Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 1, line 4, leave out ““National””" The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 58, 91, 220, 230, 243, 244, 245, 271 and 273. The purpose of these amendments is to probe what exactly is envisaged as regards the ambit of the legislation. It seems to me that there are many odd things about it. First, it is styled as a national identity register and a national identity card. But where, can the Minister explain, does Scotland fit in? Is she aware of the resolution passed by the Scottish Parliament which states that the proposal in this Bill is,"““flawed on political, technical and financial grounds””?" It stated that ID cards,"““offer an ineffective response to problems of security and fraud and pose an unacceptable threat to civil liberties””." It,"““rejects the Prime Minister’s belief [stated in the House of Commons] that it is legitimate and right in this day and age to ask people to carry identity cards””," which appears to go far beyond the current scope of the Bill and would require the consent of the Scottish Executive. By the way, what did the Prime Minister mean by that? Finally, it reminds us that the Scottish Executive has said that ID cards will not be required to allow access to public services in Scotland. It does not sound as though there is much enthusiasm for the Government’s position on ID cards or for the Prime Minister’s belief that it is right to ask people to carry them in Scotland. So how can this scheme be called ““national”” if the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive want no part of it? We will have an opportunity to look at these issues in more detail when we get to Clause 44, to which we intend to lay amendments, but it would be very helpful if the Minister could make the general position clear now. Is it correct that, whatever the view of their Parliament, any Scottish person wanting to leave Scotland to go abroad will be registered and made to buy an identity card when they apply for a passport? That does not seem very respectful of the spirit of devolution, or of the Scottish Executive and Parliament. Who will pay for the cost of establishing and maintaining an ID card regime for the Scots and enabling public service outlets in Scottish hospitals, surgeries and benefit offices to have card readers? Clearly, it will not be the Scottish Executive. Will English and Welsh citizens have to cross-subsidise policing the system in Scotland? The noble Baroness made it quite clear at Second Reading that the Government want to move to compulsion and she has said so again today. Indeed, the whole Bill is about compulsory volunteering. When that happens and, as the Government intend, it becomes necessary to show an ID card to get NHS treatment in England, will it be the case that a Scot visiting his mother in Carlisle would have to show an ID card before being able to go to her local hospital, but that his mother visiting him in Dumfries will be able to go to his hospital without a card? Meanwhile, his aunt, married and living in Denmark, would not have to get an ID card and could walk into both surgeries whenever she liked. How does that all add up? We will need to look very carefully into all this when we get to Clause 15. Can the Minister give us an idea of how it will all work? What would happen if a Scottish pensioner wanted to get a freedom pass in London to get access to free public transport? Would they have to show an ID card, notwithstanding the resolution of the Scottish Executive that access to no public service should be subject to the production of a card? And what if someone in Carlisle has a damaged ID card and has not handed it in because they cannot afford a new one or are frightened that they might be fined £1,000 for not having given the information? Are they not likely to go over the Border where they will not be asked for their card to get public services? Maybe it would be wise to build an A&E hospital at Gretna Green. What freedom will the Scottish Parliament really have? Does the Sewell convention apply here? Is the meaning of ““national”” in the title of the scheme that the Government will find ways to impose ID cards on the people of Scotland even if they do not want them? What about non-British citizens? The Government say that a purpose of the card is to be a jolly convenient bit of plastic to get around other regulations such as the ridiculous money-laundering regulations. Can anyone play? Clause 2 says that anyone turning up at Dover can have one. They do not have to be a UK citizen; so that is not much of a national card. My amendment would restrict the right to apply for a card to UK citizens and so ease the administration of a major potential burden. Will the Government accept the amendment? The Bill talks about anyone who proposes to enter the UK being able to register. There are roughly 25 million visits to this country each year, among them a likely pool of potential terrorists. There is talk of a prescribed period for which you have to stay to qualify for a card. Is the Government’s long-term aim that all those visitors be registered? What if many want to be registered? You can just imagine travel agents in Toulouse or Tampa Bay telling their customers, ““Get one of those English ID cards if you are proposing to enter the UK. It makes it more convenient to deal with banks or to get out a library book””. If they all applied for a card, it would no longer be national, and the whole system would surely be overwhelmed. The head of the Passport Service has already declared that he intends to process 4.5 million people in the interrogation centres that he is building. The mind boggles about how the thing would operate if even a quarter of tourists wanted to be on the system. Ministers have obviously thought about it; or else we would not have Clause 2(3) as a gatekeeper. Will the Minister tell the House precisely on whom the gate will be closed? If foreign visitors are unregistered, do we not risk ignoring some of the very people who most pose a threat? The question of Scotland and the question of foreign nationals are two different things, but if it really is a national scheme Scots should be forced in and foreigners frozen out. What precisely is the Minister’s vision of the make-up of the register by, say, 2010? It would certainly help us to know that now, and it will enlighten our later discussions. I beg to move.