Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 16:"Page 1, line 16, leave out paragraphs (a) to (e) and insert—" ““(a)   of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security; (b)   of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting serious crime; (c)   for the purposes of preventing illegal immigration and enforcing immigration controls; or (d)   for the purposes of securing proper provision of relevant public services. (   )   For the purpose of subsection (4)— ““relevant public services”” means the provision of— (a)   healthcare, (b)   housing, (c)   education, and (d)   social security benefits; ““serious crime”” means crime giving rise to an offence triable only on indictment.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 274 in this group. I should make it clear that these are probing amendments, for which the reason will become clear. They were divided upon by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place on more than one occasion, but I do not seek to do so just at this stage. This group of amendments asks the Government to set out clearly the purposes that they intend to drive the setting up of the national identity register. Once there is clarity of purpose, manufacturers can design a card that is fit for that purpose. So, what do the Government see as the fundamental purpose of a card? Will it be an entitlement card for e-government services, a security card, or does it have some other primary use? In the debate leading up to the Bill and during the consultation process, the Government have claimed a variety of reasons for introducing the national identity register and ID cards. They include protecting us against terrorism, clamping down on social security fraud, tightening their grip on money laundering, reducing illegal immigration and reducing crime—although I note that at Second Reading on 31 October the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, at col. 13 of the Official Report referred specifically not to crime, but to ““serious crime””. But the Bill is very broad and refers simply to ““crime””. The list goes on and on. What the Government have not yet done, and I invite them to do tonight, is to state which of the purposes that they are pursuing is a priority, because different services and purposes demand different types of card and registration. The noble Baroness seemed to disagree with that and by this amendment I am giving her the opportunity to state why. The Government have not yet proved their case that their system of registration and ID cards will have all the beneficial results that they claim. The first three amendments invite the Government to state their priorities and I will run through those very briefly. Amendment No. 16 would change subsection (4) of Clause 1 which lists matters that all might be in the public interest. Taken individually or collectively they could all be for the public good: we all want our national security to be enhanced, crime to be detected or prevented, the laws and regulations concerning immigration to this country to be enforced and illegal working to be prevented and the rules relating to it to be enforced. Everbody wants the provision of public services to be maintained securely, efficiently and effectively, but it does not necessarily mean that this Bill is the right or the only way to achieve those outcomes. Our amendment tries to tighten the definition of the statutory purposes of the Bill. The Government’s own Clause 1(4)(a) merely refers to national security. We say that national security should be described primarily in relation to terrorism. Our new subsection 1(c) confines the purpose to preventing or detecting serious crime instead of leaving it open to all crime. I am simply making the Bill read in the way that it appeared the Minister herself construed it at Second Reading. We then go on to the more challenging bit of our amendments—challenging to me, not to the Government I hasten to add—where we go on to define serious crime as one which gives rise to an offence triable only on indictment. I say my amendments are only probing because I realise that that amendment is seriously defective in respect of Scotland—I say that knowing that I have expert Scottish colleagues behind me as well as on the Benches opposite. I realise that that amendment would exclude serious fraud, serious theft and serious assault in Scotland from coming within the ambit of this provision. It is only there as a prompt to ask the Government to approach their definition of what crime is to be covered by this. I recognise that if I ever did seek to bring this back on Report I would certainly need to redraft the amendment. I invite the Minister to explain how extensively the Government anticipate the use of ID card tracking to be used by the police in their work. Will card production be required from motorists who have been stopped for speeding? Will they in any way act as a deterrent to burglars and if so, how? Will the Minister explain what impact she expects 1(4)(c) to have on the prevention of illegal immigration? Are there not better ways of achieving that, for example, by increasing immigration controls at points of entry? What is the Minister’s response to the briefing by the Commission for Racial Equality on these matters? It is concerned that the Government’s integration agenda may suffer as a consequence of this legislation and its effects. The CRE says that the impact on communities where there are high numbers of irregular migrants has not been considered, except to say that it is ““beneficial”” unsupported by evidence. The CRE states,"““With regard to illegal immigration and access to public services, it appears that the Government can achieve its aims without Identity Card legislation. There are provisions within immigration legislation to ensure that migrants have certain documentation.””" The CRC also points out that the recent pilot scheme aimed at Sri Lanka was not an unqualified success. Its reason is not just that at seven, the number detected was low, but that if there were a full race equality impact assessment it would indicate whether there are other, more effective, alternatives. It feels that the problem at the moment is that the Government have not yet published a full assessment. Can the Government indicate today whether they intend to do so? Amendment No. 16 also inserts new subsection (4) (a) to define relevant public services. I beg to move.