---

Home Affairs and Communities

The hon. Gentleman might say that, but he will be glad to know that 80 per cent. of the country think that it is thoroughly good—and for good reason. The Bill was published in draft in the third Session of the previous Parliament and introduced in full in the fourth Session, when it completed its passage through the Commons and had its Second Reading in the Lords before Parliament dissolved, so it has had very full consideration over two Sessions of Parliament, including a full Committee stage in this House. The purpose of the Bill is clear. It is to establish the legal framework for the introduction of identity cards and a national identity register. It will also provide a power, at a future date, for it to be compulsory to register and to be issued with a card. It will include enabling powers so that, in future, access to specified public services could be linked to production of a valid ID card. It will establish safeguards in regard to the data that would be held and shared. I am aware of the genuine concerns across the House on the nature of those safeguards and we will, of course, be very happy to discuss them in detail to meet the concerns that anyone might have. The Bill will create a national identity scheme commissioner, who will have oversight of the scheme, including the provision of information from the national identity register. It will create new criminal offences relating to false identity documents, including the possession of genuine documents that have been improperly obtained, or that relate to someone else. It will also provide for better identity checks to be made on passport applicants and to allow for the cross-subsidy of passport fees. I am aware that this is a controversial piece of legislation. Genuine worries have been expressed, as well as some not-so-genuine worries. However, for the sake of this discussion, let us accept that genuine worries have been expressed about aspects of the way in which the scheme would operate. As I said on the Bill’s Second Reading in the last Session, it is critical that we tackle the issues of identity fraud. They are serious issues that need to be dealt with effectively. What I hope—perhaps it is a vain hope, but I do not think so—is that we can have a rational discussion of the various issues involved and come to a decision in Committee and elsewhere about how we proceed. I know that some of my hon. Friends have doubts, and I say to them that we will be happy to discuss those issues with them in whatever is the most effective way. I know that the Liberal Democrats are opposed in all circumstances, and will be opposed under all circumstances, and I suspect that there is not much point in talking to them—there we go, that is life, so there is nothing new as far as the Lib Dems are concerned. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, the state of affairs is more interesting. On Second Reading, they voted for the legislation. On Third Reading, they abstained, after a shadow Cabinet rebellion led by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden against the Leader of the Opposition. In the House of Lords, in the final stages of the wash-up, they opposed the legislation. They have therefore been through the whole sequence. Throughout the election campaign, there was no clarity about what their position would be and I have seen the newspaper reports about what the leadership candidate, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, is saying on these matters. I say to him as seriously as I can that, as a potential statesman, as of course he is—a statesman is a failed politician, as I recall—I hope that he will seriously consider giving his party’s support to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden raised five questions, which I will go through, as I have written to him on them. The tests that he put forward were a fig leaf to cover the retreats and shifts of the Conservative party on the question. The first was that legislation must clearly define the purpose of the cards, and I can tell him that the legislation does so. His second was whether the technology was sufficiently well developed and robust, and the answer is yes. His third question was whether the Home Office is capable of delivering this major IT project, and the answer is yes. By the way, if the Opposition conclude that there is no conceivable IT scheme that the Home Office could carry through, he needs to examine some of the successful projects that the Government have carried through. If the entire basis of his proposition is that the Home Office, or any Department, is not capable of running any IT programme, he must disband just about every aspect of what Government do in all circumstances. The Home Office runs very successful IT schemes, as do other parts of Government.