via an elective admission and others present from under an ambulance’s blue light. It will be for the health service to determine whether to require an identification check. I stress again, however, that access to emergency services and emergency health treatment will never be dependant on the production of a card. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud a full reassurance on that point.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)
I do not wish to labour the point, but I point out that we are just learning about the extent to which biometric readers—a phrase I use for want of a better word—will be introduced. The examples that have been cited in this debate suggest that biometric readers will be used in a number of years’ time to confirm identity in our hospitals and, under that rationale, also in our police stations. What would happen if someone was arrested? If the police wanted to confirm someone’s details or eliminate them from inquiries, it would be an obvious idea to have such readers in the police station as well. Airports have also been mentioned.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
This is an intervention.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
What the hon. Gentleman says is true. We do not have in mind the flash-and-go society that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who I am pleased has deigned to join us, has in mind. Were the card to be the only means available, there would not be readers, but there would be a heavy reliance on a flash-and-go society. The very installation of those readers in hospitals and police stations will mean people not being required to produce a card.
Under the terms of the Bill, which I hope becomes an Act, people will be able to prove their identity through their biometrics or by producing information that allows confirmation of who they are on the register. If that is what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East fears, let me say that the Government are determined that the Bill, identity cards and the national identity register will help to cut health tourism. That is a key aim of the Bill. If he has a problem with it, that is up to him. It is right that the scheme should bear down on people who want to use our public services without having contributed to them and without having the right to use them. That is a clear aim of the scheme and I make no apology for it.
Questions were raised about the integrity of the card by the hon. Gentleman, which is an important point because it may not be possible to read a card for some reason. We do not want to restrict access to any services if the card develops a problem and becomes unreadable. That is why the flexibility in the clause is important.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about compulsion by the back door, and we shall return to that point later. It is absolutely clear that services may be specified only after the compulsion is put in place. We have already been through the elaborate procedure that both Houses would have to use to approve such a measure before we arrived at that position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised some points, and I hope I have addressed them, particularly with regard to access to health services. It is not the intention to deny access to anyone and we do not want people to deny themselves access because we have placed too great a requirement on the use of the card.
My hon. Friend said that the measure might lead to two classes of people: those with cards and those without. That might be possible. Some people may not carry their card with them because they choose not to do so, but they will still be able to prove who they are when they turn up at A and E, a dental surgery or a GP’s surgery.
Many other people will enjoy the convenience of having the card and they will be able to use it to their own benefit. There may be two classes of people, but that will not necessarily be a problem. Obviously, in this case we envisage a time when there is compulsion—when people are all registered. The integrity of the register and whether it is complete are important, not whether people are carrying cards. The latter question is one of personal choice.
David Drew (Stroud, Labour)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. Is the onus on the individual to apply for a card, not on the state to take that card away? That question is particularly important for groups such as asylum seekers and Travellers, who will never voluntarily engage in this system. I want to be absolutely clear about what the Under-Secretary is saying. Will the state give a card to people as a right, if they wish to have one? Will the state have any inclination not to give cards to them?
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
No. Nothing changes. The way health services are provided does not change, and the Bill will change nothing for people with residence here. That is the qualification for access to the health service under current law. People with residence and leave to remain—albeit limited and exceptional, in some cases—will still be able to access health services. That will not be changed by the Bill.
Moreover, the Bill will probably enhance the ability of people to access the services quickly, because an immediate check will be made to see whether they are entitled to them. Also, the Bill will clearly help to establish the fact that the illegally resident population will not have access to the services. It will bear down on the illegally resident population, which is a benefit of the system that we propose. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.
Other concerns were put to me. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) flashed forward to a full flash-and-go society when he said that there will be no great leap until people are required to carry the card. If that is the decision made by Parliament at some point, that is up to Parliament. Nothing in the Bill requires the carrying of the card. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read subsection (3); it could not be clearer. There will be no requirement on people to carry their cards at all times. People may be required to be on the register to access a public service, but they will not be required to carry a card at all times.
A question was asked about referral to an emergency unit from a hospital, but that was dealt with in another response. Provision of emergency services will not be altered. That is a decision made properly by health service staff, who have to decide whether the individual presenting needs emergency treatment.
With those assurances, I shall bring my remarks to a close. Removing paragraphs (b) and (c) would create a restrictive position in which cards would probably have to be carried at all times. There would be no other way to prove identity, which would create an over-reliance on the card that was not desirable, sensible or helpful to the individual. Given that we should bear the convenience and choice of individuals in mind, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
I am sorry to return to the point, but I shall do my best to be brief. It is important to ask the Under-Secretary to expand on the issue covered by the E111 system. At an earlier sitting, I referred to the 25.4 million tourists from overseas—a British Tourist Authority figure, not a Home Office figure—and Ministers produced a slightly different figure.
Health tourism comes pretty quick when people reach this country. They come when they are pregnant; they come from European countries if they are uninsured and have no cover. Under the current treaty, treaty members give money to the United Kingdom to compensate. That is not based on what happens per head; it is not based on the fact that this year, for example, more people from Germany used the NHS. It is a basic sum. I do not understand, therefore, how providing identity cards will massively cut health tourism by individuals from the European Union. Those who are pregnant—asylum seekers included—will still arrive.
Within the three-month period, people with no obligation to have an identity card will come to use health services. The number of such people will not be greatly reduced. I accept that people with long-term conditions might want to take advantage of the health system, but the Under-Secretary said that they will have to produce their own version of an E111 to gain access. That is true, but producing a version of an E111 does not mean that the NHS will then ring up the insurance company in France and say, “Your patient has cost us £1,000, so we want £1,000 please.”
Let us consider the position of an individual who comes here and says, “Well, I am not insured, but I am a French citizen.” At present, I believe that such people are covered under the E111 system because of the lump-sum arrangement to which I referred. I ask the Under-Secretary to bring back to the Committee details of the E111 system.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is describing problems with the E111 system pertaining to health treatment, but the provision involves the production of an ID card to access public services. The operation of the E111 system and the reciprocal agreements that this country has with other countries are entirely separate from that.
Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre, Conservative)
The Government say that one reason for having an identity card system is that it will deter people from coming to this country as health tourists, but that system is removed from the identity system so it will not deter them. If people have a card and they say, “I am who I am, but I am French,” that will not prevent them from having access to some NHS services, because our NHS does not operate a system of a per patient, per head refund as is done in other European countries.
How will identity cards prevent NHS tourism? That, the Government have said, is one reason for us needing identity cards. That is all I ask. This is not about saying, “This changes the system”; it is about saying, “Why will an ID stop NHS health tourism?” I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with that.
Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)
I take your points, Mr. Gale, about the stand part element of our debate, and your judgement is of course correct. This wide-ranging discussion has unveiled a series of facets to amendment No. 56, which does not, on the face of it, look too harmful.
The Under-Secretary has been forthright and clear, but the fact remains that we, in line with the hon. Member for Stroud, have grave reservations about what he has said. For instance, I take his point about where an emergency starts, but that is not for the likes of us to dictate; it is for the NHS. I can see all sorts of difficulties cropping up with this provision, particularly with people making themselves appear much sicker than they really are to get service and medical attention. That will also involve various other public services.
On that basis, and despite the eloquent defence of the clause, we cannot accept the rejection—if that is right—of the amendment. So, with your consent, Mr. Gale, and that of the Committee, I shall call a Division.
Division number 14 - 6 yes, 7 no
Voting yes: Alistair Carmichael, David Drew, Tobias Ellwood, Edward Garnier, Patrick Mercer, Mark Prisk
Voting no: Vera Baird, David Borrow, Andy Burnham, Tony McNulty, Kali Mountford, Nick Palmer, John Robertson
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)
I beg to move amendment No. 194, in clause 15, page 14, line 19, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3A)”.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 195, in clause 15, page 14, line 24, at end add
‘The provisions of subsection 3(b) shall not extend to treatment in Accident and Emergency facilities within NHS hospitals’.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)
The previous discussion extensively covered the ground of these amendments, so this is the lightest of probes. I am happy to accept the Under-Secretary’s copper-bottomed assurance that accident and emergency services will not be subject to the provision of an identity card. I should just like to chip in my response to earlier comments.
My constituents are extremely keen that long-term non-emergency medical services are not provided to people who have not contributed. While I appreciate that there may be reciprocal arrangements if that is not possible, that is not a reason not to make progress. I approve of the principle, but I expect to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Garnier rose—
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has to make a decision. Either he wants to press the amendment to a Division or he does not. If he does not, I cannot call anyone else. It is entirely up to him.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)
In that case, and in view of the extensive discussion, I shall not proceed any further.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 15, page 14, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3)Failure to produce without reasonable excuse an identity card to a police constable reasonably requiring production shall be a summary offence punishable with 6 months imprisonment or a fine or both.’.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in clause 15, page 14, line 24, at end add—
‘(4)Nothing in this section authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would be to require a British citizen to carry or produce an ID card before such time as when all British citizens are required by virtue of section 6 to be entered in the Register.’.
No. 59, in clause 18, page 16, line 32, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A)”.
No. 60, in clause 18, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
‘(2A)Subsection (2) does not authorise the imposition of such condition or requirement in relation to or on a British citizen before such time as when all British citizens are required by virtue of section 6 to be entered in the Register.’.
No. 61, in clause 18, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
‘(2B)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further cases in which such a condition or requirement may be imposed in relation to or on an individual.’.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
It is just as well that the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not press the previous amendment to a Division, because I was having difficulty finding proposed new subsection (3A), to which his amendment referred. I am unsure whether it is to be found any more than proposed new subsection (2A) referred to in amendment No.59 is to be found. He saved himself a little trouble.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. As the hon. and learned Gentleman fully understands, that is immaterial because the amendment was withdrawn. In fact, there was a printer’s error.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Let me return to the amendments. To use the expression of the hon. Member for Broxtowe, we seek some copper-bottomed assurances from the Government about the compulsory nature—or absence of it—of the identity card scheme.
Amendment No. 57 would replace subsection (3), which reads:
“Nothing in this section authorises the making of regulations the effect of which would be to require an individual—
(a)to carry an ID card with him at all times; or
(b)to produce such a card otherwise than for purposes connected with an application by him for the provision of a public service, or with the provision of a public service for which he has applied.”
It strikes us that, despite the Under-Secretary’s blandishments, we will increasingly have the flash-and-go society that I have described. People will carry their identity cards as a matter of routine, not because they have to under the Bill, but because it will become a necessity of everyday life. People will not be able to go into a Government office, to access a public service or to do a host of things outside their house unless they are carrying an identity card. If the Under-Secretary is prepared to rest on his fond belief that simply because the Bill does not say that people have to carry the card and because it says that they have to produce it only within so many days or so many hours at the request of a police officer, he will learn that before very long the practice will be different.
Although it may not be a statutory requirement, carrying the card at all times when out in public will be a practical requirement. It would be intellectually more honest to accept that reality and to make it clear to the public, via the amendment, that that is what will happen and that it is what the Government intend. It is more honest to make carrying the card compulsory in the Bill.
We have described that as function creep and access creep, but it is pretext creep that will get us. The police will invariably invite people to offer up their identity card if they stop them for a legitimate reason, and people will have to go through the inconvenience of going home and going to the police station a few days later. A practice will surely emerge, and members of the public will, in effect, be compelled to go about in public carrying their identity card. I would be interested to hear the reasons for the Government disagreeing with that prediction.
We recently heard from the Australian Attorney-General that the identity card idea fell apart in Australia. Among other reasons for that, he said that it was going to be a false protection and would give a spurious sense of security to the card holder. More to the point, however, it would give a spurious sense of security to a person who wished to inspect the card. The Government need to come clean on both counts about whether they think that that is to be recommended.
On amendment No. 58, if the practicality is that everybody will carry a card, we should all have compulsion on the same date, rather than have several classes of identity card carrier. The Government are trying to persuade us that we will not be compelled to carry it, but we will be compelled to have one. We should come to terms with the fact that we are going to have to have one and will be compelled, in real terms, to carry it. If that is the practical consequence, there should be some fairness and justice, and we should all arrive at that position at the same time.
I shall ignore amendment No. 59, for the same reasons that I teased the hon. Member for Broxtowe about. I have yet to find proposed new subsection (2A) on what the Government now call the modification paper, so we do not need to concern ourselves with that. It may well exist, but I have not found it, and I am not going to waste the Committee’s time.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. and learned Gentleman will find subsection (2A) in his own amendment No. 60.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
As my hon. Friend says, I was just checking that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was still with us, and I am glad to say that he is. The point that I was making about proposed new subsection (3A) still holds.
Amendment No. 60 would amend subsection 2(2). Our amendment makes the same fairness and justice point: I do not want to see up to six classes of individuals required at different times both to register and to hold a card. That is the point of that amendment. Amendment No. 61 would add a new subsection (2B). Surely the Government cannot complain about that. The Bill is riddled with vague powers that enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about individuals, designated documents, designated document authorities and so on.
If there were any doubt about the fairness and justice of the earlier amendments, amendment No. 61 would make it clear that we are not leeching any power of the Secretary of State. Indeed, we are doing him a service by providing him with what is probably the 61st regulation-making power in the Bill. It flows entirely with the grain of the Government’s policy. For the life of me, I cannot think for a moment that they will wish to oppose any of the amendments.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
I added my name to amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. I presume that I was in a happy frame of mind at the time. I have now read them again, and although I agree with the general thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument that compulsion should be done once and for all and that all should be compelled at the same point, in retrospect I am not that keen on conceding the point of compulsion at all. I presume that I signed up in a mood of good humour, but I would not wish to be seen to be too enthusiastic in my support for him.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
On the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I should say that he clearly has a philosophical difficulty with the Bill. However, I do not think that many Labour Members or most of the public have a problem in principle with a society in which people have an identity card or are on the register.
I shall not shirk from saying it: yes, I envisage a time when there will be widespread use of identity cards to access public and private services. That is the purpose of the Bill. I am happy to confirm that for the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not understand—
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Let me tell the Under-Secretary something that I do not understand. He said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to create circumstances in which people would, as a matter of routine, access private and public services by means of the identity card. That is not a statutory purpose.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
They would do that because they wanted to use the convenience of the identity card to access services or prevent the fraudulent use of services, given that the public services could perform checks against the register. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have a problem with that. I do not. It is the very intention and purpose behind the Bill.
With that in mind, I fail to understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled amendment No. 57, which would bring to reality the situation that he has repeatedly seemed to fear so much. Why place in the Bill a particular requirement to enable a police constable to demand the production of an identity card? He spoke at length about how that will happen in practice, but his amendment would extend police powers.
I have lost count of the number of times that the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed a fear about that, and I am surprised that he seeks to insert such a measure. People will know that they are under no obligation to present a card. That may not stop a police officer from asking, but that is the case at the moment. A police officer can ask for a form of identity if he or she has cause to stop or arrest somebody. The Bill does not extend police powers, but amendment No. 57 would.
With regard to amendment No. 58, I hope that I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a good reason why we do not want to accept his form of words. The objectionable phrase is “all British citizens”, because that would make it impossible to require the use of a card unless every citizen of the country was in the scheme. That day might never come—a fact that he may be pleased to learn. It might never be the case that all British citizens are registered. For instance, there are no plans at present for British children or British citizens abroad to register. We may well also consider exempting the very elderly from having to register, because it would not make sense for them to do so; indeed, the hon. Member for Newark mentioned that his mother would not want to do that. We might not want to put very elderly people through the enrolment process. If they did not want to do so, and it would not achieve a great deal, we would not want them to go through it. Those are just three examples of why the phrase “all British citizens” is unhelpful.
Subsection (2)(b) mentions public services that are free of charge. By referring to that specific category of services, we are reserving the right to require the production of the card for a service that is not free of charge. That might be useful where public safety demands a high level of identity check—for example, in relation to applications for firearms certificates. It is therefore important to have flexibility in this area, and that would be explicitly ruled out by the amendment, because its terms are inflexible.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough did not speak a great deal to amendment No. 59, and amendment. No. 60 would have a similar effect to that which I have just outlined, as it would introduce the test of “all British citizens”, which would be neither sensible nor desirable.
On amendment No. 61, we believe that the exemptions in clause 18(2) are sufficient. Paragraph (a) allows for further requirements to be imposed under other legislative powers if that is necessary. We are not convinced that further exemptions, such as those suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, are needed.
Some hon. Members seem to be envisaging a big-bang introduction of identity cards. In their amendments, they do not envisage an incremental approach to roll-out of the cards, but that is our intention; we want to take the scheme forward incrementally. A lot of the benefits of the identity card scheme will be taken away if all British citizens are required to be registered.
I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
If the Under-Secretary wishes to use the expression “roll-out,” he should first get the permission of the Minister of State, and, secondly, he should add a general definition of the word somewhere in clause 43(1), perhaps at lines 22 or 23. “Roll-out” is one of those new Labour terms that means nothing.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
It suggests a series of step changes; my hon. Friend is entirely right.
When the Under-Secretary responded to me, he demonstrated something rather charming about himself: he has absolutely no sense of the ironic. It is touching, really, that a Minister who has the conduct of a Bill that is about to change the relationship between the state and the individual in the most appalling way does not see that the Opposition sometimes table amendments that expose the Government’s intentions, even if the Government do not understand those intentions themselves. There is no question but that the Bill will eventually lead to a change in how we conduct our everyday life. We will, as a matter of practice, leave our houses every morning carrying our identity cards. As I said at the outset, that will be done not as a matter of legal compulsion, but as a necessary practice.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
I do not have a problem with that.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Well, I do. I think that that would be wrong and unfortunate.
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
As a point of interest to the Committee, how many cards does the hon. and learned Gentleman have on him at the moment that would confirm or suggest his identity?
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
To use the Minister of State’s expression, that is a canard. I am carrying none compulsorily. One must not confuse a credit card, a supermarket loyalty card or any other card that I may buy, hire or acquire as a matter of personal choice. Perhaps the Under-Secretary is now being ironic; if so, I owe him an apology. If anybody in the real world thinks that the identity card and register schemes will be anything other than compulsory as a result either of law or of growing practice, they are mistaken. I am afraid that I am going off on a different tack. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed, it may be that the sooner my remarks come to an end, the better.
To be serious for a moment, it is no good producing what I would call saloon bar arguments—and here I shall probably lose the vote of every saloon bar drinker in my constituency—which are akin to, “If you’ve got nothing to fear, you’ve got nothing to hide.” Such an argument demonstrates either a sense of humour that I had not attributed to the Under-Secretary, or a failure to understand what will happen as a result of the Bill.
Let me return to the Under-Secretary’s arguments. The purpose of the amendments is to get the Government to face up to the real consequences of the Bill. If I have to pursue that purpose by tabling amendments such as amendment No. 57, I will, but I fear that I have failed to persuade them of the real consequences of what they are doing. That is deeply regrettable, although it was perhaps foreseeable. I have been here long enough to realise that I cannot always get my way, and I understand the arithmetic of the Committee.
Probably the most important reason why I shall ask for permission to withdraw the amendment is that I would not want the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to have flown all the way to London just to abstain in person on amendment No. 57.
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
I did not, nor would I ever, sign up to amendment No. 57.
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)
Even I can read. However, I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman’s name has slipped on to the “modification paper”, as we now call it, as a supporter of amendments Nos. 58 to 60. I am delighted to see it there, because one way or another our two parties can achieve something good in this Committee, even if we cannot get our amendments made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.