Identity Cards Bill

As ever, this short debate—relatively short in terms of the way in which we are progressing through the Bill—has been valuable, not least because it will enable me to deal with one or two issues that, I can see, are of some concern to noble Lords about our general approach to this legislation and the use of procedures in your Lordships House and in another place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, made the point that this part of the clause was at the heart of the identity card scheme. I cannot possibly disagree with that. It is a perfectly respectable point, and it helps us to focus on some of the important aspects of Clause 1. It establishes the national identity register and sets out the statutory purposes for which the register is to be established and maintained. In a sense, it takes on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—the worrying tendency of function creep that can sometimes occur in our society—and circumscribes the way in which we see the legislation working. I shall deal with some of the points as I work through. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked about agencies and parliamentary accountability, which is a respectable point. Over the years in which the UK Passport Agency has been in existence, I have not noticed that there has been a particular lack of facility to hold that agency to account through parliamentary means. Indeed, when a few years ago there were perceived to be some difficulties with the operation of the agency, Parliament played a constructive role in ensuring that Ministers were held to account and that some of the issues and concerns were dealt with very well. That is manifestly the case because, as we all now recognise, the UK Passport Agency is one of the best, and is a top-performing service-providing part of government, to its great credit. So I do not think that we can make the assumption that the agency will be beyond the bounds of parliamentary control. In fact, the reverse is the case. It is our intention that it will be accountable to Parliament through Ministers. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, made a couple of points about our approach to ID cards and the issue of compulsion that merit a response. We made it clear in our manifesto that initially it would be a voluntary scheme, but that was initially. The issue of compulsion was clearly spelled out in our approach to the legislation that we intended to bring in prior to the last general election. The same super-affirmative process for compulsion was in the draft Bill and in the Bill debated in Parliament in the 2004–05 Session. So there can be no doubt about the Government’s policy: it will be a compulsory scheme as long as the issues set out in the policy paper published in November 2003 are satisfied. Those issues dealt with assurances about technology, cost and the impact on people on low incomes and in other vulnerable groups. That deals with that issue. The other matter that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, raised was our attitude and approach to the Delegated Powers Committee and its recent report on the Bill. Again, that is a perfectly respectable point and one that I fully understand. Broadly speaking, the Government welcome the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I have noted that the committee commented favourably on many of the delegated powers that are proposed in the legislation, for example and in particular, in relation to Clause 6, the super-affirmative procedure. The committee concluded that the power in Clause 6 was the most appropriate method of commencing a compulsory scheme. That is a fairly clear-cut endorsement of our approach. The committee recommended a number of changes. We are looking at those recommendations. We intend to return with some government amendments in response to them. I cannot say—I think that noble Lords would think that I was rather foolish if I did—that we will come back with responses that are exactly in line with each and every recommendation, but we understand the convention that generally surrounds  recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. Of course we welcome its report and will respond positively to its concerns and, thereafter, our response to those concerns. Amendment No 5 would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the establishment of the register. I suggest to noble Lords that the expertise that we already have at our disposal and the specific terms of the Bill will be sufficient to ensure that a register fit for the purposes outlined in the Bill is developed. Requiring parliamentary scrutiny of the form that the register would take would be unnecessary. As we made clear in one of our earlier responses, an independent assurance panel will cover project management, finance, procurement and the other aspects of the programme not covered by the biometric assurance group. All the security features designed to protect the national identity register and supporting communications infrastructure are being developed carefully and in conjunction with GCHQ’s Communications Electronics Security Group, that is the CESG, which is the UK Government’s national technical authority for information assurance. There is great confidence in the body.