---

Identity Cards Bill

Clauses 1 and 2 contain the meat of the Bill, as was reflected in Committee by the exceptionally substantial debate that we had on them. I observe in passing that now they are on the Floor of the House, we are to be allowed one hour and seven minutes to do them justice. As the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, time and again the Government have damaged their own case by constantly seeking to oversell identity cards, presumably because of the extraordinary costs that will be involved in their introduction and operation. Just as one argument is knocked down, so it seems another has to be produced. We are told that it is about identity fraud and then that it is not; that it is about terrorism, and then that it is not; that it is about benefit fraud and then that it is not. My concern is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman in relation to the underpinning of his amendments, although I have one or two detailed points where I disagree with him. I will come to them later, but my fundamental concern is that the Bill is exceptionally widely drawn. Nowhere is that more apparent than clause 1(4), which seeks to define those things that are considered to be necessary in the public interest. The House will see that paragraphs (a) to (d) are fairly sensibly and reasonably drawn. Paragraph (a) says:"““in the interests of national security””." Paragraph (b) talks about"““the prevention or detection of crime””" —or as our amendment No. 24 would have it, ““serious crime””. Paragraph (c) says for"““the enforcement of immigration controls””" and (d)"““enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment.””" So far, so good. But when one comes to (e), one finds the catch-all,"““securing the efficient and effective provision of public services.””" It is not so much a question of what that contains, but what it does not contain. The provision gives the Government carte blanche to hold and use information in just about any way they choose. As later clauses reveal, in almost every instance the Government will be able to appoint themselves the sole arbiter of what constitutes the public interest in these matters.