---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 21:"Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause—" ““PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OVER UNITED KINGDOM ID CARDS (1)   No international body may impose on any United Kingdom citizen the duty to attend or to have attended at any place for the purposes of the issue, or in connection with preparations for the issue, of an ID card; and a United Kingdom citizen shall have free passage throughout the United Kingdom and the member states of the European Union without the need to fulfil any such obligation, except as shall have been agreed, or determined, by statute in the United Kingdom. (2)   No Minister of the Crown may enter into any undertaking within the European Union to introduce an ID card scheme or identity register in the United Kingdom, or propose or agree any common standards in relation to such a scheme, without the consent of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, under guidance from the Public Bill Office I have retabled part of the amendment I moved on Report on 30 January, which was the same as that moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay on 12 December last year. I do so in order to clarify some remaining uncertainties over how far the United Kingdom may have moved towards joining an EU identity card system behind the back of the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. Since our debate last week I have received a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, which helps to clarify the position. It was published on 31 January. The Answer reiterates what the noble Baroness said in Committee, in her letter to me dated 10 January, and on Report on 30 January, to the effect that Title IV of the TEC covering visas, asylum and immigration, and other policies related to the free movement of persons, does not specifically refer to identity cards. So we all agree about that. She then sums up the Government position as follows:"““In addition, the UK is only bound by Title IV measures if it chooses to opt into them, so even if a measure providing for EU ID cards could be adopted under Title IV, the UK would have a choice whether to participate in the measure and thus whether to be bound by it””." I submit that this is an important step towards transparency because for the first time the Government admit that Title IV could produce an EU ID card system. So I am glad we all now agree about that too. However, the Government still contend that they have not yet opted the UK into such a system, whereas in our previous exchanges I have been probing the possibility that by signing up to Council Decision 15226/04, they have in effect done so. These are murky waters, but I have now consulted senior constitutional counsel and he tends towards the Government’s position. In other words, although through agreeing to be part of Council Decision 15226/04 the Government have agreed that decisions under Title IV—particularly under Article 62(2)(a), which I quoted on Report and is the one most likely to justify an EU ID card system—will in future be taken by QMV to the extinction of our veto, the Government have not yet opted specifically into an EU ID card system. I am happy to go along with this view, but fear it does not give much comfort. I am advised that all that is now required for the United Kingdom to be irretrievably part of such a scheme, the operation of which would be decided by QMV under which the Government have some 8 per cent of the vote, would be a simple letter from the Home Office to Brussels saying that the United Kingdom would like to join. That letter would not be placed before Parliament for approval. It would be a simple, secret, executive missive. We would then be bound to the scheme, which would be agreed by QMV. If some of us complain, or even if Parliament complains, we will be told in time-honoured EU fashion that we were warned, that we should have made a fuss earlier, but that now it is too late. Of course, it will be too late, which is why I am trying to make a fuss now. This is a beautiful example in the making of how the corrupt octopus gets its tentacles around ever-larger portions of our sovereignty. At the end of our debate on Report last week, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, a double-barrelled question. I asked her to give a clear assurance, first, that the Government had not opted into an EU ID card system and, secondly, that they would not do so. Now at Third Reading, I would like to clarify the noble Baroness’s answer by asking the questions separately. First, will the Minister confirm that the Government have not yet written that letter and so have not yet opted into an EU ID card system? I feel confident that he will be able to confirm that that is the case. The second question may be a little more difficult for him. He may feel that his noble friend answered it last time when she said that she would not bind the Government for many years in a way that is improper. But how could it be improper to guarantee that the United Kingdom will not become part of an EU ID card system controlled by Brussels? Surely, that would be an entirely proper guarantee to give, which would be wholly popular with the British people. Any EU ID card would surely be extremely unpopular. To clarify the position further, it should not be too difficult for the noble Lord to give that guarantee now. After all, both in her letter to me of 10 January and in her speech on Report last week, the noble Baroness assured your Lordships that Parliament remains supreme in any decision to introduce ID cards in this country. Her letter states:"““There is no question of ID cards being introduced by fiat from Brussels””." On 30 January she said:"““Unless and until primary legislation concerning ID cards is brought before this Parliament, there will be no ID cards in the United Kingdom””.—[Official Report, 30/1/06; cols. 87–88.]" If the Government mean that, why will they not undertake not to sign us up to an EU ID card system in Brussels? Surely, they would only be fulfilling an undertaking already given at earlier stages of the Bill. I look forward to the noble Lord’s reply in clarification of their position. Finally, I should clarify a point that I touched on at Report when I mentioned that Brussels could use Title V, being Articles 70 to 80 of the TEC—the common transport policy—as an alternative route to introduce an EU ID card if it so wished. The United Kingdom does not have any form of opt out from that policy, which is decided by QMV and which empowers the council to lay down,"““common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a member state or passing across the territory of one or more member states””," which is a quote from Article 71(a). Article 71(d) allows the council to dictate ““any other appropriate provisions””. I understand that the EU driving licence was developed from Article 71(c), which covers,"““measures to improve transport safety””," so I fear that it is not far fetched to suggest that EU ID cards could be introduced under Title V against which, as I have mentioned, we have no protection. There is also the suggestion, as has been mentioned in our debates so far and during the debate on Amendment No. 4 today, that EU driving licences might develop into an EU identity card, or something very like it. So I would be grateful to learn from the noble Lord whether the Government disagree with that analysis and why. These are my three questions for the noble Lord. First, will he assure your Lordships that the Government have not yet sent a letter opting into an EU ID card system? Secondly, if Parliament is to remain sovereign in this area, will he undertake that the Government will not do so in future? Thirdly, is there any reason why Brussels should not introduce an EU ID card system under the common transport policy as an alternative to Title IV? I beg to move.