Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 181, in clause 19, page 17, line 32, leave out paragraphs (a) to (f) and insert

‘where it is necessary in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of serious crime’.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 65, in clause 19, page 17, line 33, leave out ‘prevention or’.

No. 66, in clause 19, page 17, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 67, in clause 19, page 17, line 37, leave out paragraph (d).

No. 68, in clause 19, page 17, line 41, leave out paragraph (e).

No. 69, in clause 19, page 17, line 43, leave out from ‘numbers’ to end of line 44.

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

Hon. Members will recall that, prior to the conclusion of our proceedings on Thursday, we dealt with amendments Nos. 178, 179 and 180. The matter before the Committee today under amendment No. 181 is broadly similar the issues raised by those amendments. It relates specifically to the powers given to the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise or whatever the new formulation of that merged body is.

The point that I want principally to draw to the Committee’s attention is the breadth of those powers. I accept that the clause excludes the auditing data under schedule 1, but it gives powers in respect of substantial data and, as drafted, it gives Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs broader scope for accessing data than is strictly necessary. The form of words in the amendment are those used by the Government for clause 1. It is a probing amendment, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I rise to support amendment No. 181 and to speak to our amendments Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69, which would achieve by a process of salami slicing the same outcome as amendment No. 181. The further that we get into the Bill, the more horrific is the creeping nature of the powers that the Secretary of State will be accorded. Although the Minister of State has accepted   that we are discussing a Christmas tree of a Bill, the glaring nature of that description becomes more apparent as we turn its pages.

Clause 19(1) states:

“The Secretary of State may, without the individual’s consent, provide a person with information recorded in an individual’s entry”,

while subsection (4) deals with the provision of that information without consent to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It states:

“The provision of information not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 is authorised by this section where the information is provided to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs”—

and to quote paragraph (f) of the subsection, which I wish to highlight—

“for other purposes specified by order made by the Secretary of State.”

That is a classic example of the vague and impenetrable nature of the Bill. The Secretary of State, no doubt with some form of parliamentary scrutiny—but not much, as we know from experience—is enabled to do more or less what he likes, but we do not know his intentions.

Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

In relation to amendment No. 65, which would remove the authority to seek information in connection with the prevention of crime, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give examples of crimes that he considers should not be prevented under the clause?

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

That question comes under the heading of a very clever but rather stupid intervention, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so.

John Robertson (Glasgow North West, Labour)

But it was a good one.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the intervention was a good one, he has convinced me that my rude remark was justified.

Tony McNulty (Harrow East, Labour)

A rude remark can never be justified.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

The Minister of State is correct—indeed, this is advice he will wish to take himself—that it is never appropriate to be rude.

Let me return to the purpose of the debate. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made clear on introducing this group of amendments, they are probing amendments that are designed to discover what on earth the Government intend. Of course, we can make witty remarks like the one that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has just made, whichprovide us with a degree of amusement and diversion, but the serious pointis that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with creeping but unknown powers. That is what the Government and the hon. Gentleman need to address.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right and justified that our constituents should be subjected to legislation that their representatives in Parliament cannot discover the limits of? That is a clumsy way of   putting it, but I hope that he understands my concern. I urge the Government to give us a rational and candid explanation of what they intend to happen under the relevant subsections.

Patrick Mercer (Newark, Conservative)

Following on from what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, when amendments Nos. 65 to 69 were written several months ago, my colleagues and I puzzled over this part of clause 19 and could not understand why subsection (4) could not be simplified. If paragraph (a) were left in place, paragraph (b) were changed slightly and paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) were struck out, subsection (4) would be much simpler and easier to understand, and it would not lead—both speakers on the amendment have mentioned this—to any form of mission or identity creep.

I remember that, all those months ago during the first debate on this subject, we received no satisfactory explanation from the then Minister. I underscore the words of my hon. and learned Friend by asking the Government to explain why we need this measure. Is it not clear that if the clause were amended as we suggest—this takes into account the comments of the hon. Member for Broxtowe—it would assist the wording of the Bill? I might add that the explanatory notes on the clause are particularly unhelpful in this regard, and I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me.

Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

I feel that the Opposition are getting away a little too easily with the repeated line that nonsensical amendments are all right because they are merely probing amendments. We should do the amendment justice by considering its content and debating it.

As the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) says, the combined effect of amendment No. 65 and the other Conservative amendments would be to reduce subsection (4) to the provision of information

“in the interests of national security”

and

“for purposes connected with the ... detection of crime”.

It would specifically exclude the provision of information for purposes connected with the prevention of crime.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough asked about our constituents’ views. I think that they would like to see crime not only detected, but prevented. Should he seek to withdraw his amendment, I will be inclined to oppose him, so that we can see whether he is prepared to go on the record as saying that the information should not be gathered.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I desperately want to help the hon. Gentleman, because he needs it. Even if his desire is genuine, I cannot seek to withdraw amendment No. 65, because it is not the lead amendment. If he wishes to stay here until 7, 8 or 9 o’clock on Thursday evening, however, we may vote on it. I am happy to meet him   in this Room to do that, but procedurally, the only amendment that can be dealt with now is amendment No. 181.

Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

I am aware of the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but the Liberal Democrat amendment would have the same effects; the Conservatives are merely a little more blunt about them. It is perfectly proper that the Government should seek not only to detect crime, but to prevent it. That is a significant purpose of this Bill. The amendments are entirely wrong-headed.

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman says that my amendment would have the same effect, but I refer him to what it says:

“where it is necessary in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of serious crime”.

It would not have the same effect at all.

Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct that the Conservative amendment is even more extreme than the Liberal Democrat one. Nevertheless, both amendments are fundamentally against the Bill’s purpose and they are not in line with what our constituents wish to achieve.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood. I also welcome back to the Committee the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I am just sorry that his stay in Cheadle was so successful.

We are considering amendments Nos. 181 and 65 to 69. As Members have pointed out, they relate to the provision of information without consent to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The clause has to be read in conjunction with the rules for the provision of information, which are set out in clause 23. As a preface to responding in detail to the amendments, I must say that we are not talking about wholesale access to the database. People need to balance things. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be so wise as to balance his somewhat overstated remarks and say that this is not about wholesale access for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but about proportionate access to the basic identity details that are held on the register.

As Members will know, it is not as if the customs are operating in a vacuum at the moment. They have access to information relating to who might be currently under investigation. It is not as if we are talking about extending the arms or tentacles of government into entirely new areas and interfering into people’s private lives. The provision simply allows the benefits that the register provides to be extended to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the carrying out of its work. It is not horrific, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested. That was just one example of his overstatement.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Perhaps the Under-Secretary could help me. What does subsection (4)(f) mean? It states:

“for other purposes specified by order made by the Secretary of State.”

What “other purposes” do the Government have in mind?

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I shall come on to that. In responding to the amendments so far, I have sought to get some balance back into the argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether it was right and justified for our constituents to be subject to far-reaching legislation such as this. I take it that his constituents are taxpayers, like mine are. They all have an interest in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs doing its work effectively and in ensuring that it can bear down on cases of fraud and tax evasion. If he has a problem with that, he needs to say so. If his objection is to the efficient running of Government agencies, that is not acceptable as a criticism of the Bill.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I do not want to keep jumping up and down, because listening to me correcting the Under-Secretary all the time would be tedious for everyone, but I should make the following point. We all have a general desire to prevent and detect crime, be it crime against the Revenue or the Treasury, or against the general criminal law. We do not have a joined-up approach across this Committee Room about how to give powers to the Secretary of State to run the identity register and the identity card system. That is what we are discussing. The Government would be advancing a false argument in suggesting that the Opposition do not approve of the detection and prevention of crime—of course we do. However, we are concerned about how the Government are giving themselves powers to do things that we cannot yet define.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I shall come on to address the amendments in detail. I was simply pointing out that from the tenor of some of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks, it seems that he has little trust in any arm of the Government. We heard last week about rogue elements in the security services. I say to him that the powers that we are discussing are balanced. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is already carrying out investigations; the provisions would simply extend the benefits of the register to its work.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was right to say that the amendments are not entirely the same. His amendment would restrict the provision of information to

“where it is necessary in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of serious crime”.

Amendments Nos. 65 to 69 would restrict such provision further—to when it was necessary in the interests of national security or the detection of crime.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is the new department responsible for the business of the former Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Its law enforcement responsibilities are often undertaken jointly with the police, but it is also directly involved in the prevention and detection of crime. The customs side of the organisation is responsible for the   investigation and prosecution of crime, including major cases of drug trafficking, and the Revenue side also has an important role in law enforcement.

The hon. Member for Newark made a fair point in asking why the issue was not simplified and why the focus on those roles was not absolutely clear. Clause 19(4) is necessarily detailed so as to ensure that all the relevant Revenue and Customs functions are covered and that information from the national identity register can be provided to the organisation. Such information could, for example, concern the identity of a suspect and assist with the law enforcement functions of the Revenue and Customs.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Revenue also deals with compliance, but the amendments would make it very difficult for it to use the national identity register to any real effect. Information from the register will increase the Revenue’s ability to direct its compliance work effectively. Without the possibility of making identity checks against the register, it would risk making payments to individuals who had made fraudulent claims. I do not believe that he would want that, and neither would we.

Recently, there have been cases of people claiming tax credits fraudulently, and that is an example of how identity fraud is becoming more and more common. Members on both sides of the House have an interest in ensuring that people who receive payments are entitled to them and are who they say they are. If the Revenue is to be able to do that, it is obviously important that it should have access to the register.

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

The distinction that the Under-Secretary draws between the compliance functions—as he sees it, these would be impaired by the amendments—and the other functions is not real. The fraudulent claiming of tax credits and everything else would surely be covered by the

“prevention or detection of serious crime”.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

The functions of the merged agency apply widely. It provides payments to individuals through the tax credit system. The argument will be about whether that would extend to serious crime. I do not believe that it would in some cases. The organisation has wide-ranging responsibilities for enforcement—the collection of tax—and for providing benefits through the tax credit system. That is why the clause is drawn so widely.

Furthermore, the boundary between the civil and criminal work of the Revenue and Customs is necessarily complex. The disruption of Revenue fraud to prevent significant tax loss is a key element of the strategy for combating commercial fraud, such as that involving VAT and duty on tobacco, oils and alcohol. Although it may be possible to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators, part of the response in tackling serious tax fraud may be the use of civil procedures to frustrate the criminals and thereby prevent loss of revenue. For example, in missing trader VAT fraud, fraudulent VAT repayment claims can, in some cases, amount to millions of pounds. In such cases, Revenue and Customs may use civil procedures to recover the loss of tax.

Those civil procedures, which can be more effective than criminal proceedings in recovering funds, may include restraint orders where a debt has been established, the appointment of an insolvency practitioner and civil conspiracy proceedings. What links those civil disruption activities to criminal investigations is that both require timely and accurate intelligence for effective action to be taken. For those reasons, we want to be in a position to provide Revenue and Customs with access to information held on the national identity register that could help its investigations, whether or not it leads to a criminal prosecution.

For those reasons, paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (4) reflect the wide range of responsibilities held and work done by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The order-making provision in paragraph (f), which would be removed by the amendment tabled by hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as by the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, allows the circumstances referred to in subsection (4) to be extended in line with any additional work that might be allocated in the future to what is still a new department. We do not believe that it would right to have to do that through primary legislation.

Amendment No. 65 would allow the information to be provided only for purposes connected with the detection of crime. Under amendment No. 181, the provision of information is limited to purposes connected with serious crime. We think that those amendments would seriously constrain the legitimate use of the national identity register and the ID cards scheme. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is working in an increasingly intelligence-led arena, in partnership with some of the other agencies that we discussed in relation to the earlier provisions in the clause. It is right that its role in relation to crime is not just reactive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said. The phrase “prevention or detection of crime” is commonplace in legislation. It is not right to suggest that Revenue and Customs must wait until a crime has been committed before it can be provided with information from the register to help to identify a suspect.

There are also good reasons why we should not limit the provision of the information to cases involving serious crime. As I have said to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, Revenue and Customs deals with child benefit and tax credit fraud. An individual instance of those types of fraud may not appear to be serious crime, but it could be part of a serious organised fraud and, cumulatively, cases in which false identities are used could lead to a major loss of funds.

As I reassured the Committee at the outset, we are not talking about wholesale access to the register. Under existing law, Revenue and Customs can already access information held on individuals in the course of its investigations. We are talking about providing basic identity details. I do not believe that that is horrific or that my constituents would object to Revenue and Customs being given proportionate access to the national identity register. Coupled with   that, rules will be laid down in clause 23 about how requests will be handled. The Information Commissioner will provide further oversight. A further safeguard is that the provision of information must be necessary in the public interest, as defined in clause 1(4).

In the light of those assurances, the amendments are not necessary or desirable. They would restrict and limit the work of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I urge the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

This has been an interesting teasing out of the issues. I shall take the Under-Secretary’s comments away with me when the House rises at the end of the week and consider them further. It seems that there are a number of internal contradictions in his argument. It also seems that, over the years, the Government, who seek to allow Revenue and Customs to operate in this way and to rely on civil penalties rather criminal prosecutions, allowed a certain laziness to creep into the way in which Customs and Excise, as it previously was, performed its duties. That became apparent to me in the course of a Select Committee investigation in relation to the imposition of strip stamps on spirits, of which I was a part. Nothing that the Under-Secretary said has persuaded me that that situation will change. By insisting on the wide definition in the clause, the Government somewhat undermine the purposes on which they themselves have placed so much stress. I do not know how one can reasonably construe clause 19 in a way that is consistent with the basic provisions that are clearly outlined in clause 1.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

Clause 1(4)(e) states that one of the purposes is

“securing the efficient and effective provision of public services.”

I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that Revenue and Customs is engaged in precisely that activity.

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I do not necessarily accept that. The range of issues for which Revenue and Customs would require access—what the Under-Secretary would call compliance issues—would be adequately covered by the first two paragraphs of clause 1(4):

“(a)in the interests of national security;

(b)for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime”,

which is what we are dealing with. I do not believe that the

“efficient and effective provision of public services”

is part of the work of an enforcement agency, which is, in essence, what Revenue and Customs is, as distinct from a service provision agency such as the health service or the Department for Work and Pensions.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I fully accept that Revenue and Customs may not be a popular organisation and that people may not want it to be able to do its work with ease and convenience, but the fact is that we all depend on the tax take for the health service and other organisations to work. Revenue and Customs carries out a crucial public service, and it should be aided and assisted in doing so.

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary does not do himself or the Committee any service by trying to misrepresent what we are discussing. Nobody is saying that Revenue and Customs should not be allowed to carry out its functions properly—that is certainly not what my amendment is about. My amendment seeks to achieve consistency in how access is allowed. Is he saying that Revenue and Customs should be allowed access to any information that it wants in any circumstances? That seems to be what he is saying now, although it contradicts what he said two or three minutes ago about proportionate access. I shall not misrepresent his position, and he should not try to misrepresent mine.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. We are exploring for Revenue and Customs the same issue that we explored for other agencies in the debate on the previous string of amendments. I do not intend to detain the Committee further, but perhaps the issue would benefit from further scrutiny at a later stage. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 70, in clause 19, page 17, line 45, leave out subsection (5).

In general terms, the arguments for this amendment, which seeks to delete subsection (5), were rehearsed in the last debate. The point that I wanted to make by introducing the amendment is that this is yet another example of desperate vagueness in a measure that will have a fundamental effect on the lives of our fellow citizens and on the relationship between the state and individuals.

Let us take one or two examples. Subsection (5) states:

“The provision of information not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 is authorised by this section where the information is provided—

(a)to a prescribed government department, or

(b)to a prescribed Northern Ireland department”—

we do not yet know which Department in either case—

“for purposes”—

unspecified—

“connected with the carrying out of any prescribed functions”—

unspecified—

“of that department or of a Minister in charge of it.”

We know that the paragraph 9 information is the audit trail on the register, so the information under discussion does not fall within that audit trail. It strikes me that this is another example of Parliament being asked to give to the Government powers to do things that the Government cannot specify. It is a regrettable step.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

We have covered some of this ground before, so I do not intend to detain the Committee too long. I understand where the hon. and learned Gentleman is coming from, and this debate is similar to the one that we have just had. It probably comes down to a basic difference of opinion about what we think the national identity register will be   useful for. It will enable the Government and public bodies to function more effectively in everybody’s interests.

Departments hold a range of personal identification information in different forms and on different databases. It is not as if that information is out of their reach; it is just that it may be held in different places and with discrepancies. The provision allows regulations to be made that would permit a Department, including a Northern Ireland Department, to be provided with information for the purposes specified.

I shall give the hon. and learned Gentleman some examples to reassure him that the provision is not desperately vague but a sensible measure that will help public administration. A provision could be made for the Department for Work and Pensions to receive information in connection with its fraud investigations. The provision might be used is to provide the Department for Constitutional Affairs with information to ensure that fines are issued to the correct person, or to provide information about addresses that might be helpful in tracking down individuals who have not paid fines. That is a real issue, and we all have an interest in seeing it addressed. If the national identity register can assist the courts in that process, it is sensible to introduce it.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way and for providing me with those examples. Perhaps he would care to consider clause 1 and where those examples fit in with the statutory purposes.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

The matter is quite straightforward, and I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to read the Bill before making such interventions. He is the lawyer, not me. [Interruption.] He has asked me a question, and I am about to give him the answer. If he does not like it, he should not ask the question. I repeat that clause 1(4)(e) says

“for the purposes of securing the efficient and effective provision of public services.”

The examples fit in there. Perhaps if he had read the Bill before intervening, he would not have done so.

A further example of how the measure might be used is to provide information to the Department of Health when a patient who is admitted to hospital cannot identify themselves. The provision of the information would allow the individual to be verified, and so aid the retrieval of medical records, although of course medical records would not be held on the register.

Subsection (5) does not authorise the provision of information within paragraph 9 of schedule 1. Members of the Committee can be assured of that. Any regulations would be subject to the negative procedure, and it is our intention that, as with all other cases where information is provided without consent, the arrangements would be subject to authorisation procedures and independent oversight. The procedures would be covered by the rules that we shall discuss in relation to clause 23. Further scrutiny would be provided by the commissioner, whose powers we will discuss in relation to clause 24.

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

There is concern about the many areas of vagueness. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary has given some good examples of how in these quite open clauses and subsections the measure might fit. He has given three examples: the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the national health service. Such bodies are not listed. There is huge concern among Opposition Members that many different questions and issues will be raised about the ways in which not only the register but the ID cards can be used, because of the general remit of clause 1(4)(e), which the Under-Secretary has just cited. Things can be justified by being said to come under the label of being for

“the efficient and effective provision of public services.”

If we are not firm about exactly how the register can be used, there is a worry in respect of a Government or Department—not necessarily this Government or any Department in particular. It could be argued in court that things are not clear. A private company, which we have now established could have access or permission with regard to outsourcing services, could use that in a way that is, if not clandestine, then not intended. That could be done because matters are not clearly stipulated in the Bill.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. However, the reference in paragraph (e) to

“the efficient and effective provision of public services”

is clear. I expect that we will discuss the term “public authority” in relation to an upcoming clause. Because that term is defined, it is clear who these measures will relate to. Therefore, an assurance can be given that the range of organisations that can access information under this measure is limited.

Let me explain to all Opposition Members what makes this clause important. We have said all along that the provision of better public services is a crucial part of the reason for introducing this legislation. Departments and public bodies seek to identify people every day; that is part of their core business. That is true of the health service, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Transport in respect of driving licences, the Home Office and the police in respect of immigration, firearms licences and crime. It is true of all Departments.

Our systems of public administration have developed in such a way that each body runs its own system of identity verification. They have their own databases and procedures to establish that people are who they say they are. It is important to emphasise that the Bill changes that in a way that is right and that will lead to the better administration of our public services. If we create a database that links biometric information to personal details, we will create a much higher standard of identity verification than we have had under the old system of a passport photograph or a signature. It is right that other Departments can use that database once it is created, so that they can go to one place to ensure that people are who they say they are. That is a sensible way in which to use the database, and it will bring benefits across the public sector.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

What safeguards can the Under-Secretary give? Clause 19(5)(b) refers to

“a prescribed Northern Ireland department”.

Can he explain what that term means? The bodies mentioned earlier in the clause are law enforcement agencies, and the employees are subject to a degree of vetting. What about some of the Northern Ireland agencies? Recently, with regard to Sinn Fein, individuals have been expelled from Stormont for looking through certain people’s records in a “Northern Ireland department”. I ask for an assurance about that both for me and, perhaps, for others who take an interest in Northern Ireland matters.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point. I emphasise again that we owe it to all the various public bodies that run public services and that are responsible for the security of the people of our country to make their job as easy as possible. We should enable them to use whatever technology is available so that their processes can be made more secure. However, he makes a fair point. The scope of the Bill is restricted. He will see that the subsection mentions a “prescribed Northern Ireland department”. Obviously, the prescribed Department would be laid out in regulations flowing from the Bill. That is the right way to implement the measure. Those Departments administer social security and are responsible for driving licences. Those are the same functions to which I referred when responding to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). We want the functions that public bodies in England, Wales and Scotland benefit from to be extended to Northern Ireland.

There is no difference in the argument. It is simply about allowing the public sector per se to benefit from and have access to the highest standard of identity verification that we can provide. Doing that will avoid the replication involved in each Department running its own system. It will also give them confidence that they are verifying somebody against the register and need not fear that fraud is being carried out.

With those reassurances, I hope that I can persuade the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to withdraw the amendment.

There are further safeguards: the public interest test in clause 1(4) and the oversight of the commissioner. The subsection is an important one that goes to the heart of the Bill. It goes to the heart of one of the main reasons that we believe that the national identity register is in the interests of the country and of the good running of our public services. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I did not intend to speak, but I want to press the Government on the point that I raised with the Under-Secretary. If we are widening the group of people who will have access to the register or the functions of the Department, it is important that the Government show that they have given some thought to the individual operators that may use that system. There is vetting at different levels in the law   enforcement agencies, the security services and areas such as the fraud prevention part of the Treasury. There is an element of trust in that.

The fact that only by questioning the Minister was it raised that, at some time, a regulation will expand on the prescribed measures does not give me confidence that the Government have given much thought to the other half. It is not dramatic enough to talk of rogue elements, but if we are starting to allow more people to sit at a computer and to look at a register, there must be an agreement from the Government that there will be an element of vetting. That will protect us as individuals and ensure that a person will not be dragged off the street, or moved from one Department to another and then get access to information.

I used the example of Northern Ireland because I am on a number of Sinn Fein websites and have been a prescribed target of some of those organisations. There is a considerable case history of leaks from Departments, not intentionally, but by individuals working in bodies as innocent as the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, passing on details about individuals.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it seems that opposition has done funny things to the Conservative party. It now appears not to trust the organisations that it would have trusted to uphold their statutory functions. Does he not accept that those organisations will hold data? They do hold data. It is part of their job. They must hold data. It is in everyone’s interests that those data are correct. That is simply what the debate is about.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

First, perhaps the Under-Secretary does not recognise that there are different classifications in Northern Ireland that prohibit certain officials from seeing certain documentation. I ask him to recognise that point. Secondly, the difference is that, under previous Governments and—currently—under this Government, the leak was limited to the Department that the individual worked in. They could get access only to a DVLA record or to a council tax record. Those records were not brought together under one umbrella, called a central database, which gives much more up-to-date and wider basic information. The point is that there will be a central point of access that goes beyond departmental limits. It is on that point that I ask the Under-Secretary for protection, especially as he is so keen to allow a Department to have wider access.

I am not asking the Under-Secretary not to do what he plans to do; I am asking him to come forward with more details on how exactly the Government are ensuring that operators of the system are trusted individuals, or that those operators have some control so that the individual is protected. That is all I ask, but it seems that the Under-Secretary does not want to listen even to that. The reality is that there have been such problems historically. We are now putting everything in one basket, and more people are to be   allowed access. I ask him to keep that concern at the back of his mind when he produces an “Oh well, it will appear later in regulations.” This is yet another example of the Christmas tree. We are talking about individuals’ safety, and it is important that he gives due weight to the issue.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to keep that concern not at the back of his mind, but at the front of it, during the whole of our deliberations and during the later drafting of the statutory instruments containing the regulatory powers.

This is another debate about access and function creep. The Under-Secretary said that the phrase “public services” in clause 1(4)(e) is designed to help me understand the arguments, but “public services” is an undefined item in that paragraph. Why do we need a Minister to explain it under clause 19? We should have had those details before the Bill was debated, and in the draft Bill. We are creating not just a database, but a leviathan that will demand ever more from the citizen for the benefit of the administration of the state. I am not convinced that those demands are counter-balanced or adequately defined by the benefit to the citizen of giving up information to the register.

I will not press for a Division on the amendment, but I want to register yet again my dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government respond to our amendments. The Bill has been inadequately prepared and thought through, and despite the fact that we went around the houses with this Bill in the last Parliament, the Government seem to have learned precisely nothing from the experience and from the views of others since then. We will certainly get back to this issue on another occasion, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

Before we proceed to the next amendment, may I remind hon. Members not to whisper with colleagues sitting next to them? I am beginning to hear whispers, conversation and comment from the Chair. As hon. Members will know, that is out of order.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 19, page 18, line 5, leave out subsection (6).

This will be yet another short debate about the clause. The amendment would delete subsection (6). This is perhaps an even more stark example of the reason for my making the complaint that I made in the previous debate. Under subsection (6), we are talking not about Departments, but about designated documents authorities. Although the expression “designated documents authorities” is defined in the general interpretation clause towards the end of the Bill, those of us here today have absolutely no idea—indeed, neither does anyone else—what a designated documents authority would actually be. None the less, we see that the provision of information to one of these unspecified authorities is authorised by the clause

“where the information is provided for purposes connected with the exercise or performance by the authority of ... any of its powers or duties by virtue of this Act”,

or, amusingly, under subsection (6)(b),

“any of its other powers or duties in relation to the issue or”—

and here is my favourite word—

“modification of designated documents.”

I shall not repeat myself, but this is an increasingly bad measure, and nothing that the Government have said so far persuades me that my complaints are anything other than entirely justified. I look forward to hearing the Under-Secretary have another go at explaining why these unspecified powers are justified.

Andy Burnham (Leigh, Labour)

I shall respond directly to the amendment. I hope that we can deal with it briefly because it relates to the debate that we have just had.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to have another go, I shall say it again: if he does not think this is good enough, I am not sure what else I can do. Surely all of us want agencies carrying out public functions to identify people to the highest standard possible. Carrying out that identification in one place through one process is likely to lead to higher standards of identity verification and to the issuing of fewer fraudulent documents. That has to be in the public interest, and it is one of the reasons for introducing the Bill.

The Government have made it clear that when ID cards begin to be issued in 2008, they will be issued by a new executive agency incorporating the functions of the UK Passport Service and working closely in conjunction with the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office in respect of foreign nationals. We believe that there are good reasons for including these provisions in the Bill. It is possible that we may wish in future to designate a different category of document that is not issued by the new agency. This could include, for example, a driving licence that is issued by the DVLA or by Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland, both of which are separate agencies and are not the responsibility of the Home Secretary.

As things stand, the Government have only stated their intention to designate the passport, but it would make sense to consider driving licences in that context. The power under subsection (6) would enable us to do that. It would ensure that the agency was able to access the same information provided to it as would be available to the agency issuing ID cards initially. It would also mean that the same information could be provided to any other designated documents authority so that all ID cards would be issued in a uniform manner. As has been mentioned before, that could include bodies such as the Criminal Records Bureau, with which we all share an interest in performing identity checks to the very highest standard.

Although I understand the reasons behind the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment, I hope that he will accept the position that I have outlined. He will know that the linkage of ID cards to designated documents is an important part of the rationale advanced in the Bill. It will enable all of us to have more confidence in those documents once the scheme   is fully up and running. It is a sensible measure that will allow organisations to share all the information involved in an application to register with the national identity register.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that the designation of documents is an important process underpinning the Bill, and for that reason, I ask him to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I would have a lot more confidence in what the Under-Secretary said if I thought that he understood the profound nature of our concerns. He uses expressions such as “this could include”. In my view, that shows a terrifying lack of certainty, and I do not think that the Government have quite addressed our concerns. He has certainly not addressed—perhaps he could not do so—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) about the protection of personal information from access by unauthorised people even within Government, let alone from outside elements.

I continue to register my deep-felt concern that the Bill is leading us down a path that we will regret unless the Government tighten up their understanding, and therefore ours, of what they intend. In the meantime, although I promise to return to this point on another occasion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

In the light of my objections, which were unanswered, I rise simply to invite the Committee to divide on whether clause 19 stand part of the Bill.