Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 16A and 22A. This House has behaved in such an exemplary way so far on Motions A, B and C that I am confident that that pattern will be followed on this Motion as well, especially bearing in mind that the other place has expressed itself so clearly on two occasions. In that hope and expectation, I shall now deal with the Motion. We discussed these amendments at some length on Report on 23 January when your Lordships’ House passed them. However, a very similar amendment had already been defeated on Report in the other place on 18 October by a majority of 32. Your Lordships’ amendments were discussed again in the other place on 13 February and were rejected yet again by the elected House by a majority of 31. This issue has been debated, voted on and approved twice by the elected House, and I must say that it is now time for your Lordships to accept with the stunning good grace that you have shown today, that this part of the Identity Cards Bill should remain as originally proposed, and that the Lords’ amendments should not be insisted upon. Although Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 rest on changing a ““must”” to a ““may””, which seems a very small change, they would undermine the whole basis of the current identity cards proposal, and for that reason the Government, with the support of the elected House, will continue to resist them strongly. The amendments would make registration and the issue of an identity card an optional extra for anyone applying for a designated document such as a British passport or residence permit for foreign nationals. We have always been clear that the identity cards scheme is being designed and is eventually intended to become a compulsory scheme for all United Kingdom residents and that, in the second phase of the scheme, it will be a requirement to register, with a civil financial penalty regime for failure to do so. We have also always been equally clear that linking identity cards to the issue of designated documents is a central part of the scheme in the first phase. This will enable a sensible phased introduction of identity cards. Once passports and residence permits are designated, British nationals resident in the United Kingdom who renew or apply for their passports and foreign nationals who renew or apply for their residence permits will be entered on the national identity register and issued with cards that will serve as ID cards. This will provide advantages for the individual. We are already planning to introduce fingerprint biometric passports that will require all applicants to attend a local enrolment centre. Using this self-same process to enrol the additional iris biometric for the identity cards scheme, rather than expecting people to come back later when the second compulsory phase of the identity cards scheme is introduced, as it is clearly intended to be, makes simple common sense. We are starting today to phase in the issue of e-passports incorporating a facial image biometric. This will be the first-generation biometric passport, but once we have moved on to the next phase—that is, biometric passports that include facial image and fingerprint biometrics—anyone applying for a passport will have to go through the same application process that they have to go through for an identity card, and their personal details and biometrics will be recorded on a central database, albeit a passport database, rather than the national identity register. So merging the two processes will add the statutory safeguards, such as the creation of a national identity scheme commissioner, provided by this Bill. Later this year, we will start to interview all adult first-time passport applicants in order to confirm their identity. This, of course, will require a personal visit to a local office, just as enrolling biometrics for the identity card will. The United Kingdom Passport Service is already establishing a network of new local offices to undertake these interviews. Not only will people therefore have to go through more or less the same procedure to obtain a passport as they do for an identity card but, by linking the issue of identity cards and passports, we will provide a more convenient and secure identity document that can be used to prove identity in a wide variety of situations domestically as well as being a travel document. In practice, the process of obtaining a passport and that of obtaining an identity card will be combined in the future. Issuing the two documents as a package will be just as convenient and makes much more sense than applying for just a biometric passport. What does it give society as a whole? It will mean that we will be able to start using the identity cards scheme and the national identity register for the purposes set out in Clause 1; that is, to improve identification where it is in the public interest—national security, prevention and detection of crime, enforcement of immigration controls and controls on illegal working—as well as more efficient and effective delivery of public services. If we provide an opt out, we put all those benefits at risk and would certainly delay them. Focusing on passports and residence permits means that we can enrol on the register a manageable number of people each year who will, in any event, be going through the process of obtaining an existing identity document. That will minimise any uncertainties that would otherwise apply to rolling out the identity cards scheme and so will reduce costs, something in which your Lordships have expressed a real interest throughout our debates. The benefits of the identity cards scheme will grow steadily as more people obtain their cards. Linking identity cards to the issue or renewal of a document such as a passport, which around 80 per cent of the population already holds, means that there will be a manageable roll out of the identity cards scheme. That must surely be in the public interest. If those who say that they are concerned about the costs of the scheme really want to avoid excessive costs, they must accept the logic of combining the process for issuing identity cards with passports and with immigration documents. I confirm again that the Government’s intention is to designate British passports issued to United Kingdom residents aged 16 or over, so that an identity card must be issued alongside a passport as a ““package””. But, secondly, it is intended to designate residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals coming to reside in the United Kingdom for more than three months: the residence permit would also become valid as an identity card. If we agree to these amendments, foreign nationals applying to stay in the United Kingdom could also opt out of the need to be registered and to have their biometrics held on the national identity register. As an immigration control measure it is essential that we do not allow people to opt out in that way.   In addition to designated documents we also intend to issue stand-alone identity cards on a voluntary basis, but these would be issued under Clause 8 and would not require the use of the designation power in Clause 4. As we have always made clear, the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for the possibility of designation of other official documents in the future. However, I can confirm again that we have no current plans to designate any documents other than passports and immigration documents. There are four very clear ““common-sense”” reasons why these amendments should be rejected—costs, benefits, convenience and security. First, the Government want the identity cards scheme to provide the greatest benefits at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. If we accept these amendments, the cost of establishing the scheme would be bound to rise because of the greater complexity of handling an optional service where some people could opt out of having an identity card when obtaining a passport. Costs would also rise because there would be greater uncertainty as to the likely volumes of identity card applications, at least in the initial phase, which could have an impact on the unit cost and so the fee level for identity cards. Secondly, there would also be an impact on the benefits of the identity card scheme. If there is doubt over the speed of the roll-out of the identity cards, inevitably that will result in a slowdown in the wider benefits being achieved. That would be the case whether it concerned combating illegal immigration or improving the effectiveness of public services. Thirdly, there is the question of convenience to the public. It really does not make sense to issue a biometric passport without the accompanying identity card. The process of enrolling biometrics and checking identity for both documents will be virtually identical, so there would be very little difference in the fee that would apply to both documents. On its own, the passport will continue to be of value as a travel document, but little more, whereas the identity card will be used widely as a quick, easy and secure way of proving identity. Fourthly, there is the question of security. We would be offering an open goal to fraudsters, criminals or to immigration offenders if we said that they could simply choose to avoid being included in the national identity register when they applied for a passport or an immigration document. I know that that cannot be what any of your Lordships would wish. It would not make sense for us to design a system that was more expensive, produced fewer benefits, was less convenient to the individual and put security at risk. On the grounds of common sense alone, we believe that these amendments must be rejected. I hope that I have demonstrated that it is essential for us to establish a clear and definite link between an application for a designated document such as a passport and an entry on to the national identity register, and that this has always been our clearly stated policy. Indeed, once we move on to the introduction of passports with fingerprint biometrics, the process for obtaining a passport and an identity card will be so similar as to make the need to combine the two processes quite obvious. Further, there would of course be no possibility of designating any document until the identity card scheme is introduced, while the designation order itself will need to set out the exact details of the proposed class of document, with any exceptions, and will need to specify the timetable for designation. Each designation order brought forward under Clause 4 will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. So this is not something that could be done without an opportunity for proper debate and scrutiny. Your Lordships’ House has made its views known once to the other place. That was absolutely right and proper. However, there is now an overwhelming case for this House to accept the view of the elected House and not to insist on these amendments any further. I therefore move that your Lordships’ House should not insist on Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 and should accept the view expressed twice in the other place for the reasons I have outlined. Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons numbered 16A and 22A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)