---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I shall deal with the amendment and then the thanks. As ever, we have listened with interest and not inconsiderable admiration to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am reminded that the last time a politician was described as indefatigable, it was Mr George Galloway in another place describing Saddam Hussein, but perhaps I should go no further with that. I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, could be described as indefatigable in the same way as that. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord had to say about his amendments. As he described, subsection (1) of the amendment seeks to prevent any international body imposing conditions on any United Kingdom citizen to attend any place for the purpose of an issue of an ID card unless this has been agreed by a UK statute. Subsection (2) of the amendment seeks to prevent any Minister entering into an undertaking with the European Union to introduce an ID card scheme in the United Kingdom or agreeing any common standards in relation to such a scheme without the consent of Parliament. As we have said on previous occasions the Government’s position is that there is no question of identity cards being introduced by fiat from Brussels. We very much doubt that the treaties could provide a legal basis for measures on national identity cards. Even if—which once again we doubt—it could be argued that Title IV could provide a treaty base, the UK would be bound by such a measure only if it opted in to it. Title IV is primarily concerned with border controls and the entry and residence of third-country nationals in the Community. It does not provide for the introduction of an EU ID card. In addition the UK is bound by measures drawn up under Title IV only if it opts in to them. There is therefore no question of the UK being forced to sign up to a European ID card under Title IV of the EC treaty. I am sure that the House will have no objection to my taking this opportunity to respond to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on Report, when he cited Council Decision 15226/04 of 15 December 2004—as he did this afternoon—which he believed showed that European ID cards could be introduced by Brussels without the consent of Parliament. I think he conceded that, subject to the advice that he has now received from senior counsel into what he described as ““murky waters””, this is no longer the case. I think he accepts that point now, which suggests that we have moved on a bit—certainly in the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. At least we have confirmed that point to his satisfaction. We should also make it clear—and it is important that the House should be in no doubt about it—that the decision in question provides that measures adopted under articles in Title IV of the EC treaty shall be subject to the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament, and qualified majority voting, rather than being adopted by unanimity and after consultation with the European Parliament. The United Kingdom, as the noble Lord has rightly said, opted in to that decision as to the appropriate procedure. However, I must also make it clear that that does not change the position that I have already set out: that under the Title IV opt-in protocol the UK is bound by a Title IV measure only if it opts in to it. We have not opted in to all future Title IV measures that are subject to qualified majority voting. For all measures, including those under Article 62(2), we have a right to decide and determine whether to opt in on a measure-by-measure basis. With regard to subsection (2) of the amendment, the Government have no intention of entering into an undertaking with other EU members to set up an ID card scheme. That is a decision for this Parliament and that is exactly what this Bill is about. I should also make it clear that there is no requirement for inter-governmental agreements that are not legally binding to be deposited for parliamentary scrutiny. The Government see no reason why special arrangements should be made only in relation to ID cards. As I have made clear, the decision on whether identity cards should be introduced in the United Kingdom is a matter for this Parliament and that is what we are debating today. The information contained on the card will be governed by regulations under what is now Clause 6(3). Those regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure and require the agreement of Parliament. The issue of common security standards for those states that issue ID cards is entirely different. The United Kingdom’s interest in what other countries do is not whether they have an ID card scheme, but to ensure that if they do those cards which can be used to travel to and from the UK comply with suitably high security standards. I am sure all noble Lords will accept that that is in the interests of our country. The extraordinary JHA Council of 7 July last year asked for standards on physical security features to be agreed early in 2006 and for standards relating to the security of issuing processes to be agreed by the end of 2005. The JHA Council of 1 and 2 December adopted council conclusions which carried out this remit. The council conclusions are intergovernmental; they are not legally binding on any member state but they do show how seriously the member states take document security. In so far as the noble Lord’s amendment is designed to prevent such intergovernmental initiatives, I strongly urge noble Lords to reject it. The noble Lord asked a series of questions. First, I confirm again that the Government have not opted into any EU measure requiring the introduction of identity cards. Secondly, I confirm that the Government have no intention of opting into any system of EU ID card, but as my noble friend Lady Scotland has said on several occasions and particularly on Report, it would be inappropriate to give some sort of commitment that would bind future governments; we cannot do so. Thirdly, I have not been briefed on common transport policy. Using that to bring in a common format driving licence would be one thing, but I cannot conceive that this could be used to impose a European Union ID card on member states. I do not see it as a back door method of entry for that purpose. The noble Lord is sometimes a bit of a keen conspiracy theorist, but that is one conspiracy that I cannot see coming to fruition. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that neither foreign states, nor anyone other than those employed to administer it, will have access to the register. As we discussed earlier, Clause 18 allows for information to be provided to overseas law enforcement bodies in the limited circumstances set out in that clause and subject to the conditions and regulations under Clause 21, which is parallel to Section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Under the Act, the Secretary of State can prevent information being provided to foreign states if it would be inappropriate, perhaps because of concerns about fair trials in those jurisdictions. I have tried to cover all the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and other noble Lords during the course of this shortish debate on Third Reading. Before I sit down, given that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, have made comments about the progress of the Bill, I shall add my own comments. I have happily spent many hours sitting next to my noble friend Lady Scotland listening to her with great intent and trying to provide her with some respite from the myriad of amendments and questions that have been raised about the Identity Cards Bill. Like everyone else in your Lordships’ House, I sit there in awe and wonder at the way in which she does her very difficult job. It is sad that she is not with us today; for very sad reasons indeed. I know that I echo the sentiments of the House in wishing her well and thanking her for her incredible efforts in the course of this Bill and the other legislation that we have been considering in parallel. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She is at all times courteous. Her questions are well intentioned and well directed, and her amendments are well thought through and well argued. I enjoy the way in which she brings her wisdom and knowledge to this subject. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who is a representative of a party that is implacably opposed to the legislation, has made an unusually large number of extremely constructive points and extremely constructive amendments, which have added to the weight and import of the Bill. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords, in particular the 22 Labour Back-Benchers who supported us at Second Reading and supported the principles behind the measure. I am also grateful to other Back-Benchers from all parties who have participated and to noble Lords from the Cross Benches. Finally, I thank the Bill team, who have made my job and that of my noble friend Lady Scotland much easier and who have occasionally provided us with a few one-liners to make matters lighter and slightly more humorous than they might otherwise have been. That brings me to the close of my remarks. I cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment, although he moved it with his usual force and thought. Perhaps there will come a time when I will find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch; but I am not in agreement on this occasion.