---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for outlining with his usual clarity why he feels that there should be anxiety—nay, alarm—about the current position. I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that it does not really matter what we say, he will never be reassured anyway. With that as a background, I shall clarify the position as best I can. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, probably already knows the answers that I will give, but I will give them for the record. When the noble Lord last spoke on this matter, he focused on the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. His comments in that regard were coloured a little by his failure to differentiate between the arrangements proposed in the constitution, which was not proceeded with, and the prevailing situation. Amendment No. 111A seeks to state in primary legislation that it is for Parliament to decide whether an identity card scheme, be it voluntary or compulsory, should be introduced into the UK. The amendment makes similar statements on who should be required to possess an ID card and the security standards required for both the ID card and the register. I hardly need to say it, but Parliament is sovereign. Unless and until primary legislation concerning ID cards is brought before this Parliament, there will be no ID cards scheme in the United Kingdom. This Bill is that primary legislation. We have debates on whether the scheme should be compulsory or voluntary, but there is no debate that this Bill will bring in the ID cards scheme if this Parliament determines that that should occur. It is strange and, if I may respectfully say so, unnecessary to state in a Bill that is before Parliament the fact that Parliament is sovereign over the subject matter to which the Bill relates. Although Parliament will prescribe, by way of affirmative order, the information to be recorded on ID cards and the format of that information, the security standards of ID cards and of the register will not be set out in legislation. It would be inappropriate to release details of the security standards required for ID cards or the register into the public domain. I hope that noble Lords will concur with the reasons for that. To do so may compromise the future security and integrity of the register itself, giving potential wrongdoers a good place to start when looking for ways to attack the register. Subsection (2) of the amendment seeks to prevent any international body imposing conditions on any UK citizen to attend any place for the purpose of the issue of an identity card unless this has been agreed to by a UK statute. Subsection (3) of the amendment seeks to prevent any Minister entering into an undertaking with the EU to introduce an ID card scheme in the UK, or agreeing any common standards in relation to such a scheme, unless Royal Assent has been given to the Identity Cards Bill or any other statute for that specific purpose. As I stated on previous occasions, and more recently in my letter of 10 January—which has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—the Government’s position is that there is no question of identity cards being introduced by fiat from Brussels. We very much doubt, as the noble Lord has set out from my letter, that the treaties could provide a legal basis for so doing. Even if—which once again we doubt—it could be argued that Title 4 could provide a treaty base, the United Kingdom would be bound by such a measure only if it opted into it. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said in relation to that, I think that even he accepts that we would have to opt in in order for it to apply. He, of course, says that we may be minded at some stage to do so. But there is no indication of that and, unless and until we opt in, we would not be so bound. In any event, in so far as there is any scope for making such arguments, restating parliamentary sovereignty in the Bill does not change the position. I hope that I have been able to assure noble Lords about that. Mention has been made of the EU measures on ID cards which were entered into in December. The conclusion adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council was an intergovernmental measure which is not legally binding. It sets out some common principles which all member states agreed were important for the security and issuance of ID cards. Noble Lords will know, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has made clear, that 22 countries in the EU currently have ID cards. Their citizens use those ID cards to come to this country. It is in our interests to make sure that the provisions which apply to ID cards are secure and safe for those who come to this country because we have to rely on the integrity of their documents because they are the ones they choose to use. This was requested by the Hague programme and the July 2005 Justice and Home Affairs Council because national ID cards are acknowledged to be the least secure of the identity and travel documents which are commonly used in the EU. It is in the interests of all of us that ID cards are as secure as possible. The council conclusions do not and cannot impose any obligation on states to introduce ID cards if they do not already have them. That is the case, for instance, in Latvia, Denmark and Ireland as well as the United Kingdom. I absolutely understand the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—who remain resolutely Euro sceptic—but I have to tell your Lordships, as clearly as I can, that they are unfounded. It will be this Parliament which determines whether ID cards will be introduced; it will be this Parliament which decides the conditions which apply; and it will be this Parliament which says yea or nay to their introduction—and no other.