Identity Cards Bill

I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord’s view. The scheme is aimed at UK residents irrespective of their nationality. We should not exclude foreign nationals who may have lived here lawfully for many years. They may have businesses or employment. They will have paid taxes and be entitled to public services, and many make huge and valuable contributions to the well-being and richness of this country. By richness I do not mean simply financial richness, but also the cultural depth, breadth and excitement that we now have in our country. It is the envy of many other countries and has given us great stability. The identity card overview published in June this year, which is available in the Library, outlines the level of take-up required to gain maximum benefit from the scheme. In its early years, the main areas of benefit are more efficient administration in both the private and public sector and immigration control. I say that in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate. These two benefit areas build gradually in proportion to the take-up. Fraud reduction and crime benefits would increase considerably when a high proportion of the resident population is enrolled. Once the move to compulsion came, and organisations were empowered to use the ID card or NIR as the only means of identification, fraudsters and criminals would find it increasingly difficult to commit crime where identity was an issue. If the noble Baroness were to proceed with her amendment—and I know that she raises it so that we can discuss these issues—it would severely impact on the effectiveness of the scheme. The benefits that would be achieved in relation to immigration, illegal working and access to public services under the ID card scheme would, quite frankly, be lost. We cannot see why, if I may respectfully say so, we would want to introduce an ID card scheme and then limit ourselves to being able to register only a number of the resident population. Before I leave Amendment No. 46, it may be appropriate to seek to correct an answer that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I see in his place. On the first day in Committee, 15 November, I made a response to the noble Earl which indicated that an EU national would not have nationality recorded on an ID card. At that stage we were talking of British nationality. I want to clarify so that I have not conflated the two. Only British citizens will have an identity card showing their British nationality, which would then be valid as a travel document for use in Europe. That identity card will either be issued as a standalone card on its own, or as a package with the identity card and British passport. A plain ID card, showing no nationality and not being valid for travel, would also be available for British and Irish nationals. The intention is that ID cards for foreign nationals will be based on designating residence permits for non-EU foreign nationals and for EU nationals on registration certificates. These would confirm the holder’s own nationality and, in the case of a non-EU national, the terms and conditions on their stay in the United Kingdom. However, because these documents would not show British nationality they would not be valid for travel in Europe. That is the distinction; British nationality is a travel document—it is on the face—while foreign nationality will be there but will not be capable of being used as a travel document. I thought it right to correct any misunderstanding now, just in case; maybe I was clearer than I think I was. Amendment No. 47 would require an entry to be made on the register for those who enter the United Kingdom, legally or otherwise, from countries which could be deemed to be some sort of terrorist risk as defined in the amendment. I want to make it absolutely clear that the ID card scheme is not a border control project. It is an identity verification system which will allow those legitimately here to prove their identity, which will then confirm their leave to remain. It has been suggested that we are leaving the ID card scheme open to abuse by allowing people to come here for up to three months without the formality of registering and being issued with an ID card. That seemed to be implicit in some of the comments being made. I fail to see it as any kind of loophole. If people are determined to try to stay here illegally, I am afraid that they are likely to do so whether we admit them for one, three or six months as short-term visitors. The point is that everyone coming to the United Kingdom for a short visit will have the passport or identity document on which they entered the country as proof of identity. While they are here, they would be expected to use that document to prove their identity. Once the ID card scheme is in place it will be much easier for employers to know that they are employing people entitled to work—and for public services to know that the people they are dealing with are entitled to access their particular service. The ID card will be the key and those short-term visitors with no card will simply not have that key. That will prove a major deterrent to anyone contemplating working or staying here illegally. Foreign nationals here for less than three months will not have an ID card, and so will be unable to pretend that they are permanently resident here and access services to which they are not entitled. We think that is a sensible and practical accommodation of those issues. I hope that has been of some little assistance to the noble Baroness, and that she will not only better understand why we have taken this course but also feel more content with it.