Identity Cards Bill

I probably agree with quite a lot of the interpretation and the nuances. Then we would have to discuss what that actually meant in relation to the Bill and where I disagreed with the noble Lord; for example, that we did not make clear what would prevail had the constitutional treaty been implemented. There would be quite a lot to discuss. Although the noble Lord and I might enjoy that discussion, I doubt that many Members of the Committee would join in our revelry. The first point to note is that in drafting this Bill the United Kingdom is operating entirely on its own initiative. We are under no obligation, be it from the EU or from any other international body, to introduce identity cards. Quite separately from the proposals contained in this Bill, the United Kingdom has been working on a purely intergovernmental basis with other member states of the European Union to agree common minimum security standards for identity cards. Council conclusions based on the work of national experts on the minimum standards were agreed at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 and 2 December, and have been published on the Europa website—so it is all there now. I shall set out the sound and sensible reasons for this intergovernmental work. As the Committee knows, there is no such thing as an EU identity card. Each member state legislates, if it so wishes, for its own identity cards scheme. However, in order to ensure that the principle of the free movement of persons is adhered to, each member state must accept identity cards issued by the other member states as proof of treaty rights. Indeed, we were already accepting identity cards issued by certain other European states as travel documents on a bilateral basis even before we first joined the then European Community. It has become very common since then for European citizens to be able to use their travel document, in the form of an identity card, to come here. It follows that if one or more member states is producing identity cards which are not secure and which are easily forged, then all the member states are open to abuse of their immigration systems. Agreeing common minimum security standards will limit the scope of such abuse. So it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to encourage the highest standard of identity cards issued by other member states so that we do not face problems with illegal immigrants attempting to use forged or improperly obtained identity cards issued by another member state to enter the United Kingdom. Thus it is in our strong interests to participate and encourage that work even though we do not currently have an identity cards scheme and irrespective of whether we ever introduce identity cards. Whatever happens, this work will have to be undertaken. I should reiterate that the ongoing discussions relate only to minimum security standards in identity cards and are on a purely intergovernmental basis and thus non-legally binding. Regardless of whether the Bill receives Royal Assent, the United Kingdom will continue to co-operate on an intergovernmental basis on the issues of minimum security standards for identity cards. Whether or not we have our own identity cards scheme, it is in our interest to ensure that all those who produce an identity card issued by an EU member state as a travel document to enter the United Kingdom to demonstrate their treaty rights are entitled to that document and to those treaty rights. I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that it is the United Kingdom Parliament alone, on its own initiative, that is legislating for the introduction of an identity card scheme in this country. The discussions that are ongoing, on an intergovernmental basis, between the member states of the European Union are aimed at addressing the problem of identity cards that are issued to a very low security standard. Those discussions do not purport to introduce, nor are they a precursor to, any single EU identity card scheme. I take very keenly the complaints and concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in relation to the work of the Select Committee on the European Union, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who wrote to the Home Office in that regard. We replied to that letter, and we made it clear that while we appreciated the wish to be involved in the work on this issue we had to stress that there was no requirement for non-legally binding documents, such as the draft that was submitted to the December Justice and Home Affairs Council, to be deposited for scrutiny. Those are the conclusions of the representatives of the member states acting on an intergovernmental basis; they are not EU Council conclusions. As recognised in the third recital to the conclusions, no legally binding standards or timetables have been imposed. This is a non-legally binding intergovernmental initiative. Therefore, we produced the recital, and it is specifically referred to in the fourth recital of that document. It does not affect the right of any member state to decide whether to issue an identity card. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote his letter of 31 October simply to inform the Committee that the work was going on because it would be of interest to the Committee while this was taking place. We were confident, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary expressed his confidence, that agreement on these standards, which all member states now regard as important, would represent significant progress in enhancing document security and fulfilling the remit of both the Hague programme and the July Justice and Home Affairs Council.