House of Commons
Thursday 10 February 2005
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
Prayers
Mr Speaker in the Chair
Oral Answers to Questions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Secretary of State was asked—
Environment Agency
A number of measures have been included in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Environment Agency does a very good job and that it is increasingly being given new roles with European directives, one after the other, on waste electrical and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles and hazardous waste? At the same time, the Government are saying, through the Gershon review, that we must make all Departments cut back, and the James report from the Conservative party says that the Environment Agency should lose 1,200 jobs. Is that the way to ensure that the Environment Agency has the capacity to look after our environment?
Order. The James report is not a ministerial responsibility.
I welcome that guidance, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the work of the Environment Agency. Indeed, its role is absolutely vital in environmental protection, environmental standards and the collection of waste. Any ill-thought-out measure that would seriously weaken its environmental protection department would be bad for the community and bad for the environment.
Does my hon. Friend plan to publicise the new regulations on waste tipping, which could be introduced as a result of legislation being passed by the House? Might he consider giving anyone with a farm or premises where fly-tipping is taking place a large notice telling the men in white vans that their vehicles could be confiscated, and the costs of recovering those vehicles would have to be paid by them, if they continue to fly-tip in the future?
It is certainly important that we raise awareness about the penalties for fly-tipping in particular. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill will strengthen the penalties that can be applied and give local authorities and the Environment Agency more powers, including on the seizure of vehicles, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests. We have been working well to raise awareness with a range of stakeholders, including the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the Local Government Association. I have been pleased to see the targeted action that the Environment Agency has been taking with various campaigns to seek out areas at high risk of fly-tipping and, along with the police, to stop and search vehicles.
My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that under the BREW—business resource efficiency and waste—fund, which comes from landfill tax, we have made available to the Environment Agency £2 million in additional funds, in particular to tighten up the permitting and transfer of waste.
In Burnley, waste dumping and illegal fly-tipping is a major problem. We get waste dumped in the backyards of empty properties and the council is clearing it up all the time. One of the biggest problems is that small builders who are working on one property dump the waste in the backyard of another property. Should we not impose draconian penalties on those people and, if necessary, put them out of business because that practice is unacceptable?
I agree with my hon. Friend. Fly-tipping is antisocial, selfish and, of course, brings with it environmental risks, and we must use all the measures that we can to stop it. Under another measure in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, site plans must be produced for large construction works to make it clear where the construction waste will go, so those sites will be clearly identified. Of course there is a threshold for that—it will not apply to small operators—but the Bill also contains measures to ensure that the landowners of empty properties take action either to secure the property or to clear it up when it is used as a tip, and that people who are responsible for fly-tipping take on the costs of the clean-up as well.
Climate Change
The conference on avoiding dangerous climate change, which was convened by my Department from 1 to 3 February, concluded that the risks of climate change were even more serious than previously thought. It provided new scientific evidence that underlined the need for urgent work on both climate change mitigation and adaptation.
My right hon. Friend once again deserves the thanks of the whole House for convening that important conference. As she pointed out, its conclusions were consistent with recent reports showing that climate change and the pace of change are worse than we thought. Although I welcome the implementation of Kyoto next week, it was disappointing that the European Commissioners announced that they will not establish targets on climate change under Kyoto beyond 2012. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we can use our EU presidency to ensure that we firmly push forward the agenda, perhaps change the Commissioners' view on the matter, and make sure that Europe takes the lead with the United States, Japan and, importantly, the newly industrialising world so that we get a grip on the problem of greenhouse gases now? Frankly, if we do not do that now, we are betraying future generations.
I take entirely the point that my hon. Friend makes. We will be engaging with some of the newly developing countries, especially those with substantial and growing energy needs, at a further conference that we are convening in the middle of March. I understand his worry about whether further targets will be set. We anticipate that we will discuss that issue during the March Environment Council. Our likely discussions will centre on whether the scientific and economic analysis informs dialogue and debate on whether further targets should be set, when they should be set and what their form might be. It is important for us to have an evidence-based discussion of the kind that we held in this country before we published our energy White Paper.
Was any evidence presented at the conference on the effect of default demolition, which English Nature estimates costs the equivalent of 3,000 gallons of petrol for every Victorian terraced house? The Daily Telegraph described the demolition of homes as "Prescott's 'first resort'". Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister whether that fits neatly with her green agenda?
I am afraid that the conference did not concentrate on default demolition. It considered what the key impacts of climate change are likely to be for different regions and sectors, as well as for the world as a whole. It also considered what levels of climate change imply about the stabilisation and concentration of greenhouse gases, the emission pathways that would enable different stabilisations and concentrations to be reached, and the technological options. With due respect to The Daily Telegraph, the scope of the discussions was a little different.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that public understanding about the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change is still at a comparatively low level? People now clearly understand the links between tobacco and cancer, and between junk food and heart disease, but we have a long way to go before most of my constituents clearly understand the impact of burning fossil fuels. Is there more that the Government can do to improve public awareness?
Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. He is right that the links are less well understood in this area, which is at least in part because in the effort to ensure that all points of view are heard, media coverage tends to put a disproportionate emphasis on the views of those who are way outside the scientific consensus on the matter. He is entirely right that we realise that there is more to do to increase communication on the issue. We have given extra resources to both the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust—he might have seen the new campaign that the Carbon Trust has started to run—and we are getting advice about a further communication programme to be run by the Government, for which we were given money in the spending review.
I join the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) in congratulating the Government on holding the conference last week. Given the serious conclusions, are the Government worried that carbon dioxide emissions have not fallen since they came to power, that they will miss their own target for cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, that their renewable energy target is no longer credible, and that because of their incompetence, British companies cannot take part in the European Union emissions trading scheme? Is it not all too clear that a far more urgent response to the threat of climate change is now needed and that no amount of fine words from the Prime Minister will cover the gaps in the Government's policy?
Of course we are disappointed that CO 2 levels have not fallen, but the hon. Gentleman is stretching things to say that we will miss our target. We are not in 2010 yet—in fact, we are some five years away. It was intended from the beginning, when the climate change programme was established in 2000, that the programme would be reviewed. It was always thought likely that the measures would not be sufficient to get us to our 20 per cent. target by 2010. No such target was missed by the previous Government because they did not have a target for meeting carbon dioxide levels.
That was before Kyoto.
Yes, but we have moved substantially beyond the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that we inherited from that Government. I am not criticising them because they made progress, but we have made still more and have, indeed, exceeded our Kyoto target.
On the emissions trading scheme, I know that it is too much to expect consistency from the Conservatives, but considering how much they criticised us when we announced our initial proposals for a national allocation plan—
And they prayed against the regulations.
Indeed, they also prayed against the regulations. So it is a bit ironic that they criticise us for trying to amend that plan.
However hard the Secretary of State tries to mislead people—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—about the Conservative party's attitude to emissions trading, nothing will stop us telling the truth about the Government's failures. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] We have always supported the principle of emissions trading—
Order. Hon. Members sometimes tell me how to do my job. The hon. Gentleman is in order, but he is close to the edge.
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not disgraceful that at the time when the Prime Minister is putting climate change at the heart of Britain's presidency of the European Union, Britain, along with Greece and the Czech Republic, are not even in the emissions trading scheme? We all support the principle of targets, but it will not add to the Government's credibility if they defy the clear evidence that their targets for renewable energy and cutting carbon dioxide emissions will be missed, despite the fact that, after five years of continuous economic growth under the previous Government, they inherited falling carbon dioxide emissions.
The next Conservative Government will make transport greener, do more to promote energy efficiency for the benefit of households and business, and develop a wider range of renewable energy sources than Labour has done. Does the Minister realise that if we are to achieve our objectives and obligations, those are the very steps that the Government should be taking?
I reject utterly any suggestion that I misled the House. All I did was remind it that the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman said I was misleading people. I was not. I referred merely to the simple fact, which is on the record, that the Conservative party prayed against the emissions trading scheme regulations. I was delighted to be told the other day that, nevertheless, the Conservative party supported the principle of such regulations. I have not since said, and will not say, that the Conservatives oppose the principle, but I am entitled to draw attention to the record. I am certainly entitled to draw attention to the Conservatives' inconsistency in criticising us, as they did, for hitting British industry when we published our original proposals and now criticising us for trying to amend them.
I have made no attempt to deny where we are with the targets. It should concern everyone in the House that we are not finding it as easy to meet those targets as had been thought, and we will have to do more. I trust that we will get support from the Conservatives for the measures proposed in the climate change review programme.
As for the notion that the Conservatives would do more on energy efficiency, the Conservative Government did not recognise the issue of fuel poverty, and certainly no steps were taken on energy efficiency to help the millions of people who have been helped by this Government. The hon. Gentleman says that we need a wider range of renewables. I agree absolutely. What a pity, therefore, that the Conservatives cut the funding to programmes such as marine and coastal renewables when they were in power.
My right hon. Friend will know that nine out of 10 of the most costly insured weather catastrophes since 1970 happened in the past 15 years. Was the insurance industry represented at the conference? What prospect does she see for engaging that industry in urging those who are rather laggard in realising the dangers of climate change to take more urgent action?
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The dangers to which she draws attention are very real. The insurance industry was not represented as such at the conference. It was a conference of scientists that was convened and run by the scientific community. My hon. Friend is right that there is increasing awareness not only in the insurance industry but, as I heard myself during recent conversations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with the World Economic Forum in Davos, in the banks, which are increasingly warning those who use their services that their preparations for and understanding of the risks of climate change will, in the long term, be a factor in the assessment of their financial record and probity.
May I welcome the work that the Secretary of State's Department has done in co-ordinating the scientific evidence on climate change? It has taken a lead within the Government in promoting the necessary radical action that we need, although sometimes it has lost out to other less enlightened Departments, which demonstrates the importance of the departmental structure. Have discussions been taking place within the Government on the possible abolition or reconfiguration of DEFRA, to be announced shortly after the election?
I am not aware of any such discussions. I am constantly urged in conversations, particularly, for example, with non-governmental organisations, that my Department should take in all of energy policy, all of planning or all of transport. That is all very interesting, but I am aware of no plans that we should do so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
Alongside the concerns expressed and warnings given about the increased danger and urgency of the problem, the scientific community also judged that many of the technological options for tackling the problem already exist, and that significant moves forward could be made at a lower cost than some had previously believed. That is an important and worthwhile message that I hope will come out of the conference.
Wild Birds
Thanks to the policies of this Labour Government, wild bird numbers, after decades of decline, are now recovering. Among threatened species that are increasing are the bittern, the corncrake and the cirl bunting. Others, including some more common species, such as the house sparrow and starling, are still declining. However, I can announce that from 1 March the house sparrow and the starling will enjoy increased legal protection.
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the 25th anniversary and success of its big garden bird watch, in which nearly half a million people took part and which is important in identifying declining numbers of particular types of bird? Will he join me in congratulating the RSPB also on the stance that it has taken on the potential effects of dredging in the Dee estuary and the damage that that could cause to this important wild bird habitat? Will he urge the authorities concerned in reaching a decision on the dredging of the Dee to take a view that fully balances the important ecological considerations alongside those of commerce?
Yes, on my hon. Friend's latter point I can give him the assurance that he seeks. I am happy to join his congratulations to the RSPB on the excellent work that it does, not least through the garden bird watch scheme, in which I would urge right hon. and hon. Members and the public to participate, as I do.
The wild birds at Highgrove, which is just outside my constituency, will no doubt join me in congratulating my constituent, Mrs. Parker Bowles, on the exciting news of her forthcoming marriage.
We very much welcome the slowing of the decline of wild bird populations that the Minister described in his answer, but we remain concerned about some of the species that are still being heavily predated. Will he explain why it is that under the Hunting Act 2004 dogs may still be used for the protection of pheasants, grouse and partridge, but not for the protection of corn buntings and turtle doves?
What about cats?
The hon. Member makes a good point from a sedentary position.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is wrong that those species are still declining. Some are, but most of the species on the list are increasing, thanks to a number of policies that the Government have introduced, not least the agri-environmental schemes that will be built on by common agricultural policy reform.
The situation with raptors is variable. Sparrowhawks and buzzards are doing well, but the kestrel is doing less well. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the decline in some songbird species is the result, even primarily, of the actions of birds of prey. Cats, as the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out, are a far bigger danger.
Will the Minister join me in commending English Nature on transforming 40 derelict pit sites into lowland heath landscapes which, I am sure he will agree, are excellent habitats for many of our wild native birds?
Yes, my hon. Friend has highlighted one of a number of projects supported by the Government to restore the habitats that the country has lost over preceding decades. The lowland heath habitat to which he referred is particularly important, partly because it is very rare, but also because it is home to some species that in the past have been most threatened.
The Minister claimed that the Labour Government have been good for birds. What are their plans for cormorants?
Cormorants are one of the species that have done extremely well in the past 20 years, and their numbers have increased a great deal. The hon. Gentleman is right. Last year, after listening carefully to the views of both the RSPB and the angling community, we decided to change the licensing regime for cormorant culling because of the damage that they were inflicting on some fisheries. However, even if the maximum number of licences were issued, the cormorant population would still be far higher than it was under the Tories.
Recycling
DEFRA, through its waste implementation programme, is currently delivering a package of targeted support to both local authorities and local community sector organisations across England to help raise recycling, composting and re-use rates.
In the UK, we recycled 3 billion aluminium cans in 2003, including 1 million in the Novelis plant in Latchford in my constituency. That is a huge number but, in the same year, 4 billion cans were thrown away. Every single recycled aluminium can saves enough energy to power a television set for three hours, so we saved 600 million kW of energy in 2003. However, we wasted a lot more. Will my hon. Friend commission research to identify voluntary schemes that provide recycling incentives so that more consumers will recognise the value of their empty cans?
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the energy saved through recycling, which avoids the need to make new cans from raw materials. As she may know, we have been running a campaign, "Recycle Now". The evaluation is encouraging, as it shows that the message is getting through to people and that they are being encouraged to change. I am pleased that our recycling rate has risen from 6 per cent. in 1997 to 17 per cent. today. There is a great deal more scope for improvement, and I accept the point made by my hon. Friend. I am pleased about the recycling rate for aluminium—the prices are also good—but there is an opportunity to do a great deal more, and the Government are committed to doing so.
Given that recycling is such a good thing, would the Minister like to congratulate the Conservatives, as more Conservative councils operate recycling schemes and eight out of 10 of the best council recycling schemes are run by Conservative-controlled councils?
Let me be clear: I congratulate any council that has achieved and exceeded its targets. Many of the councils that the hon. Lady mentioned were Labour-controlled in the past, and there was a cross-party commitment to establish such schemes. Rather than being partisan about the records of individual councils, we should ensure that all councils achieve the recycling targets set by the Government. I am glad to say that, under this Government, they are doing so.
Toxic Waste
The Department has frequent discussions with the Environment Agency on a wide range of issues arising from management of landfill sites.
I have here a list of substances classed as permitted waste, which have been dumped into a large toxic waste tip in my constituency. There are 350 of them and most are described as "dangerous". They range through arsenics, asbestos, phosphates, cyanides, mercury, effluent sludges and, ominously, other heavy metals, whatever they include. What work is done to examine how such materials react with one another once they are in such tips, and what monitoring is there of the effect of the emissions on surrounding populations? What work is being done to minimise such materials in production as well as in waste stream processing?
I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the White Moss tip, and I appreciate the point that he makes. The White Moss tip has a licence for hazardous waste. It is monitored by the Environment Agency and I understand that action has recently been taken under the pollution prevention and control permits system in relation to odours from the site. The latest information that I have is that the issue comes from an old cell and not one of the new cells, which are engineered to very high standards and must meet the requirements of the Environment Agency and the relevant legislation. I might add that the tip always took hazardous waste and had a licence for former co-disposal. My understanding is that the owners are currently spending £100,000 to deal with the odour problems relating to one of the cells, and that the agency is supervising that and monitoring what goes into the tip.
The Minister may be interested to know that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently received from the organisation Beyond Waste a report using official statistics to calculate that 692,000 tonnes of hazardous waste are still unaccounted for. There is dispute about that number, but would he agree to receive a copy of that report and analyse it? Does he accept from me that correct data are required on the volumes of hazardous and toxic waste that have to be disposed of if industry is to have the confidence to make the necessary investments to provide appropriate facilities in the long term to deal with the problem?
I certainly accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We have recently put a great deal of effort and resources into improving data capture, which is very important not only in monitoring waste flows, but in guiding our policy. I shall be only too pleased to receive the information to which he referred, and I will look at it seriously, as it is important that we are never complacent about hazardous waste management issues.
Both the industry and DEFRA predicted a substantial fall in hazardous waste, mainly because between 60 and 70 per cent. of hazardous waste was contaminated topsoil. We know that there was an acceleration in the amount of topsoil going into sites before the new regulations were introduced. We also know that many sites will be developed at a later date and that many are also being remedied on site, rather than with the use of dig and dump, which is exactly the outcome that we seek. We want to limit the amount of all waste, including hazardous waste, going into landfill, and there are clear signs that the policies that we are putting in place are having that effect. The amounts are within our predictions, but I shall be only too pleased to look at the figures.
In addition to the emissions from tips, will my hon. Friend also take into consideration the run-off of surface water into watercourses and rivers, and the experience in my constituency on the Welbeck site, where a fire broke out and the water that was used to put it out drained into the River Calder? The quality of the water going into watercourses and rivers is an important matter. The Environment Agency addressed that situation, but we must have a great deal of further investigation and research into the toxic water waste from surface water on tips.
My hon. Friend is right that leachate from tips must be rigorously controlled, and that is a condition of the pollution, prevention and control permit that landfill sites must obtain. I had the pleasure of opening a reverse osmosis plant—I have opened many projects—to deal with leachate on a landfill site, which is an example of the rigorous standards. When a fire breaks out on a tip, the situation is an emergency and run-off is likely to occur. The Environment Agency, which attends such emergencies, has procedures to deal with water run-off and leachate, and it is important that adequate safeguards and regular monitoring are in place.
Farm Incomes
Total income from farming in the UK is estimated to have fallen in 2004 by 5.4 per cent. in current prices, or by 8.1 per cent. in real terms, to £3.01 billion. Despite the recent fall, total income from farming in real terms was almost 70 per cent. higher in 2004 than at the low point in 2000.
Given that the Prime Minister is in an apologising mood, will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the hundreds of dairy farmers, and particularly those in the south-west, whose incomes have fallen year on year since Labour came to power? Given that the Secretary of State has consistently stated that she does not think it right or proper for the Government to get involved in negotiations on milk prices, what practical advice does the Minister have for the sector, which is suffering from a lack of Government understanding and woeful neglect?
The apology should come from the Conservative party, which neglected agriculture for decades, so I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman had the cheek to ask the question. If one examines the issues, one sees that a wide gap exists between the performance of the most and least efficient dairy farmers—we concentrated on that issue at the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. We have made a grant of nearly £500,000 to the Food Chain Centre to examine how to improve dairy supply chain efficiency, because we must address the issue of productivity. In the next few weeks, we will receive a report from the Office of Fair Trading on the operation of the supermarket code of practice. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Government are contributing to the many things that are going on.
My right hon. Friend understands that farmers want an early sign that they will receive single farm payments. As we live in the era of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, does he agree that the figures on payments by the state to individual farm holdings should be disaggregated, so we can see that the payments are going where they are most needed and that we are getting the best return?
I agree with the principle enunciated by my hon. Friend that it should be clear that money from the public purse is achieving the intended outcomes. Because we are discussing farm incomes generally, it is worth pointing out that the upper trend in incomes since the low point in 2000 reflects increased productivity in the farming sector—labour productivity is up 18 per cent. and total productivity is up 5 per cent. The farming industry is tackling its own problems, and the Government are working with it. As my hon. Friend has suggested, examining what is really happening rather than point scoring will help the industry in the long term.
Bearing in mind that many Lincolnshire farmers face an acute financial crisis, will the Minister say when the new single farm payment will be made? Will it be paid at the same time as or earlier than under the old system, and will it be staggered?
If the hon. Gentleman had followed the exchanges at the last Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, he would know that the single farm payment will consist of a single payment, which will be made at the front end of the window. For a variety of technical reasons, we cannot promise to do that this year, when we hope to make the payment as early as possible. We are working with the industry on the best way of making sure that farmers benefit from the move to the single farm payment and on minimising any disadvantages in moving from the old system of partial payment and supplementary payments, which was not best for farmers. The situation is getting better.
A few days ago, I went to Cattows farm in Heather in my constituency with pupils from the local primary school to plant trees on that land. Those were some of the 6 million trees that have been planted over the past 10 years in the national forest largely located in my constituency. Will the Minister say a word or two about the potential of reafforestation in contributing towards a boost in farming incomes? Across north-west Leicestershire and south Derbyshire, we are seeing the fruits of what is being achieved in national forests.
My hon. Friend raises a number of interesting points in what seems a simple question. The growth of some 7 per cent. in reafforestation makes a contribution to the income of farmers. Exercises such as that in which my hon. Friend was involved help young people to understand the importance of that, which is crucial. Of course, they also make a contribution to tackling climate change and general environmental improvement.
The Minister has already made it clear that he is aware that many thousands of farmers on the very margins of survival are anxious to hear more news and guarantees about the timing of the single farm payment, particularly its impact on tax records and cash flow. Will he therefore give serious consideration, in his discussions with farmers, to the possibility of an up-front payment of the bulk of the estimated payment before the end of this calendar year, with payment of the residue before the end of the payment window?
If we followed that road, we would increase the bureaucracy involved. As we have said, we want to make the single payment as early as possible, bearing in mind that very complex processes have to be gone through to achieve that. As the hon. Gentleman's question implied, no one has any doubt that in the longer term, once we have bedded in these systems, making the payment up front, at the beginning of the window, will be to the benefit of farmers, and that it is worth going through the change this year. We will consider with farmers' representative organisations what we can do to ease the transition.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that many people, particularly farmers on the margins, are looking to the future with some trepidation. However, it is worth pointing out that, this year, the latest farm land values show an increase of 25 per cent., with farmers buying most of it for the first time in many years. Confidence in the industry is increasing. Productivity is the big challenge. We are addressing the variations in productivity across the industry through the strategy for sustainable farming and food and the investment that we are putting into helping the industry to be more efficient and effective and to have a successful future.
Is it fair that farm income should be further boosted by raiding the taxpayers' pocket again for the £600 million by which animals were overvalued during the foot and mouth epidemic? Is it not time to break the link between valuers and farmers whereby farmers can choose their own valuers, who have a perverse incentive to overvalue animals because their commission is paid as a percentage of the animals' total value?
I understand my hon. Friend's point, but compensation that has been paid has been paid; that is in the past. Furthermore, money has been withheld where there were doubts about whether the money was justified. We are sometimes criticised for not having paid out money quickly enough. We are genuinely considering the public interest and ensuring that it is protected, and there have been changes in the system as a result of the experience gained during the crisis. I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes, which have been very much taken on board in the systems that are now in place.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that farmers' incomes in future will increasingly depend on whether they can command a premium in the marketplace to exploit the high standards of production, animal welfare and environmental care. Does he therefore understand the utter frustration that the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the National Beef Association express about their inability properly to exploit those advantages while the Government continue to allow food to be labelled as British when it is not?
I am not sure whether the labelling of food is the problem. The problems and the fall in income this year are to do with lower market prices for cereals, a rise in input costs—primarily, the higher world oil prices—and movements in the exchange rate. There have also been lower prices for some classes of cattle and sheep. That leads to a fall in income. However, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that farm incomes are volatile—they go up and down, year after year and are influenced by many factors. We want to ensure stability and sustainability in farming by increasing productivity. That will enable farmers to compete in the future and to cope with the inevitable volatility in the market.
Flood Risks (Urban Areas)
Flood risk from rivers and the sea in both urban and rural areas is managed by the Environment Agency and other operating authorities. The Government set the overall strategic framework and provide the great majority of funding, which was projected to be £570 million per annum throughout the 2004 spending review period.
I congratulate the Government on sharply increasing their contribution to flood protection. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee's decision to halve local authority contributions to flood protection? Does he believe that it should think again? Will he confirm that the Government's funding for flood defences in Yorkshire will not be cut as a consequence of that short-sighted decision by local authorities?
I need to talk to my hon. Friend about the details of what is happening in his area. However, I think I may know what has happened. We have moved to a block grant for regional flood defence committees and that means that the levy that local authorities formerly provided will go down. Instead of the money from central Government being paid through local authorities, it is now paid as a block grant to the Environment Agency and the regional flood defence committees. That is a much securer method of funding, which the flood defence committees and the agency have warmly welcomed. I know that approximately £1 million has been spent in my hon. Friend's area since 2000 on upgrading flood defences and, for example, repairing the pumps on the Foss barrier. There is a long-term commitment of £30 million for upgrading the whole catchment area. Part of that money will go to York.
The best way in which to prevent flooding on flood plains is not simply to make the Environment Agency a statutory consultee, but to make its advice obligatory for local planning authorities. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that, out of almost 3,000 planning applications to which the Environment Agency objected, more than 300 were allowed to proceed in blatant contradiction of agency advice? What is his solution?
Well, I do not think that it is banning all forms of building on flood plains, which the hon. Lady advocated when we discussed the matter previously. The number of planning applications that have gone ahead against the Environment Agency's advice has dropped to approximately 12 per cent. That is a dramatic decline from the former position, including that under the previous Administration. Some of the applications that went ahead may have been minor. She should understand that there are sometimes conflicts between planning authorities and the Environment Agency. Lincolnshire county council went to court to complain that the Environment Agency was taking too hard a stance in its planning advice. There must be a proper balance. In some cases, inappropriate development on flood plains must be turned down. In the case of appropriate developments on flood plains, the developers should make a contribution to not only defending those properties but mitigating any effect that they may have on other communities in the area.
I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Carlisle and north Cumbria twice since the horrendous floods on 8 January. His words have been welcome, especially his comments on the new flood defences. However, there is an inquiry into the flood's consequences. Will he give me some indication of its time scale and perhaps its terms of reference?
Yes, I can. First, I reiterate my sympathy for the owners and occupiers of the 3,000 properties and businesses in Carlisle that were affected, which included the home of my hon. Friend. Having been there, I have seen how he has worked night and day to represent the interests of his constituents during this period. I was pleased, on my second visit, to see the progress that had been made on recovering from the floods. It is important to emphasise that business is getting back to normal in Carlisle; it is open for business and people should support it.
On the inquiry, after every major flood event, we expect the Environment Agency to produce a detailed analysis of its causes, so that we can learn from the event and feed that knowledge into future policy. That work is under way, and I am expecting a report on the Carlisle flood from the Environment Agency in March.
I think that we would all accept that the root cause of a lot of the flooding is climate change. Given that the United States undoubtedly puts the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that we are supposed to have a special relationship with the United States, what efforts are the Government making to—
Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving much too far away from the target.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets
Ratification of the Kyoto protocol on 16 February will mean that the UK is legally bound by protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2008 to 2012. We are well on track to meet this commitment. We currently have no plans to make further specific and quantitative legally binding greenhouse gas emission targets.
Members on the Labour Benches will rightly be proud that it was a Labour Government who gave themselves the legally binding duty to abolish fuel poverty in its entirety by 2016, and who set targets for the reduction of domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. Before the Secretary of State allows the Conservatives to berate her on this, she should recall that they opposed the introduction of that legally binding framework, warning the House that it would result in a nation—
Order. I think that that is enough for the Secretary of State to go on.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the fact that many on the Conservative Benches denied the existence of fuel poverty. They certainly showed no sign of recognising its tremendous impact on many households in this country. We are very proud that more than a million families have been helped under this Government's programme, and that we are now able to invest extra resources in taking the programme forward to do even more to alleviate the distress caused to vulnerable households.
Recreation (Rural Areas)
DEFRA will complete the introduction of the right of access to open country and registered common land for the purposes of open-air recreation by the end of this year. This has been widely welcomed in the north-west, which was one of the first regions to open. We are also working to improve and maintain the existing infrastructure and to increase the range of people who have access to the countryside. We have today published the draft Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. As set out in the rural strategy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last July, the Bill will establish a new independent non-departmental public body, provisionally called the integrated agency. At the heart of its role will be the encouragement of open-air recreation and the promotion of access to the countryside and open spaces.
I thank the Minister for that reply and for the work that his Department is doing to promote the use of the countryside. The enjoyment of fishers and walkers is being seriously spoiled, however, by the growing use of off-road motor bikes in former mining areas such as the one that I represent. The Minister has indicated that he intends to legislate to tackle this problem. When will he do so? Will he also work with local councils to provide more designated areas for off-road motor biking?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. According to our research, off-road vehicles cause a nuisance in some, but not all, areas of the country. Part of the solution could involve preventing the use of such vehicles in inappropriate places, but another part will be about the better management of access. Two documents that I have published recently provide real meat for those who want to deal with this issue in a constructive manner, and I hope that local authorities will, as my hon. Friend suggests, engage with us in using best practice as well as looking to legislation.
When this Labour Government look back on their stewardship of agriculture, and at the despair and sense of abandonment among the farming community, will they not appreciate that their initiatives to promote recreation in the countryside will have been achieved beyond their wildest dreams?
That was a rather silly question if I may say so. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that agri-environment schemes pay for some 4,000 km of permissive access—footpaths, bridleways and disabled access. They are listed in DEFRA's conservation, walks and rides register, and can be found on DEFRA's website. That is a success story. This is a Government who believe in access to the countryside for all—everyone should be able to enjoy it—and in supporting farmers so that they have a sustainable future, rather than talking a lot about farming but not doing much to support it, which was the record of his Government.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was an awful lot of doom and gloom, in this House and outside, when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was going through. People were predicting that if ordinary walkers had access to large areas of mountain and moorland, there would be major problems. Given that we are now halfway through the implementation of that, does he agree that there have been none of those problems but a great deal of pleasure has been given to those who have access to areas that they have been kept off for more than 100 years?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point has dawned on a large number of people. For instance, it was welcome that the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union were part of the celebration of opening up access in the north-west when that welcome day dawned after many years of campaigning. It is also true that people now understand that open access is important to the whole rural economy. It is important to the future of farmers and everyone who lives in the rural communities. The only people for whom that penny does not seem to have dropped are those such as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who does not understand how the countryside works.
May I put it to the Minister that my rural constituents would like less recreational time, because they were promised free extra days at sea by a letter from the Department dated 25 January—
Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. That is far too wide.
Supermarket Code of Practice
The supermarket code of practice was one of a number of subjects discussed when my noble Friend Lord Whitty met the Minister with responsibility for competition on 1 February to talk about issues in the supermarket sector.
May I tell the Minister, however, that there is growing frustration among farming and crofting communities that while supermarkets announce ever-increasing profits, the farmers and crofters who supply them are struggling to survive? Does he agree that the present code, which is voluntary, has been largely ineffective, and that the code now needs to be made enforceable to embrace the whole supply chain? My farming constituents should not be left carrying the cost for special offers in supermarkets without ever having agreed to that.
The hon. Gentleman rightly reflects the feelings of producers about the supermarket code of practice. That was reflected in the findings of the Office of Fair Trading on the views of producers. It has now commissioned the compliance audit, which is due to be published in the next few weeks. For the first time, that will provide focused information on the operation of the code. We should await that, read it with interest, and Members on both sides of the House will no doubt want to focus on it as soon as it is available.
It would help farmers and small businesses if the practice of predatory pricing by supermarkets were to be stopped. Other countries have laws preventing retailers from selling goods at lower than cost. Now that the Office of Fair Trading has said, at least in respect of alcohol, that minimum prices are not anti-competitive in some circumstances, will my right hon. Friend try to persuade the DTI to accept that in the case of our food and drink, minimum prices would be acceptable?
What I am prepared to do is wait for the outcome of the compliance audit. That will provide us with a factual basis in order to discuss these matters further. As my hon. Friend knows, we are working, through the support of English Farming and Food Partnerships and the Food Chain Centre, to enable producers to get a fair return from the end price. I do not think that we should jump ahead of the publication of the compliance audit. We should all focus on that.
European Trade
I meet the Agriculture Commissioner regularly and the Trade Commissioner on occasion. I have not had occasion recently to discuss health and sanitary standards with them either generally or with regard to specific issues.
Will the Secretary of State agree to support Peter Mandelson in his efforts to remove unjustified trade restrictions by publishing her own list of trade- restricting standards that have no scientific basis—for example, aflatoxin content, which is used to exclude African products, despite a risk factor of fewer than one in a billion lives?
We have, as yet, had no formal notification that the European trade department is intending to pursue such a step, but we will certainly consider with very great interest any proposal that comes forward.
Speaker's Statement
I have a statement to make about the use of electronic devices by Members in the Chamber. I am aware that a new generation of such devices is being used by Members. My predecessor ruled in 1997 that Members carrying such devices should turn off the audio function before coming into the Chamber. She also ruled that it was totally unacceptable for a Member speaking in the Chamber to be prompted by information on the screen of such a device.
I have no objection to instruments that silently prompt the Members carrying them. Clearly, many Members use these devices and they serve a useful purpose, provided that they are unobtrusive. But I am not prepared to accept the use of electronic devices to communicate outside the Chamber nor to act as an aide-memoire by a Member participating in proceedings. This also applies to the wearing of earpieces used to receive messages—[Interruption.] Order.
In future, the Chair will order a Member seen to be using such an electronic device while speaking to resume his or her seat immediately. That ruling will be applied in Westminster Hall and in Standing Committee. Seated Members who disregard my ruling and use devices actively to communicate outside the Chamber will be asked to leave the Chamber forthwith.
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the week after we return?
The whole House will wish to send our warm congratulations to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles. As Secretary of State for Wales, I am personally delighted, and the House wishes them every happiness for the future.
The business for our next week is as follows:
Monday 21 February—Remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.
Tuesday 22 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2005 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Drugs Bill.
Wednesday 23 February—Opposition Day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 24 February—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
Friday 25 February—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 28 February—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].
I should like to inform the House that business for Westminster Hall for the first two weeks in March will be—
Thursday 3 March—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on decent homes.
Thursday 10 March—A debate on "Working, Caring and Life Balance: Supporting Choice".
May I associate myself and other Conservative Members with the congratulations extended to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his bride to be? My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said today that he is also delighted at the news.
Is the Leader of the House able to give us the date of the Budget? He knows that I have been pressing for a long time for a foreign affairs debate so that we can have a proper discussion of developments in Africa and the middle east. It is a long time since we had such a debate: when can we expect to have another opportunity?
Despite his notorious claim that it is just a tidying-up exercise, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the European Union Bill raises very important issues and involves consideration of the more than 500 pages that the new constitution comprises. One of the constitution's authors, the French statesman Alain Lamassoure has described it as the
"coronation of . . . the French vision of Europe, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon vision."
A French meal always takes a little longer, so can we have at least one more day for debate in Committee? Will the Leader of the House please reconsider the short time that has been allowed so far?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also withdraw the remarks that he made last week criticising the commitment of the Opposition to the Northern Ireland peace process? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has always thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for the co-operation extended by him and by the Opposition as a whole. Surely the national interest requires an all-party approach to such issues.
There is concern in all parts of the House at the tactics being used by the Government to slow down information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That is in sharp contrast to what is happening with information about previous Governments. Some requests for more recent information are being delayed for further consideration, or refused on the ground of cost. That seems surprising, given the huge volume of documents made available speedily about the previous Government. More surprisingly, in response to two questions—on correspondence with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority during the 2002 A-level marking crisis, and departmental assessments of grade inflation—the Department for Education and Skills even claims that no papers exist.
Can we have a debate in Government time about the tactics being used by the Government under the FOI, before it becomes known as the freedom of old information Act—or FOOI?
First, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the date of the Budget yet. Secondly, I have already answered his question about a foreign affairs debate. Thirdly, he quoted rather selectively from one French person on the question of the European constitution. The truth is that, at the end of the process, every newspaper in France, Spain and Germany—and right across Europe—considered it to be a victory for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and for Britain's vision of Europe. That vision is based on a partnership of nation states, not a federal superstate.
The policy advocated by the Conservatives would put Britain in a risky position of isolation. That would not be in our interests. We are a leading European power, and always have been. Under this Government, we intend to be right at the heart of Europe. We shall not be isolated and left to whinge on the fringe.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked me to withdraw what I said about Northern Ireland, but I will not. I have attended repeated statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and witnessed many debates, and I have seen the Opposition engage in sniping and petty point scoring. When Labour was in opposition, we gave the previous Conservative Government 100 per cent. support for what they were doing to tackle terrorism and ensure that the peace process was driven forward. I just wish that Tory Front-Bench Members would do exactly the same, in the interests of the nation and of the people of Northern Ireland.
I remind the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that this Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act. We want it to work well. The information that has come from the Treasury about Black Wednesday has nothing to do with Ministers. However, the previous Conservative Government were responsible for what was an absolute disaster for Britain and the Opposition are embarrassed about that. That is why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. I can assure him that requests under freedom of information legislation will be answered in due course and in the proper way. That has started to happen already.
On the question of A-levels, exam marking and so on, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will note the hon. Gentleman's report.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not ask me for a debate on housing because the front page of today's edition of the Daily Mirror states:
"I lost my house through negative equity. I blame the last Tory Government for that and will never forget what you did to me."
That is not my statement, nor is it a statement of a Daily Mirror journalist; it is in the Conservative manual and guide to their election candidates, which also states that the Tories are
"out of touch, anti-women, greedy and divided"
as well as uncaring. That is a fitting prelude to a general election campaign.
Further to the congratulations and good wishes of the Leader of the House, supported by the shadow Leader of the House, following the announcement this morning that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will remarry, may I, as Second Church Estates Commissioner, say that the Archbishop of Canterbury has warmly welcomed the statement? The arrangements have his strong support and are consistent with the Church of England guidelines on remarriage, which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England. As there are no constitutional implications, can I assume that there will be no statement next week?
Well, the House is not sitting next week, so there will certainly be no statement.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's statement and we all echo his sentiments. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear his delight, as has the Prime Minister. We all share in that.
I very much welcome what the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell) said. Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall, which, as the Secretary of State for Wales will know, is his premier title. He has shared in our delights and disasters, most recently the floods in north Cornwall. I am sure that the people of Cornwall will be especially delighted by today's news. On their behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friends, I wish Prince Charles and his future wife every happiness for their marriage. We shall all celebrate with the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall on 8 April.
In his business statement, the Leader of the House did not give any indication of when he expects the Budget statement. Surely he can give some indication of when it will be.
Can the Leader of House say whether a statement will be made on nuclear energy? He has a consistent record of opposition to the expansion and extension of the nuclear option. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has previously said:
"We certainly do not need extra nuclear power in anything like a 10 or 15-year cycle".
However, she now seems to have made a U-turn, so can we have an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House that there is no prospect, before or after the general election, of a change of policy on nuclear energy? Will he give us that assurance now?
May we also have an urgent statement about the advice apparently given to the Secretary of State for Transport by the Strategic Rail Authority? This morning, The Guardian quoted the SRA as saying that there may need to be a cut of 25 per cent. in the national rail network if investment levels are not raised. Has that forecast been dealt with, can we be sure that the current overall pattern of the rail network will be maintained, and when can we expect to see a real end to the chaos and terrible consequences of the worst effects of the bungled privatisation of the rail network by his predecessors?
On the bungled privatisation by the last Conservative Government, the hon. Gentleman and I are absolutely at one. It was a disaster, and we have been clearing up the mess ever since we came to power. Despite his point, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in passenger journeys on the railways under this Government, 1,500 more trains running and record investment, all of which would be at risk if the Conservatives ever got into power and implemented their planned cuts.
I note the hon. Gentleman's congratulations and I welcome the House's unity in supporting the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker Bowles. As Secretary of State for Wales, I must dispute the hon. Gentleman's comment that the Cornish title is the premier title.
It is the older one.
Well, "Prince of Wales" is the premier title as far as I am concerned, but I grant that Mrs. Parker Bowles will be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after the marriage.
On the Budget, no, I cannot give the date. On nuclear energy, there is no Government U-turn and no change of policy.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 673, signed by myself and many of my hon. Friends, concerning the position of House of Commons cleaners?
[That this House recognises the invaluable contribution made by House of Commons cleaners towards ensuring the smooth running of this House; is dismayed with the poor pay and working conditions of the cleaners who are paid a miserly £4.85 per hour with only 12 days' paid holiday per annum, statutory sick pay only and no company pension; finds these employment terms and conditions shameful and totally unacceptable in 21st century Britain; wholeheartedly supports the claim made by the Transport and General Workers Union, who represent cleaners in the House, for better wages and improved working conditions; believes that the cleaners' claim should not be ignored or their work continue to be taken for granted; and urges the House authorities and the contractors that employ the cleaners to accept their claim for £6.70 per hour, 20 days' paid holiday per annum, company sick pay and a company pension to ensure they receive a fair deal.]
Their employment situation is outrageous; they have low wages, no proper pension scheme and derisory holidays. Does my right hon. Friend, in his role as our representative on the House of Commons Commission, believe that the contracts awarded to third parties should be of concern to the Commission, especially in terms of the wages and conditions of some of the people on whom we depend enormously for the good functioning of the House? They are in many ways invisible, but they are necessary for us to carry out our jobs properly and they should be remunerated accordingly and their firms should not be allowed to pay them such lousy wages.
This is of course a matter for the House authorities and ultimately for the House of Commons Commission. However, I understand the points that my hon. Friend is making. The cleaners perform a vital role for all of us, especially at a time when security is of paramount importance in the Palace. It is vital that they are treated properly and that their wages, albeit paid by private contractors contracted by both Houses, should be decent. Cleaners and their representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union came to see me this morning. Frankly, I could not live on their wages, and the whole issue should be looked at again in the negotiations to come.
The Leader of the House asked why we had not called for a debate on housing and mentioned in his statement a forthcoming debate on decent homes. You, Mr. Speaker, certainly know, as the Leader of the House should, that yesterday at questions to the Deputy Prime Minister I asked for an explanation of why the Government are building only half as many social houses as the last Conservative Government did each year. The answer I received was about as useful and stimulating as a game of Scrabble against the Deputy Prime Minister. So that the forthcoming debate can be better informed, will the Leader of the House make an urgent statement on why the Government are building so few social houses and why they are letting down 100,000 people—a record number—trapped in temporary accommodation? Those people are being cheated by the Government.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in housing; it is an interest that every Member shares. He pointed to the past record and current performance, so may I remind him of the reality? When we came to power, the reality was that people were living rough in London—all over the streets and under the arches. The reality was massive problems of homelessness. The truth is that we have refurbished 1 million council properties and we are putting huge investment into social housing, every million pounds of which would be cut or at risk under the Conservatives' £35 billion cuts. The hon. Gentleman should sort out his Front-Bench colleagues on this matter. Let us have a common approach to dealing with social housing, providing more opportunities for housing, instead of savage cuts across the board, as the Conservatives promise.
In more than 40 years as a Member of the House of Commons, I find it inconceivable that any previous Administration, including Mrs. Thatcher's—because I asked John Wakeham about it—would have denied the House a serious debate on the question of Iraq or any similar situation. Does the Leader of the House understand that it is not good enough simply to say that the House has been kept informed? Especially after the Iraq elections, Members in all parts of the House have views on the very serious situation of what might occur with the Kurds. They have views on relations between Iraq and Iran, which, heaven knows, are delicate enough. Why are we being denied the opportunity to express those views? Bluntly, without raising the anger of MPs from Northern Ireland, to spend a day on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, yet not to discuss Iraq, will be seen as very odd outside the House.
I do not agree that the day to be spent on the electoral reform needed in Northern Ireland is unimportant. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland certainly takes that view, and I think that everybody involved agrees.
Obviously, I defer to my hon. Friend the Father of the House, with his 40 years of experience, but surely he must recognise that we were the first Government to permit a vote on going to war; no previous Government had done that. That is important. It was an important debate. We have always reported to the House and given every opportunity for hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, to express their views. [Interruption.] I respect the disagreement that my hon. Friend has with the Government on the original decision to topple Saddam and invade Iraq, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary came at the first opportunity—the first day back after the elections— and made a statement to the House. He has kept the House informed continuously. I simply do not recognise the picture that my hon. Friend has painted.
May I say to the Father of the House that we would happily give up the day for the debate if he wished. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the welcome report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which has made it clear that it would recommend the exclusion of Sinn Fein from office were the Northern Ireland Assembly sitting? May we have a debate on the matter as soon as possible so that we can establish a consensus, call on the Government to recall the Assembly and support the passing of a motion to exclude Sinn Fein, take the necessary action and rectify the anomaly of Sinn Fein's privileged position here at Westminster?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that all these matters have been agreed and implemented as part of the peace process and of cementing its detail. Obviously, as we set up the Independent Monitoring Commission we take any report from it or recommendation that it makes seriously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take careful note of what it says.
Does the Leader of the House share my regret at the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the nation of Scotland? Does he agree that the remarks were offensive and insulting and that the people of Scotland share that feeling?
Particularly as my grandfather and grandmother were Scottish, I think Scotland is a fantastic place to live and to be proud of, second only to Wales. I agree with my hon. Friend.
On 23 February there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on House of Lords reform. As this is a subject on which Ministers have a range of conflicting views, can the Leader of the House give me an assurance that the Minister who replies will be a Minister who supports the Government's manifesto commitment to a more democratic and accountable House of Lords?
That is a very good question from my right hon. Friend and I will think about it carefully. Any Minister replying for the Government always supports the Government's view.
As the Leader of the House will be aware, Kofi Annan is in London today speaking on his recently published report on the future of the United Nations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a vital document? Will he facilitate a debate on it on the Floor of the House as soon as practicable?
It is a vital document. Given the pace of legislation now going through the House, I cannot promise an early debate, but my hon. Friend is free to apply for one. I hope that there will be an opportunity for such a debate because, as my hon. Friend says, it is crucial for international stability and security, and the future of the world, that we have a powerful United Nations and a Security Council reorganised to deliver the UN mission right across the world.
May I support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for a debate on the Government's selective and partisan use of the Freedom of Information Act—in particular the refusal by the Deputy Prime Minister to publish under the Act the report that he has already received from the inspector about a planning proposal in my constituency to build up to 10,000 houses on the green belt? It has national significance because it will be the biggest ever encroachment on the green belt. The Deputy Prime Minister has received that report, but apparently wants to put off publication until after the general election. He admits that encouraging public debate is important, but says that publishing the document would not help with public debate. Can we have a debate on this rather contentious matter?
I recognise the constituency point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will note carefully. I reject the right hon. Gentleman's central charge that there is some kind of selective release of information—officials advise on the release of information. In the instance of Black Wednesday, no Treasury Ministers were involved in the decision on the release of information. Indeed, the former Prime Minister, John Major, acknowledged as much on the "Today" programme this morning. The permanent secretary to the Treasury is in charge of all these matters. I am sure that, as a distinguished Secretary of State himself, the right hon. Gentleman would not want to accuse permanent secretaries of any partisanship, so I am sure that he was not doing so a moment ago.
In view of the confusion about the Freedom of Information Act, especially the scurrilous accusations of partisanship by the Opposition, may we have a teach-in for hon. Members so that we can better understand what the Act says and how it operates? Perhaps the FOI commissioner could be asked to organise such an event.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, there is guidance for Members of Parliament on some important issues for us in respect of the Act. The overall point is that we introduced the Act because we believed in greater transparency and accountability of government. That is what we believe in and will stick to. Despite these day-to-day processing stories that are being raised by the Opposition, in time the workings of the Act will settle down. Some complex matters are involved, such as how to protect the principle of ministerial responsibility but at the same time protect the position of officials and civil servants as well as national security and commercial confidentiality. Every request has to be judged carefully, and that we are doing with scrupulous fairness.
On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, may I offer our congratulations and best wishes to the happy couple?
Tony and Gordon is it?
Might be.
May I ask for an urgent statement from the Fisheries Minister about the official information released to fishermen on 25 January promising them three extra days fishing at sea with the proviso that they fish in an environmentally sensitive way? Now they have been told that it was all a mistake and that the days on offer are being withdrawn. The Leader of the House knows how hard-pressed the fishing industry has been. He also knows that people have made financial commitments based on the official information that they were given. Will he ask his colleague to come to the House to make a statement about what can be done to allow the Government to live up to their word and not further prejudice things against the industry?
I realise the importance of fishing to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to Scotland and to the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a vital industry. My hon. Friend the Minister will note carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman has made and I am sure that he will want to respond to him in writing.
Is it possible to have a debate on miscarriages of justice? I am sure that the House was pleased that the Prime Minister was able to apologise with such sincerity to the Conlon and Maguire families yesterday. I am sure that anyone who heard Gerry Conlon's interview could understand the burden that had been taken off him after so many years of injustice.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of miscarriages of justice in the south Wales area, in particular the so-called newsagent three, who were wrongly imprisoned for 11 years for the terrible murder of Philip Saunders, who was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). Mike O'Brien—one of the Cardiff three, who is now my constituent—has always said how much it would have meant to him if someone had just said they were sorry. How can we take this forward?
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes about the moving response from the Conlon family to the Prime Minister's forthright apology for what was a grave miscarriage of justice. Any miscarriage of justice is a stain on the legal system, and the House will want to ensure that they are apologised for and that the necessary consequences follow. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will note the points that my hon. Friend has made in respect of the case that she raised.
Has the Leader of the House has seen early-day motion 684, which is supported by a number of colleagues on both sides of the House and from all parties, and which details the consideration in Committee of the Identity Cards Bill, indicating that clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 25 were not considered?
[That this House regrets that, because of the guillotine, the Standing Committee on the Identity Cards Bill was prevented from discussing Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 relating to issue etc of identity cards, renewal of identity cards for those compulsorily registered, functions of persons issuing designated documents and power to require information for validating register and Clauses 23, 24 and 25 relating to rules for using information without an individual's consent, appointment of National Identity Scheme Commissioner reports by Commissioner and jurisdiction of the Intelligence Services Commissioner and Tribunal; further regrets that, as a consequence, the total number of groups not reached because of knives was 10 and the number of Clauses and Schedules stand part not reached because of knives was six; and therefore deplores the restricted time allocated to the remaining stages of the Bill on Thursday 10th February.]
The wider point, on which I should be grateful for a discussion as soon as we return after the recess, is how we restore to the House the proper examination and consideration of Bills, especially those that touch on the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of this country and those that raise big issues of the relationship of the citizen to the state.
As a Government, we have sought continuously to introduce sensible timetabling. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with me on that matter, and there may be individual cases where issues need to be addressed, but I think that I am right in saying that the Chairmen had repeatedly to pull up Conservative members of the Committee to which he referred for filibustering, and that additional time was offered.
The big picture is that we ought to back the introduction of identity cards, for the reasons that the Government have explained, and I want to know where the Conservative party stands on that. I gather that Conservative Members will abstain on the matter today. Are they for or against identity cards?
May I raise with my right hon. Friend once again the question of rail freight and the channel tunnel? A strategic rail freight network is developing on the continent of Europe, and the channel tunnel is underused and in financial difficulty, while on this side we have an inadequate railway system that does not deliver sufficient freight to the channel tunnel. We could put 30 extra freight trains a day through the tunnel—10,000 trains a year—thus making a tremendous difference to our freight industry. We could link our industrial areas directly to the continent of Europe if we had that freight delivery system. Can we not have a full debate on the need to develop a rail freight route that links Scotland and all Britain's industrial areas to the continent of Europe?
The Secretary of State for Transport will agree with my hon. Friend's objectives. We all want more freight to go by rail and less on the roads for environmental and efficiency reasons. It is undoubtedly true that there are opportunities to make greater use of the channel tunnel, which is why the Government seek to maximise those opportunities. My hon. Friend refers to the inadequate railway service, but I am sure that he will also want to welcome the huge investment that the Government are providing to improve our railway network, including for freight, and to compare it with both the dreadful situation that we inherited from the Conservatives and the cuts in rail investment that would follow as part of the £35 billion in cuts that they are promising if they win the next election.
May I tell the Leader of the House that his responses on the Freedom of Information Act 2000 sound almost as though he is auditioning for the future role of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? He certainly gave the sort of answer that we get from the present incumbent of that post.
We need a debate on freedom of information. Of course, the Government introduced the Act, but the question is whether they did so to enable the even-handed disclosure of information or for partisan political advantage. When the right hon. Gentleman says that civil servants decide such things, he should bear in mind the civil service advice that was leaked, which advised that certain aspects of the exchange rate mechanism papers should not be revealed because they might be read across and then used by the Conservatives to insist on answers to some of the questions that we have asked. They are answering the questions that are helpful to the Government. Why are they not answering questions that would be helpful to the Opposition?
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting in a reference once again to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—he is absolutely expert at doing so.
On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's point, no, the Freedom of Information Act is very clear. Ministers are under an obligation to respect its terms and to implement it in full in response to requests, and we are doing so. I realise that the Conservatives have an interest in getting up some kind of process story about it because of their embarrassment at the disaster of Black Wednesday and the negative equity, the bankruptcies and the collapse of the economy that it heralded. That is their history—that is what they must live with—but they would take us back to that kind of situation if they were re-elected. I entirely reject the suggestion that there is one law on the release of information about the past Conservative Government and another law for the Government. We are operating the Freedom of Information Act absolutely even-handedly.
The shadow Leader of the House says, "Ha ha!", as he is inclined to do. Is he or the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggesting that the permanent secretaries in charge of Whitehall Departments, who are ultimately responsible for giving advice on these matters, are operating in anything other than an even-handed way? If so, they should get up and say so.
May we have a debate on the future of the new deal programme? Many of my constituents have benefited from the new deal, but a number of people are still unemployed, despite a dramatic fall in unemployment in my constituency. Is it not time for us to look at how we can go forward with that programme and deal with the real concerns that people may have that it might be abolished?
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. If there is an opportunity to debate the new deal, I will seize it with relish and persuade my colleagues to join me in providing time for it. A very important choice faces the country on the new deal, which has helped about 1 million people to get work, skills and new opportunities and, including in my constituency, has transformed the lives of thousands of individuals. All that would go, all that would be axed if the Conservatives came to power—indeed, the Liberal Democrats have the same policy—so there is a very clear choice between future investment in and the modernisation of work opportunities, including for those who are economically inactive, or cutting off that lifeline and hope for many unemployed people. The country will chose whether it wants to go back to the Conservatives or forward with Labour.
Is the Leader of the House absolutely sure that the Freedom of Information Act is working well? Is he aware that I asked for details of the work being undertaken by the ministerial Sub-Committee on Freedom of Information and was told that it was a secret and that I could be told nothing about it? Can he confirm whether any parliamentary question will be treated as though it has the force of a freedom of information request or the force of a request under the environmental regulations that are parallel to the Act?
First, the proceedings of Cabinet Committees are obviously confidential—that is the only way that the Government can work—but any request that the hon. Gentleman may make under the Freedom of Information Act will be considered under the terms of the Act. I should have thought that, as a Liberal Democrat, he supported the Government for the fact that we have introduced the Freedom of Information Act. After all, his colleagues said at the time that the Act did not go far enough.
That is right.
The hon. Gentleman is nodding at that. We introduced such an Act for the first time in British history—that is a good thing—and it makes the Government more transparent and accountable. Parliamentary questions are answered in accordance with the rules of parliamentary procedure. The operation of the Freedom of Information Act is a related, though separate, matter.
I welcome the Government's investment in higher education. The university of Wolverhampton, which is headquartered in my constituency, is the most accessible mainstream university in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it has more students who are poorer. That means it will hand out more £300 minimum-standard bursaries and have higher administration costs for those bursaries, and it has more part-time students. By comparison, Wolverhampton university will hand out five-and-a-half times as much of its additional fee income as Cambridge university. Unless the access regulator steps in to redress that, Wolverhampton university will be penalised for its success on access, and universities such as Cambridge will be rewarded for their poor access. May we have an early debate on the implementation of the Higher Education Act 2004, so that we can discuss what the access regulator is doing to redress the possible imbalances, what is happening with the administration costs for minimum-standard bursaries, and the fact that the Government are still deciding whether to allow deferral of tuition fees for part-time students, which is a particularly important issue, not only for Wolverhampton but for the Open university?
Questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will be asked on the Thursday after we return from the recess, so my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise that point, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. He raises a lot of important issues, and the Secretary of State will want to take careful note of them. It is certainly no part of the Government's plans to make good universities across Britain feel discriminated against in any way. He makes some important points about the student catchment and intake of the university of Wolverhampton, to which the Secretary of State will want to respond, but he must also bear in mind the fact that we are bringing back grants, which were abolished by the previous Conservative Government, and which will be of enormous assistance to students going to the university of Wolverhampton and welcomed by everyone.
The Westcountry Ambulance Services trust has announced several proposed changes, and the paramedics' union has responded by considering strike action. One change would reduce cover at night, while another proposes replacing paramedics during enforced break periods with a "Dad's Army" of first-aiders, allegedly driving Renault Clios. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to explain why it is right for Somerset's ambulance service to have Private Godfrey driving Corporal Jones's van?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter for his constituents. I know that the Secretary of State will pay careful attention to it, and I expect that he will want to make a detailed response in writing.
When the Leader of the House finds time for us to discuss the excellent results of Labour's new deal programmes, will he widen the remit so that we can talk about the success of jobcentres in delivering jobs? Is he aware, however, of the decision of local managers in Kent to shut down Deal jobcentre at the very time when my constituency is facing 1,000 or more job losses? Does he agree that that is untimely, to say the least? Surely it flies in the face of Government policy. Is there not a mismatch between the Government's policy intention of removing barriers and hindrances to people getting back into work and the heavy-handed actions of local managers?
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes in representing, as excellently as he does, his constituents' interests. I also understand that Deal jobcentre has a relatively small unemployment register and is unable to deliver the full Jobcentre Plus service. Although such changes are difficult in individual constituencies—I have experienced that in Neath—they are all designed to improve front-line services for the residents of Deal and elsewhere in the country. Whatever the transitional difficulties in that process of change, it will deliver a much better service on the ground for everyone by making efficiency savings in back-room staff and releasing extra resources to the front line.
May we please have an oral statement from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary on the continuing crisis in Darfur, western Sudan, given that the United Nations-backed international commission of inquiry found evidence of war crimes by Government forces in Darfur that might be no less serious or heinous than genocide? Several hon. Members heard harrowing personal testimonies to such crimes during a visit to the region last week? Does the Leader of the House agree that the best way in which to demonstrate the international community's revulsion at those crimes, and its determination to bring the perpetrators to justice, would be to put the suspects on trial as soon as possible before the International Criminal Court?
The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing these matters to our attention and for the eloquent and consistent way in which he raises the plight of people in the Darfur region. The crimes are totally unacceptable, and the Foreign Secretary is monitoring the situation closely with other colleagues throughout the world. They will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
When my right hon. Friend meets the House authorities to discuss our cleaning staff, will he bring to their attention the e-mail that I received this morning from Union Network International, the international trade union operating out of Geneva, which includes messages of support for our cleaners from cleaning workers in countries as far afield as Australia and South Africa? Given the importance of the image that we create, will he try to reach agreement with his opposite number to ensure that the Conservatives, too, support our campaign to get proper wages for the people working around us?
I do not want to make this a partisan issue; it is a House issue. I agree with my hon. Friend that we all want our cleaners to be remunerated properly and given good conditions of service that are reflected in their hourly rates, overtime and night-time duties and holidays—all those points were put to me today. I know that the House authorities will have taken note of hon. Members' points. Albeit working through an independent contractor, the House must be a model employer, so in these circumstances we have to ensure that we really act as such.
In view of the obvious but sadly unfulfilled desire of the Prime Minister to apologise to the House for something for which even the most partisan observer could not possibly hold him responsible, may we have a session every week called Prime Minister's apologies? He would thus have the opportunity to apologise for the dome, weapons of mass destruction, his broken promises on tax, his broken promises on dentistry, misleading "Newsnight" on hunting, his failure to help to promote democracy in Zimbabwe, and so on.
That question was straight out of one of this morning's Conservative tabloids. When the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee for well over two hours, no one laid a glove on him. It was a dominating performance and he answered every question directly. Far from apologising, the Prime Minister can take great credit, as now the longest-serving Labour Prime Minister, for record employment, economic stability, continuous growth, low mortgage rates, low inflation and record public investment, all of which would be put at risk if the Conservatives won the election and returned us to public spending cuts and boom and bust.
I am very encouraged by moves towards peace in the middle east and especially by the Prime Minister's success in convening the Palestinian conference in London. Will there be a statement to indicate how the important question of Palestinian Authority incitement to violence against Jews and Israelis is being tackled? Does the Leader of the House agree that statements such as those coming from the Palestinian Authority saying that the characteristics of Jews are betrayal and treachery cannot be accepted?
Of course those statements cannot be accepted. My hon. Friend will welcome the steadfast determination and leadership on the matter that the Prime Minister has shown, including by persuading the American Administration to make promoting the middle east peace process a priority—it is welcome that that is being done under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. That should be taken forward with great energy because there is no dispute that it is more important to resolve in the current international situation than the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. A secure Israel must be the outcome, with an independent Palestinian state existing alongside it in friendship, rather than anger. The London meeting on 1 March will play an important part in helping the Palestinian Authority to assume a proper governing role in Palestine, rather than playing that which it has had over the past few years.
Will my right hon. Friend prevail on his Cabinet colleagues to arrange an early cross-cutting debate on the ramifications, and especially the economic consequences, of having laissez-faire in student choice for universities? For example, the Forensic Science Society recognises that forensic scientists need a degree in chemistry or biology followed by a masters degree in forensics, but we have 57 undergraduate forensic science degrees, none of which are recognised, or will get people jobs. That is an example of the way in which universities provide courses that are pretty near useless and give the wrong impression to people who want to work in such fields.
I am sure that the odd useless degree is being offered throughout the country, and it would be surprising if that was not the case, given the thousands of degree courses that are offered. Surely my hon. Friend should welcome record investment in our universities and the fact that we are introducing a fair student financing system by restoring grants and bringing into effect a system through which people will repay fees and loans only if they are in work and earning more than £15,000 a year. He might have noticed a report this morning showing that graduates are earning more than ever before.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report out this morning from the Jewish Community Security Trust which records a record increase in violent anti-Semitic assaults in the UK, including 28 incidents against Jewish school children and Jewish schools? [Interruption.] This is a serious issue and Conservative Members demean themselves with that sort of heckling. Will my right hon. Friend find time in the busy schedule after the recess for a debate on the increase in anti-Semitic assaults so that we send both a clear signal from every quarter of the House that anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in this society and a clear message to members of the Jewish community that their protection and safety matters as much as that of any other citizen?
I agree entirely. The rise in—[Interruption.]
Order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) must not behave in that way.
The rise in such incidents recorded in the latest report by the Jewish Community Security Trust reveals a totally unacceptable level of attacks and other incidents. That is why there have been regular meetings between the Home Secretary and the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and close collaboration between the police and the Community Security Trust. We have also strengthened the law against racism, including raising the maximum penalty for incitement to racial hatred. We want those laws applied energetically to anyone who practises anti-Semitism or commits such horrific attacks.
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the private Member's Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), on directors' responsibilities for health and safety. It would be inappropriate to ask for Government support at this stage, but will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the Bill gets a fair wind through the House of Commons? If it is successful, it will go a long way to reducing the number of accidents and fatalities at the workplace, which is a vital concern for all our constituents.
I think that the Bill gets its Second Reading on 4 March. Health and safety is important and must be paramount, and the Government have given it that position. We will obviously want to consider my hon. Friend's points carefully.
My right hon. Friend has greatly enhanced the opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny and has stated the ambition that it should be a normal occurrence. Does he harbour similar ambitions for post-legislative scrutiny, in particular the scrutiny of Executive agencies charged with implementing legislation once it is passed by the House?
My hon. Friend takes a careful and studious interest in such matters. He has a point. We should find ways to have better post-legislative scrutiny and to monitor the impact of legislation. For example, it was only as a result of Back Benchers' experiences of the disastrous Child Support Agency, as then configured, in their surgeries in the early 1990s that its whole operation was reviewed. It might have been better if the House had had a proper mechanism for monitoring that. We need to consider such scrutiny, perhaps in the new Parliament.
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government intend to publish their White Paper on reform of the 14 to 19 curriculum in our schools and colleges in the very near future. Given the extremely long time scale that is likely to be needed for implementing the proposals and the absolute necessity to build a cross-party consensus in support of the Government's proposals, will he find time in the busy schedule over the next weeks for a full debate on the subject—not just a statement from the Secretary of State—as part of the process of building that all-party consensus?
I cannot promise a debate. However, the subject is vital and the Secretary of State wants to make a statement at some point, if there is an opportunity for her to do so. Indeed, she gave an interesting presentation in Cabinet this morning about the Government's plans. Raising the skills levels of people in the British economy and focusing on improvement and reform in 14-to-19 education is, she indicated, probably the greatest priority that our educational system faces.
In terms of topics for debate after the recess, should not the private finance initiative take priority over Northern Ireland electoral registration? More than 10 per cent. of GDP is tied up in such schemes. Jarvis is teetering on the edge of the financial abyss. Fourteen PFI projects are at a standstill, including London's Whittington hospital acute facilities, with HBOS plc refusing to step in. Finally, today saw the publication of Sir John Bourn's National Audit Office report on the Darent Valley hospital in Kent. It shows inflated performance scores, leading to unearned profits, and refinancing, leading to internal rates of return to The Hospital Company (Dartford) Ltd., the contractor, at 56 per cent., which is 60 per cent. higher than planned. Does not all that show that PFI is prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence to the taxpayers, patients and NHS workers?
No, it does not.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious and genuine point of order. You are a stout defender of the rights of Members of this House, and we look to you for that protection and rely on you to discharge that function, which you do. Will you reflect on whether it might help the House to make a Speaker's statement to clarify the relationship between parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in particular to rule whether they should be treated with the same force as a freedom of information request? It would be intolerable if parliamentary questions carried less weight than a request from someone outside the House.
I think it would be best if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me. I can then give the matter reasoned consideration.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you rebuked Defence Ministers for failing to provide full and accurate answers to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) about Swan Hunter. I regret to have to seek your guidance today, but a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation will this afternoon debate the armed forces pensions appeal tribunals. Unfortunately, there is little on the face of the statutory instrument to indicate what it is all about.
The Department has helpfully provided an explanatory memorandum, which better explains the measure. Interestingly, it says:
"Ex-Service organisations . . . are being informed about the proposals in parallel with laying this instrument."
As 93 per cent. of all represented appeals by ex-servicemen are represented by the Royal British Legion, and as it told me this morning that it has not received that information, how can we proceed this afternoon given that the principal organisation—a charitable organisation—charged with undertaking the responsibility of representing ex-servicemen has been unable to study the information and therefore advise Members of Parliament on how we should deal with it?
Every hon. Member of this House has a high regard for our ex-servicemen and the organisations that represent them, including the Royal British Legion. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman can attend the Standing Committee, and he should raise that matter with the Minister there, which will put the Minister in the position of making a reply that goes on the record. That will be beneficial to the ex-servicemen's organisations.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for a dilatory motion to be made in circumstances in which information provided to a Committee is misleading in such a way? Clearly, the views of the Royal British Legion on pension appeals are crucial. If they are not known, there should be a delay—or at least there is an argument for a delay—in that Committee's sitting. Can you give us guidance on whether that would be in order?
All members of my Chairmen's Panel are experienced. That is why they are Chairmen of Committees. It would be a matter for the Chairman of that Committee as to whether such a motion was acceptable.
BILL PRESENTED
Second Chamber of Parliament
Mr. Paul Tyler, supported by Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Robin Cook, Tony Wright and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with membership of the Second Chamber of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed [Bill 60].
Identity Cards Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th December 2004 (Identity Cards Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
For paragraph 4 substitute—
4. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the second column.
TABLE
Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses relating to the purposes and scope of registration and identity cards. 2.45 p.m. on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced. New Clauses relating to the National Identity Scheme Commissioner, Amendments relating to Clauses 24 and 25 3.45 p.m. on that day. Remaining new Clauses, Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 23, Amendments relating to Clause 26, Amendments relating to Clauses 33 to 45, new Schedules, Amendments relating to Schedules 1 and 2 4.30 p.m. on that day. Amendments relating to Clauses 27 to 32 and any remaining proceedings on consideration 5.00 p.m. on that day.
The motion is intended to assist the House in using the time that we have available—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members might wait for the punch line before they laugh. It is intended to assist the House in using the time that we have available this afternoon for consideration on Report to the best possible effect.
We have made good progress with the Bill so far. Indeed, it was clear from the pace with which we dealt with many parts of the Bill in Committee that, in huge part, this is not highly contentious legislation. I will put before the House the evidence of that.
The Bill has been given proper scrutiny. Indeed, in preparation for it we had a six-month public consultation exercise, starting in 2002. There was an inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee, starting in 2003. There was further consultation on a draft Bill in 2004. The Government responded to all those consultations in the way in which the Bill was presented to the House.
On the last sitting of the Standing Committee, on the afternoon of 27 January, we dealt with amendments and agreed to 20 clauses and one schedule—clauses 26 to 45 and schedule 2. That indicates how quickly progress could have been made in large parts of the Bill.
After the first two sittings of the Committee, the Government proposed a timetable motion for the remaining consideration of the Bill in Committee. That was at the beginning of the fourth day on the morning of 25 January. The motion was agreed to only after we had spent an inordinate time debating a group of two amendments to clause 8—one hour and 10 minutes on the afternoon of 20 January followed by a further one hour and 35 minutes on the morning of 25 January. Two and three quarter hours was spent on the same group of amendments.
A group of amendments could have justified two hours and 45 minutes, but I do not rest my case only on the time. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), had to intervene nine times to remind Opposition members of the Committee of the need to keep in order on the morning of the second of those two sittings alone. The debate was brought to a close when, unusually, the Chairman agreed to a motion that the Question be now put. I do not have extensive experience in the House, but I have served on a number of Standing Committees. I have never before known a Chairman of a Standing Committee to accept a motion that the Question be now put. It is clear to me that the Chairman, having intervened of his own volition on nine occasions, had no alternative but to do that.
The Minister told us that the proceedings had been uncontentious. Clearly they were not.
The hon. Gentleman allows me to reinforce a point that I made earlier, which he clearly did not hear. I shall repeat what I said because I wrote it down. I said that the proceedings in Committee proved that, in large part, this was not contentious legislation.
It was clear to me that, had there been a proper use of the time allotted for the Committee, we would have scrutinised every clause. I had already said that I would be happy to sit late and for there to be another Committee sitting.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I am not a right hon. Member, but I will give way.
I apologise if I prematurely elevated the Minister to the Privy Council. I feel sure that for a demonstration of such loyalty to the Government it is only a matter of time.
Some of us find it peculiarly offensive to be told that such and such an allocation of time was provided in Committee and that members of the Committee had every opportunity to consider the Bill, and so on and so forth. That is because I speak as a humble Back Bencher, or at any rate as a Back Bencher who ought to be humble, who was not fortunate enough to receive the preferment of a celebrated appointment to the Committee. I have not had a chance. I am not very pleased about that and I want the chance today.
I am very keen that the hon. Gentleman should be pleased about his contribution to the House. My loyalty to my party in Government is modelled on his own loyalty to his party in Opposition. I look to him as a model of that. I know that he is well qualified to speak on that subject.
I am explaining to the hon. Gentleman and to other Members, who I suspect have not engaged in this level of research into the workings of the Committee, why the Bill comes before the House with certain parts of it unscrutinised by the Committee. The opportunity was there for that to be done and significant progress was made on large parts of the Bill in short measure in Committee. However, a significant part of the Committee's consideration was taken away by filibustering, which was identified by the Chairman and responded to by him. [Interruption.] I say that because I am sure that, in opposing the motion, Opposition Members will make the point that parts of the Bill were not scrutinised by the Committee. It is a legitimate part of my argument and I will continue with the argument.
Will the Minister give way?
Will the Minister give way?
No, I will continue with the argument at this stage.
To offer the opportunity for the completion of the work in Committee, the Government made the offer of additional time, an additional sitting or a late sitting, but that was not taken up. It is clear to me that, at least in part, some Opposition Members were making use of parliamentary procedures to frustrate the passage of the Bill. As a result, we had to divide the timetable today to ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly scrutinised. That is the purpose of the motion. It is a consequence of what was done in Committee.
On Second Reading, the official Opposition voted in favour of the principle of the Bill. We know that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is in favour of ID cards. [Interruption.] I accept that some Opposition Members are against them. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary in the last Conservative Government, some other right hon. Members who are in the Chamber were also Ministers. They were apparently in favour of them as well. They were part of that Government's programme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman remained in favour of ID cards. In an article in The Daily Telegraph on 20 September, he wrote:
"We must protect our citizens in every way that we can and, in my judgment, that includes ID cards."
He is right. He is no doubt aware that a recent survey found that 88 per cent. of Conservative voters support ID cards.
What has the fact that the Leader of the Opposition supports the Bill got to do with the timetable, which is about allowing time for Back Benchers to take part in the debate? Surely it is precisely when Back Benchers disagree with their Front Bench that parliamentary time should be generous. Given that the Leader of the House has told the House that the current hours for Thursday make it unsuitable for major legislation, will the Minister tell us why the Bill has been scheduled for a Thursday? Does it mean that the Government do not see the Bill as major legislation?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill has been scheduled for a Thursday because the usual channels agreed that the Bill should be presented to the House today, and I am not part of those discussions.
If the Opposition want to allow debate on the Bill, as they suggest that they do, whether from the Back Benches or the Front Bench, they should agree with the motion. Last week, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), during a debate on the programme motion on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, said:
"Our debates on programme motions often have the qualities of a choreographed Greek chorus, with outrage expressed by the Opposition about the nature of the motion".—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, Col. 1024.]
I am offering an opportunity to the House not to do that in these circumstances and to avoid the temptation of the "choreographed Greek chorus". I am offering the opportunity not to fall into that trap and instead to agree that it would be better for us to spend time debating the Bill rather than taking time, at length, to debate the timetable motion. The motion will help order our debate in a sensible way.
I thought it apposite to remind my hon. Friend of the wise words of my first Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who said that when Front Benches were united they were almost always united in error.
I always listen to the wisdom of the Father of the House and have enormous respect for his views. Part of my argument, if only by implication, is that I am not that certain that there is unity between the Front-Bench teams on the Bill. The motion will help to order our debate in a sensible way and I commend it to the House.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the programme motion, for the simple reason that it is the latest in a long line of insults to the House of Commons. We face a Government who are determined to ride roughshod over elected Members of Parliament and to get their own way at any cost. They have consistently ignored the principle of proper parliamentary scrutiny. I shall take a look at what happened in Committee in a moment but, make no mistake Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a major Bill with major implications for the lives of all of us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said in a question a little while ago, it touches on the sensitive relationship between the individual and the state, so it has enormous implications for civil liberties, and it is not just about identity cards.
The Bill's principal purpose—not understood widely outside the House—is the creation of a national register or database under which people will be obliged to provide dozens of pieces of personal information to the Government register, to which many others will have access. If one does not supply that information there is a penalty—some say a fine—of £2,500. The Bill is clearly important and has huge constitutional and civil liberties implications.
As someone who has made it clear that I am not in favour of the Government's proposals, having written a minority report for the Home Affairs Committee and voted against the Bill on Second Reading, may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, whatever the Government's failure to provide time, we are where we are? If the purpose of the main Opposition party is to utilise all the time allowed to debate the programme motion, that would effectively result in less time to debate the matters of substance before us. It would be most unfortunate if that were its tactic, because it would aggravate a situation in which the Government have not provided the time that we would like.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman who, throughout proceedings on the Bill, has opposed the Government. If the debate on the programme motion takes time away from the debate on new clauses, it is the Government's fault, not ours.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not be seduced by the argument of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). We must assert the right to scrutinise legislation. The only way in which we can do so is to speak in these debates and vote on these timetable motions. If we do not do so, we are not performing our duty.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right, as always. What power do we have? All that we can do in practice is speak in these debates, make our protest known and vote when the time comes. That is what we are going to do.
If ever a Bill needed detailed and thorough scrutiny in Committee, this is the Bill. It did not receive it, and that was the Government's fault. I shall tell the House what the Government did. At a stage in Committee when he did not have any justification whatever for his charge, a Government Back Bencher falsely accused the Opposition of over-long speeches and filibustering. It was an absurd allegation that was utterly rejected by the Committee Chairman. Throughout our proceedings, we had kept to the point. Yes, there were long speeches, but the Minister made a speech in excess of one hour. I do not criticise him for doing so—he was giving a lengthy, if unsatisfactory, response to points that we were making.
Following that absurd intervention by a Government Back Bencher, the Government introduced knives or what people outside the House would call a viciously short timetable for the rest of the Bill. As a result, whole clauses were not debated or scrutinised. Part of clause 8 was not debated; clause 9 was not debated at all; clauses 10 and 11 were not debated at all; clauses 23, 24 and 25 were not debated at all. Those important clauses deal with the commissioner and his or her powers, as well as the provision of information about an individual without their consent. None of those clauses was debated, so they were not subject to any scrutiny. By any standards, that is a disgrace.
After the Committee's proceedings had finished, the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported. It said that the Government's identity card and register proposals raised "serious questions" about possible breaches of human rights and it regarded Ministers' failure to explain why they believed their Bill was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 as "deeply unsatisfactory". I warned the Government on day one of the Committee that the Joint Committee would shortly report, and I suggested gently, because that is my style, that they wait for that report so that we could consider it during our deliberations on the Bill. The Government did not take any notice of my suggestion whatsoever. It is ludicrous that we had to go through the entire Committee stage without the benefit of that important report.
One might ask whether there was a good reason for that unseemly hurry and ridiculous rush. I believe that the main motive of this utterly discredited Home Office is to secure some last-minute headlines before the general election. It wants to give the appearance of being tough, but it has completely ignored the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of a vital Bill. Today, Members on both sides of the House wish to speak to amendments and new clauses that they have tabled, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The hon. Member for Walsall, North is wholly against his Government and has as much right as any hon. Member to speak to his amendments. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues have tabled a number of amendments and they have the right to speak to them.
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the perverse effects of this truncated procedure is that it dissuades hon. Members from becoming interested in a Bill, as they know that they do not have an opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House or, indeed, in Committee?
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. Increasingly in recent years, right hon. and hon. Members have wondered what is the point of tabling an amendment or coming to the Chamber to try to debate something, as there will be a guillotine and their contribution will be cut out. That has a serious impact on parliamentary democracy.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but I hope that he accepts that because many Conservative Members take such comments seriously, we need a constant reminder that when we are returned to Government automatic guillotining will stop. That has not been stated with sufficient strength, and until my hon. Friend does so his comments lack moral authority.
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I can only speak personally and I choose my words with care: I hope that when we are returned to Government, considerably more time will be made available for vital Bills of this sort.
On the point that my hon. Friend so ably made about the impact on the House of Commons, does he agree that the extent to which people are concerned that they are being effectively cut out also contributes to the lack of turnout in general elections? People who witness what is happening and see that it is such an invasion of constitutional rights and civil liberties say to themselves in a state of fury, "The House of Commons is impotent and decisions are taken without regard to the people we have elected." They then do not bother to turn out, so it is the destruction of democracy as well.
My hon. Friend is right. The situation contributes to lack of turnout not just in elections, but, I venture gently to suggest, among colleagues throughout the House of Commons who feel that it is not worth turning up.
Does my hon. Friend agree, perhaps along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that one of the best ways of ensuring that all this guillotining is not necessary is to introduce fewer Bills so that they can all be considered properly?
My hon. Friend is right—there is far too much legislation and far too little scrutiny. Today we have Report and Third Reading, and we have less time than my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) had for his private Member's Bill last Friday. I refer also to the report quoted earlier from the Select Committee on Modernisation, which mentioned restoring longer hours on Thursday to take substantial business. If this is not substantial business, I do not know what is.
Today should be the chance for all Members of the House to express their views on the detail as well as the principle of the Bill. The Government have taken that chance away from all of us by giving us a matter of a few hours—not even one full day—to debate the vital issues. When times for votes are taken out, the position is even bleaker and even more unfair.
Today, we cannot stop the Government driving a steamroller over Members of the House. Today, we cannot stop the Government showing their contempt for Parliament. But we can still—thank God—protest, and I hope that our protest is heard by the millions of people outside this building who care deeply about parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary democracy.
I do not wish to speak for long on the motion, but I want at least to place on record the disgust felt in my party at the Executive's lack of regard for Parliament.
The Minister said that a Greek chorus was the appropriate metaphor for the current circumstances. I am quite a fan of Greek tragedy. If I remember correctly, the role of the chorus is to explain to the audience the narrative of the protagonist rushing headlong to their doom. In the context of the Bill, being in a Greek chorus is quite an apt metaphor for what we are doing.
The Bill is complex and has significant technical, financial and privacy implications that cannot be covered under the programme motion before us today. Its complexity has grown during the passage of the Bill thus far, so there are many areas that need further clarification that we will not have time to deal with.
My hon. Friend is quite right: there is simply not enough time to discuss all the important amendments that have been tabled. For example, between 3.45 and 4.30, there are three sets to consider, but a vote on the clauses that finish at 3.45 would take out a quarter of an hour, and a vote on the use of information from the register would take another quarter of an hour. Even if the debate on the use of information from the register takes only a quarter of an hour, we will have no time to discuss all the later amendments that affect Scotland and remote rural areas.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention; the amendments are important, as I have said. The Scottish National party did not have anyone on the Standing Committee, so this is its only opportunity to raise issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) also raised them, and there was an interesting debate about them—about people who live in remote Scottish areas.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he made a serious point about the disabling of minority parties? If minority parties are not represented—[Interruption.]
Order. We must have no more interventions from a sedentary position. If hon. Members want to intervene, they must stand up and do so in the proper way.
If minority parties are not represented in the Standing Committee, as was apparently the case in this instance, Report is the only opportunity that they have to speak on the detail of the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct and I have a lot of sympathy with his point. I come from one of the more compact parliamentary parties in this Parliament and for us to cover all legislation is a challenge. Report is an important opportunity for smaller parties to intervene—and if that is curtailed there is nowhere else for them to be heard.
I know the point that the Minister is going to make, but I shall let him make it anyway.
I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for giving way. He made an enormous contribution to the debate in Committee, but he must tell the House that his party had two people on the Committee, only one of whom was ever present at any time.
That is known as teamwork: we were running a relay operation. The serious point is that it is difficult for smaller parties—they will speak for themselves—to cover all the Committees that take place in the House, and Report remains an important part of the structure of legislation for precisely such purposes. I do not think that it has ever been the tradition that smaller parties cover every single Standing Committee.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the other problem is that there are disagreements within parties about such Bills? I happen to be very much in favour of the principle of the Bill, while others in my party take a different view. This is the only opportunity that we all have to show what parts we agree with and where we might want alteration, so that there can be greater consensus. With a Bill of this sort and of this importance, that consensus becomes very important.
That intervention was entirely helpful. People often say that the debates in the House are meaningless because all parties come in with a single party Whip and troop through the Lobby, not having listened to the debate or changed their minds. This afternoon, we are dealing with precisely the sort of issue on which people will engage in debate and on which they may change their minds, as has been shown by the course of our proceedings so far. It is on precisely this sort of issue that we need additional time on Report.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given that most members of the public have not seen the selection of amendments for consideration today, would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important, in order to underline the gravity of the situation and our complaint, that people should be aware that there are 150 minutes in which to debate no fewer than 77 new clauses and amendments? In other words, even if there were no votes, which is not realistic or desirable, there would be fewer than two minutes for the consideration of each. That is an outrage and an insult.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those mathematical calculations. Even at the speed at which I customarily speak, it would be difficult to get through those amendments in that time.
Briefly, I shall tell the Minister off, if I may, in my own gentle style for one point that he made in his introduction. He said that there were certain points on which we made progress in Committee. I will be completely honest: there were times when we had too little time in Committee and on other occasions people spent too long debating matters that did not need so much time. I am not going to pretend that everything in Committee worked smoothly, but the reality was that the Committee did not have sufficient time overall. There were occasions on which hon. Members such as I felt that we ought to assist in making some progress in order to get on to other things, so we did not spend as much time debating clauses as we wanted. Having tried to be co-operative and helpful, we find it a little difficult to have that thrown back at us afterwards, as if to say, "You went through these clauses quickly, so everything was fine and they were non-contentious." I want to put that on the record because it is not an entirely fair comment.
If we stick to the timetable that we have before us, hon. Members will be asked to vote—I must be careful with my imagery—for a pig in a poke. That is the correct metaphor to describe what we are being asked to buy: something about which we do not have sufficient detail. In my party, we do not want to buy this pig at all. We have made our position clear on the Bill. The Conservatives have explained that they do not yet know enough about the pig, and that what they have seen they do not like. I understand that they are officially planning not to vote at all. However, we will be united in voting against the programme motion, which is essential if we are to have the detail that we need to make a proper informed decision. That is, after all, what we should be here to do.
The programme motion is nearly as bad as it gets. It is not quite as bad as the instrument that the Government use to deem that a Bill has been considered, but it is close. Most Government Members would accept that to deem without consideration is an outrage. The programme motion does not even pretend that we will consider the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has pointed out, the Bill is essentially an enabling Bill. It gives huge powers to the Secretary of State, but what do those powers enable him to do? The point about a pig in a poke is correct. The House has a right to examine the Bill.
The Minister takes a lofty view of Committees, which are for the convenience of the House. In years gone by, Bills were traditionally taken on the Floor of the House in order to meet the reasoned observations of hon. Members. We have all been elected and all represent a point of view. We should all have the opportunity to express how the Bill may bear on our constituents and to form a judgment whether the legislation merits passing.
Does my hon. Friend agree with this proposition: by curtailing debate, the Government are showing contempt for the views of hon. Members and, more importantly, for the views of the public, who might seek to use their representative to express their views?
I have spoken so often in debates on guillotine motions that I sometimes think that my remarks are explicit, when they are merely implicit. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for yet again underlining one of the crucial reasons why we have parliamentary debate.
An early-day motion has been tabled to point out to hon. Members and Members of the other place how lamentable the process has been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has pointed out, the EDM lists the clauses that were not debated—clauses 8 to 11 and 23 to 25. Is that a mere technical matter in an enabling Bill that should not fuss us? Clause 8 sets out the procedure for issuing identity cards. Is that a small matter and should we have the right properly to consider it? Clause 8 concerns matters such as issuing identity cards and designating documents.
Clause 11 contains the power to require information for validating the register. It is enormously important because it is crucial to the operation of the scheme, but it has not been debated. Clause 11(1) places a duty on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of verifying an individual's entry on the register. Not unreasonably, we would like to discuss that duty.
Clause 23 has also not been discussed. It concerns:
"Rules for using information without individual's consent".
If the world at large knew what this Government are about in their construction of a security and police state, it would be truly alarmed by databases that can be accessed by other people and information that must be given under the threat of law. We want to know to whom the information must be given and for what purpose.
Clause 23(1) states that information—photographs, signature, fingerprints or other biometric information—provided under clauses 19 to 22 may be authorised only when the Secretary of State, an omnipresent individual who wants to know everything about us,
"is satisfied that it would not have been reasonably practicable for the person . . . to have obtained the information by other means."
For example, if fingerprint information were recorded on the register, the police would first have to search their own register of fingerprint records before requesting information from the register. That is an illustrative example, but it touches on how the Bill will encroach on the very privacy of our lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has mentioned the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Bill has been galloped through with less than 28 hours of consideration in Committee, and we are discussing the heart of the Bill—issuing ID cards, the commissioner and databases. The strongest civil liberties argument is that we have seen no detail because we are examining an enabling Bill. The Bill's vagueness, which is inappropriate, was a principal concern of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. How will the Bill affect an individual's privacy?
I do not accept that we should reduce ourselves to nothing, which is the presumption of all those Labour Members who say, "Let's get on with it. Let's consider the Bill and do what we can." The matter concerns one of Parliament's primary functions, which is to look at that to which we give the power of law—if only the Leader of the House could remember his own dual duty. We must solemnly ask ourselves whether the procedure is right.
This is not a party matter. When we vote on the programme motion, which concerns the suppression of the freedom of expression of elected Members of Parliament, we should make a personal judgment. Some might say that that contradicts the purpose of the modern Parliament, because we are merely party men who must do as we are bid. We are, however, individuals who represent human beings—our constituents. Should we agree to a meaningless and monstrous consideration that defeats the very purpose for which we are sent here?
The Minister has confirmed my determination never to hire him as an advocate if I am on trial for anything at all serious. He has said that the Bill is non-contentious. The title might be non-contentious, but much of the rest is highly contentious.
The Minister has said that the timetable motion will allow debate. That would be true if it had enough time in it, which it clearly does not. As has already been pointed out, my hon. Friends and I have tabled no fewer than nine amendments to a key passage of the Bill, but that passage has been allocated 45 minutes of consideration, almost certainly half an hour of which will be taken up by voting. Those nine amendments affect Scotland, a country which the Minister might remember from time to time, but not one of them is likely to be reached under this disgraceful timetable motion.
Will the hon. Gentleman not be taken in by the Government's use of the word "timetable"? "Timetable" suggests that time is available; this is a guillotine motion that is designed to cut off debate. It is a foreign motion and a foreign word and we should pronounce it in a foreign way. We should vote against the guillotine motion.
The Conservative party is embracing all things French—I knew that it was only a matter of time before that happened.
I give way to the Francophile.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the disgraceful way in which the Government continuously introduce programme motions, the more that personal liberty is put at risk, the more certain one can be that one will get less time? We should call the motion a garrotte.
I always agree with the hon. Gentleman, except when I disagree with him. Nevertheless, his point is substantial. The timetable motion makes it impossible to reach any of the nine amendments.
The Minister said that we should examine the splendid example of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Some of us tried to debate that Bill on Monday, when two extraordinary things happened. First, a whole series of amendments was no longer applicable because at the last minute the Government removed the bit of the Bill to which the amendments referred; such was the spatchcock nature of the legislation. Secondly—this is almost unprecedented in the history of this place—the Home Secretary had to adopt other parties' amendments, including one from the Scottish National party. The Government, in headlong retreat from aggravated trespass in Scotland, found themselves having to assimilate the amendments of other parties and then found that, under the timetable, they did not even have time to explain why.I know that the Minister has been preoccupied with this Bill, but he should look at what his colleagues are doing before he cites another Bill as a splendid example of examination and parliamentary democracy.
Finally, let me say this to the Minister—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will not take further interventions because I am anxious to complete this point.
I smell a debacle. We are informed under the freedom of information legislation that the retreat from the exchange rate mechanism cost £4 billion. I suspect that this debacle will cost double that. In days to come, when the Minister looks back at the wreckage of a once promising parliamentary career, and as this hangs around his neck like an albatross, he will say, "I wish I'd listened to Alex Salmond on 10 February 2005. I wish I'd allowed those amendments on Scotland and on the rights of the Scottish Parliament and of people in far-flung areas of Scotland to be debated, because if I had, perhaps I and the Government would not be in the ridiculous position of spending £8 billion on a pile of nonsense."
This is a major Bill because it takes us into wholly uncharted waters in terms of the relationship between the individual and the state, yet we are trying to discuss it in one afternoon—the shortest of the week. It may not be a constitutional Bill, but it is semi-constitutional, in that it distinguishes a new era for the relationship between the individual and the state. A sane Parliament would give it at least two full days of debate.
Like other hon. Members, I supported the Bill on Second Reading, but with considerable reservations. I did not object to the card itself, but had many reservations about the details, such as the role of the commissioner, what will be on the register and our ability to access and change erroneous material on it. I was hoping, and thought that I had assurances from the Government, that many of those things would be addressed and changed in Committee, but I cannot see that they have been. This is the first opportunity for Back Benchers such as me, who have serious and growing reservations, to hear the debate and participate in it—yet, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, we simply will not have enough time.
This is a hugely important Bill and once we pass it, the relationship between individuals and the state will never be the same again. I regret bitterly that this afternoon we will be so constrained in our consideration. The Government are making a huge error.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with whom I agree so often on such matters.
The detail of the Bill has been examined fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I will not repeat what he said, but I would like to summarise my objections.
We are perpetrating a fraud on the electorate because we tell them that Bills are discussed, but this Bill has not been discussed. It is also a fraud on the judiciary, who often say when interpreting legislation that Parliament decided on it after consideration. We are not considering and we have not decided. We are dissuading hon. Members from becoming involved in legislation, because they know that they will not have a chance to speak to the detail.
If I may just finish this point, of course I shall give way.
We are disqualifying the minority parties from playing a proper role in the discussion—
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(8).
Question put:—
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We now have no more than 18 or 19 minutes to discuss no fewer than 24 amendments and three new clauses. That is a disgrace. It gives us no chance to make meaningful contributions. Is there any way that the Government could be persuaded through you to take the proceedings out of today and return on another day when we can have a proper debate? Otherwise, the proceedings are a farce.
The hon. Member will appreciate that the Chair is not responsible for the result of the Division. The programme motion is now in place and we must proceed with the debate.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have dealt with the matter sufficiently for the time being. I do not want to prolong debate on it. We should move on.
Identity Cards Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
[Relevant document: The Fifth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2004–05, on the Identity Cards Bill (House of Commons Paper No. 283).]
New Clause 1 — National Identification Scheme
'(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a National Identification Scheme ("the Scheme") consisting of—
(a) a register of individuals ("the Register"), and
(b) the provision of Identity Cards to individuals.
(2) The purposes of the Scheme are confined to—
(a) enabling individuals to establish their identity to others by providing registrable facts about themselves, and
(b) enabling others to be able to establish the identity of individuals whenever that is necessary in the public interest.
(3) Something is necessary in the public interest if and only if it is—
(a) of assistance to the Secretary of State in the preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security,
(b) for the purposes of controlling illegal immigration and enforcing immigration controls,
(c) of assistance to the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting crime save crime which gives rise to offences triable only summarily, or
(d) for the purposes of securing proper provision of public services.
(4) In this Act "registrable fact", in relation to an individual, means and is limited to it—
(a) his full name,
(b) his date and place of birth,
(c) his address, and
(d) his current residential status (which shall mean his nationality and his entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom).'.—[Mr .Malins.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Commencement and continuation in force of certain provisions of this act—
'(1) This section applies to the following provisions of this Act—
(a) section 5(2) to (6),
(b) sections 6 and 7,
(c) section 9,
(d) sections 15 to 17, and
(e) sections 19 to 22.
(2) The provisions of this Act to which this section applies may only—
(a) be brought into force, and
(b) continue in force,
in accordance with the provisions of an order under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless he is satisfied that either the conditions in subsection (4) or the conditions in subsection (5) are met.
(4) The conditions in this subsection are that—
(a) an emergency within the meaning of Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c. 36) has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur, and
(b) it is necessary to make arrangements under the provisions of this Act to which this section applies for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency.
(5) The conditions in this subsection are that—
(a) a public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights exists in the United Kingdom, and
(b) it is necessary to make arrangements under the provisions of this Act to which this section applies for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the public emergency.
(6) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(7) No order under this section may provide for the continuation in force of a provision of this Act to which this section applies for more than a period of twelve months.'.
Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out clause 1.
Amendment No. 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out 'previously'.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert
'during the previous five years'.
Amendment No. 43, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, after 'resident', insert
'during the previous three years'.
Amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
Government amendment No. 52.
Amendment No. 44, in clause 5, page 4, line 43, at end insert
'(d) state that the individual does not consent to be included in the Register on the basis of the application.'.
Amendment No. 4, in clause 5, page 5, line 21, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
Amendment No. 5, in clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert
'(1A) An ID card may only be issued for the purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme].'.
Amendment No. 45, in clause 10, page 9, line 5, after 'card', insert
'and about whom there is an entry in the Register'.
Amendment No. 34, in clause 12, page 10, line 30, after 'circumstances', insert
'save details of a change of address for any place where he has lived for a period of less than three months'.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 9, leave out 'statutory purposes' and insert
'purposes of the National Identification Scheme specified in section [National Identification Scheme]'.
Amendment No. 50, in clause 15, page 14, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'evidence' in line 13.
Amendment No. 51, in clause 15, page 14, line 13, leave out from 'himself' to end of line 14.
Amendment No. 61, in clause 17, page 15, line 39, after 'he', insert 'reasonably'.
Amendment No. 62, in clause 17, page 15, line 41, at end insert
'(1A) Information provided under this section shall be limited to—
(a) a person's full name,
(b) his date and place of birth,
(c) his address, and
(d) his current residential status (which shall mean his nationality and his entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom).'.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 43, page 36, line 35, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert
'Register established as part of the National Identification Scheme under section [National Identification Scheme];'.
Amendment No. 8, in clause 43, page 36, line 37, leave out '1(5)' and insert
'[National Identification Scheme](4)'.
Amendment No. 9, in clause 43, page 36, leave out line 41.
Amendment No. 63, in clause 45, page 38, line 17, after 'from', insert
'the provisions to which section [Commencement and continuation in force of certain provisions of this Act] applies'.
Amendment No. 64, in clause 45, page 38, line 20, leave out 'to bring' and insert
'under this section to bring certain'.
Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 40, line 15, leave out paragraph (h).
Amendment No. 13, in schedule 1, page 40, line 32, at end insert
'and the number of any ID card issued to him, which numbers shall be the same'.
Amendment No. 14, in schedule 1, page 40, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the position that we now face, would it be convenient for the Chair not to use the expression, "With this it will be convenient"? It is not convenient for the House; we are proceeding in the current manner because we have to. That is altogether different.
The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. I simply refer to the way in which the amendments are grouped, not the time allowed for them.
I repeat that our problem is that we now have 17 minutes in which to get through a great deal of business and it simply cannot be done properly. I had intended to outline new clause 1 at some length. In fairness, I cannot do that because other hon. Members want to make some contribution to the debate, and I shall ensure for my part that they have an opportunity to do that.
My hon. Friends and I would very much like to divide the House on new clause 1. We have already discussed the fact that the purpose of the Bill is principally to set up the national identity register. New clause 1 would change the existing clause 1 in a number of respects. Under the existing clause, I shall be obliged to provide "registrable facts" about myself to others, so that they may check on me. I have already remarked on the vast number of registrable facts that an individual will have to provide. New clause 1 seeks to limit that number. After all, if I am seeking to establish my identity, why on earth should I provide more than my full name, my date and place of birth, my address and my residential status?
It would be helpful to the Liberal Democrats if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that his new clause seeks dramatically to restrict the functions of the scheme. He will be aware that we are opposed to the scheme as a whole. If he is seeking our support, we might find something that seeks to restrict it preferable to the Government's option, although that would be no indication of our support for the scheme as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman contributed significantly in Committee and I respect his views on this matter. He is right: we are seeking to place restrictions on these measures, in this brief debate.
The purpose of clause 1 ought to be to establish the real purpose of the scheme. The Information Commissioner himself has said:
"The lack of a clearly defined purpose for ID cards, including the continuing change in focus causes concern".
Having heard different arguments over the past two or three years about what the Bill is for, I believe that it is time to establish in the Bill what the card and the register are going to do, and what the purpose of the scheme is. Surely the Government should insert in the Bill the statement that its principal purpose is to assist the Secretary of State
"in the preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security",
as new clause 1 would do. I believe that it is essential that that vital purpose should be specifically set out, although the Government appear to disagree.
We have not yet been persuaded that the register and the cards will significantly contribute to reducing acts of terrorism. We also need to be persuaded that the costs involved will be worth while. Could the money be better spent elsewhere? The Information Commissioner, Mr. Thomas, also told the Home Affairs Committee:
"I want to see on the face of the statute right at the outset a very clear indication of the stated purposes for this card."
The list in new clause 1(3) differs significantly from the provision in clause 1 only in that it omits any mention of illegal employment. Do the Opposition not care about illegal employment?
I have made it quite clear that the significant difference is that we want to insert in the Bill a reference to terrorism, which we believe is very important.
I want to illustrate the uncertainty that exists among Ministers by quoting some exchanges between them and others in the past. In 2002, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), the then Home Secretary said that he would not rule out the possibility of the cards making a
"substantial contribution to countering terrorism".
He said on a later occasion that they could make a contribution towards countering terrorism, but that it would not be their primary purpose. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) was taking a break from ministerial office at the time—otherwise he would not have asked these questions of the then Home Secretary:
"May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether he accepts that it is for those who are in favour of the card to make a case for it, not the other way round? Secondly, will he confirm that the card will be little or no use in combating terrorism? Thirdly, given the unhappy history . . . of Government information technology projects, are we not entitled to be sceptical about some of the claims made for the card?"
The Home Secretary replied:
"I can say yes to all three."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 231–236.]
So there are serious doubts on this matter.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government might be resistant to his new clause because they themselves do not believe that an identity card can significantly reduce the risk of terrorism?
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. That could well be the case. In Committee, the Government certainly did not persuade us on that point.
On illegal immigration, a MORI poll found that a third of the people surveyed tended to support a card because they believed that it would prevent illegal immigration. Are they right? In the few moments remaining to me, I should like to point out that all new asylum seekers—the poll showed that most people were referring to asylum seekers—are already issued with a biometric card, so they are already covered. What about the 250,000 failed asylum seekers who are already in the country? How will the card help in that regard?
Does the hon. Gentleman have any sympathy with our amendment No. 44 in this group? We may not get to it, but we would like to divide the House on it. In it, we seek to dissociate ID cards from passports. British passport holders are the last people we need to issue with an ID card, as they already have a secure document.
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point.
What will the card do to prevent illegal immigration? What effect will it have on the millions of people who come to this country on short-term visits of up to three months? They would not need to register or have a card. Have the Government persuaded us that the card or the register will have an effect on illegal immigration? No, they have not. Have they persuaded us that the card will have a sensible effect on identity theft or benefit fraud? No, they have not.
Our other amendments are restrictive. I am concerned that the registrable facts that we shall have to supply include information about addresses at which we have previously resided in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. I have tabled amendment No. 11 to restrict that to the previous five years. We also seek to limit the nature of information about the addresses where we have lived. We are trying to limit the Government.
If the principal purpose of clause 1 is to help us to prevent terrorism—or if it is not—the Government should say so. Our debate is uninformed unless we know that. Furthermore, we need convincing that it will do that. I am also reluctant for the state to have quite so much information from me as an individual, and the new clause seeks to restrict the information to an amount that we regard as reasonable in the circumstances.
I should like to speak to new clause 5. In the limited time available, I want to explain that it aims to limit the use of identity cards to dealing with terrorism or an emergency and that it would introduce the necessity for the Government to seek parliamentary approval every year. As I have explained elsewhere, including on Second Reading, I do not accept that identity cards would help in the fight against terrorism. They would certainly have been of no assistance during the 30 years of IRA violence and murder.
Nevertheless, the Government put great emphasis—more than on anything else—on the view that identity cards would help in the fight against terrorism. Therefore, I believe that, if we are to have such cards, their use should be confined to terrorist outbreaks or the kind emergency that I describe in the new clause. It would then be necessary for the Government to come to the House of Commons to defend and justify their view that such an emergency was about to occur, and to seek the approval of Parliament for the use of identity cards—incidentally, we have not had such cards for more than half a century—and then, if Parliament gives its approval, it would do so on the basis of 12 months. Obviously, the Government would then come back if they require a renewal of powers given by Parliament for that purpose.
For all those reasons, we should confine identity cards along the lines that I have suggested. I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully than they have done.
Is my hon. Friend concerned that the Government have made no response available to hon. Members to the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the human rights aspects of the Bill?
That was mentioned in the debate on the programme motion. That is unfortunate, and perhaps the Minister will refer to it on Third Reading. The criticism that has been made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights is very important. I do not want to appear in any way immodest, but in some respects, it draws on some of the matters raised in the minority report of the Home Affairs Committee, which I recommend, with due modesty, that some Members read, even if the footnotes were not included as they should have been.
Read out the report.
I will resist that temptation.
My other amendment relates to public services. In effect, my argument is that it should not be necessary for those seeking hospital treatment or access to other public services to produce an ID card. At Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who is a supporter of identity cards, said nevertheless that people do not want a society in which the response is, "Where's your papers?" Neither do I, although it would be, "Where's your identity card?" There are already enough checks on people coming along for registration or treatment at a GP surgery or hospital. It would be an undesirable state of affairs in which the first inevitable question asked of a new patient at a GP's premises or hospital is, "Can you show me your identity card?" That is what will occur if the measure is passed without amendment.
The hon. Gentleman is addressing the question of producing an identity card in anticipation of public services. Would he take note of my recent experience buying a new motor car last autumn when the dealer required me to produce my passport? I suggest that the application of identity cards would not be confined to public service but might also become widespread in private sector transactions.
I note that point, but the hon. Gentleman satisfied the motor car dealer by producing his passport. If he did not have a passport, he would no doubt produce other evidence. There is all the difference between that sort of evidence, which we all carry on us, and an identity card. That relates to the debate on Second Reading.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's reply to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is available in the Vote Office?
That is useful.
I went to the Vote Office just before the debate began and it was not available.
Perhaps it is restricted, but it will not be after the Minister's intervention. If the Government have responded in a positive way—I have not read it—that would be very encouraging.
I want to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 42 to 45, which address issues raised in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 would restrict the amount of historic address information. That came up in Committee and we did not receive a satisfactory answer. We want to ensure that any address information is necessary and proportionate to that which is sought to be achieved, and we are not yet clear what the bounds of that are.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are important, particularly amendment No. 44, which has cross-party support and on which we would seek to divide the House, as it is intended to break the link between applications for passports and ID cards. The Committee pointed out that assigning ID cards to those who apply for passports is a fairly arbitrary method. Those who have passports are the very category who do not need ID cards. Therefore, we would seek to make the scheme genuinely voluntary by breaking that link. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment on that basis. If the Government want compulsion later, they can use clause 6 powers to introduce compulsion in a much more open and transparent way, rather than using the passport system.
Does not the House see that the Minister has not had a chance to answer any of these points, which shows that we are once again held in contempt? The Minister must remember that even small cogs in wheels are in the end guilty of destroying great institutions. He ought to remember that he will be held responsible for allowing this scandalous situation, when we can neither debate properly nor can he answer properly—
It being fifteen minutes to Three o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
New Clause 4 — Application of Freedom of Information Act
'(1) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to reports and information which have been prepared in relation to this Act.
(2) The Commissioner is a public authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36).
(3) In relation to requests for information to the Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the exemptions in sections 35 (formulation of Government policy) and 36 (prejudice to effective conduct by public affairs) of that Act cannot be applied.
(4) In relation to requests for information to the Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, any exemption which was considered subject to the provisions in section 23 (information relating to bodies dealing with security matters) shall instead be treated as if the exemption were subject to section 24 (national security) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 20, in clause 24, page 21, line 15, leave out third 'and'.
Amendment No. 21, in clause 24, page 21, line 16, at end insert
'and
(e) the workings of the Identity Card Scheme and the Register including complaints made to him in relation thereto.'.
Amendment No. 15, in page 21, line 17, leave out from 'Commissioner' to end of line 33 and insert
'include general policy matters, but do not include—
(a) the exercise of powers which under this Act are exercisable by statutory instrument or by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I.1979/1573 (N.I.12)) unless any particular case affected by these powers or rules raises a concern of substantial public interest;
(b) the imposition of civil penalties, objections to such penalties or appeals against them, unless a particular penalty, objection or appeal raises a concern of substantial public interest;
(c) the operation of so much of this Act or of any subordinate legislation as imposes or relates to criminal offences in any particular case, unless a particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest;
(d) the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters in any particular case, unless the provision of information in any particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest; or
(e) the provision to another member of the intelligence services, in accordance with regulations under section 23(5), of information that may be provided to that Director-General, Chief or Director in any particular case, unless the provision of information in any particular case raises a concern of substantial public interest.'.
Amendment No. 23, in clause 24, page 21, line 18, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).
Amendment No. 16, in page 21, line 33, at end insert—
'(3A) 'The Commissioner may, where appropriate—
(a) before undertaking a review which includes the policy towards the provision of information to the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service or the Director of the Government Communications Headquarters, liaise with the Intelligence Services Commissioner with a view to referring responsibility for that review to that Commissioner, or
(b) liaise with the Information Commissioner in relation to any processing of personal data.'.
Amendment No. 24, in clause 24, page 21, line 45, at end insert
'to a maximum of ten members of staff'.
Government Amendment No. 56
Amendment No. 17, in clause 24, page 21, line 46, after 'section', insert—
'"Information Commissioner" means the Commissioner established by the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29);'.
Amendment No. 18, in clause 24, page 21, line 47, at end insert—
'"personal data" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29).'.
Amendment No. 26, in clause 25, page 22, line 3, leave out from 'must' to 'about' and insert
'lay before each House of Parliament a general report'.
Amendment No. 27, in clause 25, page 22, line 5, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
'(2) The Commissioner may also, at any time, lay before each House of Parliament such other reports on any matter relating to the carrying out of those functions as the Commissioner thinks fit.'.
Amendment No. 28, in clause 25, page 22, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 29, in clause 25, page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 35, in clause 25, page 22, line 8, leave out 'annual'.
Amendment No. 36, in clause 25, page 22, line 9, at end insert 'and (2)'.
Amendment No. 38, in clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert
'would cause substantial harm to the public interest'.
Amendment No. 37, in clause 25, page 22, line 12, leave out from 'security' to end of line 15.
Amendment No. 39, in clause 25, page 22, line 12, at end insert 'serious'.
Amendment No. 40, in clause 25, page 22, line 13, leave out from 'crime' to 'or' in line 14.
Amendment No. 25, in clause 25, page 22, line 14, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 15.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that the letter in response to questions from the Joint Committee on Human Rights was available in the Vote Office, but that the staff there did not seem to understand that that was what was being requested. However, the Committee asked for a reply by 7 February and said that it would consider the response and report back. There has been no opportunity for the Committee to report back on the Government's response.
That is not really a matter for the Chair, but the point made by the hon. Lady is now on the record.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to indicate—or the Minister, through you—what opportunity it is felt that hon. Members have to consider their response to the Joint Committee report before we continue our debate?
That is not a point of order for the Chair at this stage. All the official documents necessary for dealing with the debate should, of course, be available to the House. That matter has been raised before, and I trust that the documents have been made available.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it not important for us to know exactly when the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report was deposited in the Vote Office? If information is supposed to be available before the debate, surely considerations of reasonableness must apply. Did the Government intend to put the response in the Vote Office only today? Was that an insult, incompetence, or a combination of the two? I think that we ought to be told.
That is not a matter with which I can deal precisely at this time. I repeat what I said earlier—that all Government documents necessary for the debate ought to be available to all hon. Members before the debate starts. I think that we should now proceed, as time is limited today.
No, we have dealt sufficiently with that matter for the time being. If the Government have not done something that they should have done, that will obviously be looked at later.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be extremely grateful if, at the end of this debate, we can have Divisions on new clause 4 and amendment No. 26. I shall speak to the latter in a moment.
The debate has been under way for a little while, and it is time for me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). On Second Reading, he had something to say about the commissioner. I pause only to remind the House that clause 24 was not debated at all in Standing Committee, even though it is the vital clause that deals with the appointment of the national identity scheme commissioner. Neither was clause 25 debated in Committee, but on Second Reading my hon. Friend very properly expressed his disappointment that the Bill made it clear that the commissioner's report
"can, and probably will, be doctored by the Secretary of State before being presented to Parliament".
He went on to say:
"Does that not underline our anxiety that the commissioner will prove to be but a craven lickspittle of the Government?"
He was right to draw our attention to that issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that he had
"a prejudice in favour of the commissioner reporting to the House rather than to the Government".—[Official Report, 24 December 2004, Vol.428, c. 1958.]
What is the effect of my new clause and the associated amendments? Clause 25 provides that the commissioner must make a report to the Secretary of State about the carrying out of his functions. Clause 25(3) states:
"The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of every annual report made to him under subsection (1)."
So far, so good. However, the tricky bit comes next. Clause 25(4) states:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commissioner, that the publication of a particular matter contained in an annual report . . . would be prejudicial to national security,"—
so far, I think, so good—
"the prevention or detection of crime or"—
and the House should mark the next words—
"the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority, or . . . would be otherwise contrary to the public interest"
it could be excluded.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrase
"would otherwise be contrary to the public interest"
is couched in such wide language as to have no meaning other than that the Secretary of State may do as he pleases?
My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the clause seems to give the Secretary of State the power to say, "I don't want Parliament to know about this bit of the report. I don't have to justify it on grounds of national security. I can catch this point under any of these little subsections." Frankly, I am not happy about that.
New clause 4 offers a different way to proceed that would avoid the House getting a watered-down report. As a general proposition, it is impossible to review the Secretary of State's actions independently and properly if the commissioner's reports to Parliament are filtered by him. For that reason, the new clause would establish an alternative scrutiny mechanism under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. New clause 4(2) identifies the commissioner as a public authority under that legislation, and there is no obvious dispute about that. Proposed new subsection (3) would disapply the exemption in the 2000 Act relating to the formulation of Government policy, as well as the prejudice to effective conduct by public affairs. It means that legal advice in relation to human rights and the ID card could be accessible to people who request it. The reason for that is that the Government, as the Joint Committee has shown, cannot be trusted on human rights issues.
New clause 4(4) would remove the absolute national security exemption, mainly because the service has, for example, secret access to details on the register under paragraph 9 of schedule 1. I commend the House to examine that paragraph.
My proposed change would not jeopardise national security, as the 2000 Act contains an additional, non-absolute national security exemption that can be used case by case. In short, new clause 4 would set up a new mechanism that would allow the House of Commons to have access to some information to which it would not have access otherwise but which may be very important. There is no intention to jeopardise national security, to which the new clause poses no threat. All we seek is a method whereby more information can be made available to parliamentarians.
Clause 25 is a recipe for the exercise of ministerial fiat. The new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has commended to the House is absolutely indispensable to provide a brake on the use and abuse of Government power, and I warmly welcome it.
My hon. Friend's words about my little intervention on Second Reading were generous. I am thoroughly depressed about this obnoxious and distasteful Bill, but as a result of his characteristic generosity, I shall go about my business for the rest of the day with a glint in my eye and a spring in my step that would otherwise have been lacking.
If I have brought a glint to my hon. Friend's eye and a spring to his step, I —
Well, if my comments have caused those reactions in my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, I am delighted. It is probably my most useful act of the day.
Should the Minister decline to accept the new clause, would my hon. Friend consider advising colleagues in the other place to delete the phrase
"the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority"
and paragraph (b)? Does he agree that if those amendments were made, subsection (4) would be less offensive?
My right hon. and learned Friend is right. The other place will certainly consider that message. He has made an extremely valid point.
I am conscious of the time and want to make two further points. First—my right hon. and learned Friend touched on this—it would be better if those offensive parts of clause 25(4) relating to the
"discharge of the functions of any public authority, or . . . otherwise contrary to the public interest"
were removed from the Bill, because we do not want to give the Home Secretary carte blanche to do what he likes without the House of Commons knowing about it.
My second point relates to amendment No. 26, which is simple and essential. It would change the clause so that instead of stating that
"the Commissioner must make a report to the Secretary of State",
it would require the commissioner to
"lay before each House of Parliament a general report".
That is essential, which is why I hope that all hon. Members will support my amendment.
There is a further minor amendment. In Committee we debated the cost of the scheme as much as we could—we were heavily curtailed—but never received a satisfactory answer. One of my amendments in Committee, which is now amendment No. 24, relates to the appointment of the national identity scheme commissioner. Clause 24(6) requires the Secretary of State to
"provide the Commissioner with such staff as the Secretary of State considers necessary for the carrying out of the Commissioner's functions."
I pause only to say that at no stage have we been reassured about how many members of staff would be employed by the commissioner. My probing amendment suggests that it should be limited to 10, but it is only a probing amendment. Why would I probe? The answer is simple—it would be helpful when looking at the cost of the whole scheme to know what the cost of the commissioner and his staff will be. At the end of the day, someone must pay. There was an exchange in Committee when the Minister said that the issue had very little to do with taxpayers' money because the burden would be on the individual to pay for the service—[Interruption.] Well, if I have misquoted him, he will put me right, because he will have a chance today to speak to the House. He has not had that chance yet, but I hope that he will.
The national identity scheme commissioner should have broad and strong powers, and they should be wide-ranging and not limited. The commissioner should have greater powers to take any steps that he or she wants to take in relation to the scheme, even to the extent of receiving complaints from individuals about the way in which it is running. I do not want his powers to be limited. That is the genus of our amendments.
I am certain that any decent Government—I hope that this Government are decent—would accept the proposition that the commissioner should report direct to the House of Commons and would also accept that while matters concerning national security should perhaps be kept from the House, that is the limit of what should be kept back. Matters should not be excluded just because it suits the Secretary of State for us not to hear about them, otherwise there would be yet a further diminution in our influence and power. I hope that the debate on my new clause and amendments will produce some interesting arguments during the amazingly short time left to us.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to this group of amendments, will he explain how and in what way the commissioner will have the power to protect the rights of the individual? The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) touched on that. If information on the register is inaccurate and wrong, or if the register is in some way abused, how will our constituents seek redress? I cannot see in these clauses that the commissioner has specific powers to act as a tribunal and guardian of individuals' rights. Should our constituents appeal to the commissioner, either through us or in their own right, and what could the commissioner do to put the matter right?
I suspect that every hon. Member has had constituents who have found that their credit rating is incorrect. A couple of years ago, one of my constituents had that problem and although the credit card company recognised and eventually admitted that its information was wrong and my constituent should not have been denied a credit rating, it took me nine months and unending correspondence to get it corrected. If that happens with a relatively small commercial data bank, how will constituents obtain redress and correct information? Surely, we must have a fast-track method of appeal to the commissioner, or to someone else, to have such information corrected. Otherwise, there will be absolutely no confidence in the scheme.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commissioner might wish to use his annual report to identify such errors and to bring them to the attention of the House, so is it not undesirable to give the Secretary of State the power to amend the commissioner's report in the wide terms set out in clause 25?
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is addressing—correctly—the strategic macro point, but I do not want to lose my micro point about individuals. Whatever the virtues of the scheme, it will be completely discredited if it is seen to abuse the rights of individuals and people will not have confidence in it. In a scheme of this scale, which requires individuals to submit 56 pieces of information, things are bound to go wrong and there must be a fast-track procedure to put them right.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern from past experience of things going wrong. When the previous Government introduced the poll tax, one of its flaws, in addition to its unfairness, was that it attempted to keep a register of where everyone lived and, in the process, managed to introduce many mistakes. That register involved just names, addresses and locations of people, not the wealth of information that the national identity scheme will require.
It is inevitable that there will be mistakes, so it is essential that our constituents have an easy, comprehensible and swift way of putting them right, otherwise their career and many other aspects of their life could be put at prejudice. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that point before we vote on the new clause.
I am pleased that this group of amendments has been tabled, as it is an opportunity to explore at more leisure than we had on the previous group whether the commissioner will be any more than a fig leaf to cover the Government's embarrassment or genuinely an organisation or individual who will be a fearless champion for the citizen. That is what we are interested in.
When discussing these issues we must remember why an individual might want to go to the commissioner. What might have happened to them? They may be seeking redress for a range of serious circumstances. We know that the cards will be used for public services. A person may have had all kinds of hassle accessing a public service; they may have found it difficult to obtain health care or education. Those are serious matters for an individual. The person may have been falsely arrested and have had problems with the criminal justice system. We have seen how errors in the Criminal Records Bureau system have led to individual cases of hardship, where a person has been denied a job because a record is fake or has been falsely matched. We must be aware that people could be seeking redress for serious circumstances.
A person could have had travel difficulties. They might have failed to buy a car that they were after.
On cue! The hon. Gentleman knows my theme—about needing a passport to acquire a new car. He was talking about accessing public services with the aid of an identity card. Would he care, just for a moment, to speculate on how widely the use of an identity card might be made necessary in private sector transactions?
The hon. Gentleman is correct. A typical circumstance that someone may take to the commissioner is that in a financial transaction a bank has denied them access to financial services or they have been hauled up on suspicion of doing something they had not done, because the identity card checking process has gone wrong somehow, as it will do in some cases.
In Committee, we discussed the fact that there will be a trickle-down effect. Banks will be offered a voluntary service for checking people against the identity register and will be charged for that service. That is in the Bill. But then the Government could come along with money laundering regulations that will make the process mandatory if the banks want to be in the clear under those regulations. There will be a trickle-down effect; the ID card could come into play for a huge range of everyday transactions, for all of which people might want to go to the identity commissioner.
We must take the amendments seriously. They try to remove some of the restrictions that the Government have placed on the ability of the commissioner to carry out his or her work. Governments increasingly like commissioners for all sorts of things. We have seen how some of them—for example, the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, and the data protection commissioner, Elizabeth France before him—can build their roles and perform a good function. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards performs an effective function. The measure of that is the extent to which commissioners can criticise Ministers and the Government, on a serious and well-founded basis, and have that criticism accepted.
Well-functioning commissioners have an important role in making criticisms of particular instances and in drawing lessons from them to show why the system is flawed. That is what we want the identity scheme commissioner to be able to do. If, as we fear, the identity card system contains serious flaws, we want the commissioner genuinely to be able to highlight them and bring them to Parliament so that we can hold an informed debate and either scrap the scheme or change it, depending on the depth of concern. Our fear is that unless we accept some of the amendments or the Government make their own proposals to strengthen the commissioner's hand, the commissioner will be too weak.
The Government, like previous Governments, have been desperately keen to avoid judicial review of anything that they do. It now seems to be built into legislation—Ministers do not like being hauled up before the courts and told that their legislation is poor. I suspect that the commissioner process is part of that. The Government hope that the commissioner will deflect some of the criticisms that might otherwise come through the courts and be directed at a Minister.
I fear that the proposed commissioner system will still leave citizens having to take the judicial review route, which is much less satisfactory than being able to put the case to the commissioner, particularly in respect of the exclusion applied to the commissioner looking at the way that fines are levied. As we understand it, the Secretary of State, almost personally, will be taking people to court. The Secretary of State will take people to the county court saying, "You owe me £1,000 because you didn't register. You didn't notify your change of details or do x, y or z." The county court could send the bailiffs round if a person did not pay up. The Government are trying to avoid poll tax martyrs, so they have set up a complicated civil recovery scheme, yet the commissioner, unless the clause is amended, will have no power to look into that system.
Have the Government offered any explanation at all of subsection (4)(b) of clause 25, the circumstances in which uncensored publication of the commissioner's report would be
"otherwise contrary to the public interest"?
If such an explanation has been offered, I have not yet heard it and it is palpable that, particularly in the early stages when all sorts of mistakes are made, the Government will have a huge vested political interest in suppressing publication on the ground that otherwise confidence in the whole scheme might—perish the thought—be damaged.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that point. We received no explanation whatever in Committee because the clause was not debated; it just passed through. We had no opportunity to go into the detail of how the process would work. There is a clear statement in the clause that the Secretary of State can suppress matter if it would be contrary to the
"continued discharge of the functions of any public authority".
I think that plays to the hon. Gentleman's point. If the functioning of the identity card scheme would be damaged by publishing criticism of the scheme, we shall not criticise it. The law as currently drafted would seem to permit the Secretary of State to do that. If the Government have something to be embarrassed about, if they have dirty washing, let us have it out in public. What is the point of having a commissioner if they are not able to do that?
Unless the clause is amended, sadly, we shall have a fig leaf commissioner rather than, as I want to see, a fearless champion of the citizen. There will be a spill-over. If people cannot obtain satisfaction from the commissioner, there will be judicial review. The case will go to the parliamentary commissioner, the ombudsman, instead of to the identity commissioner. People will bypass the process. For example, if the problem was with the health service, they would go to the health service commissioner. We run the risk of creating a real mess and that is not satisfactory from the citizen's point of view.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the great advantage of new clause 4 is that it makes information available to the citizen, on the back of which the citizen can go to the court for judicial review if he feels that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct about the citizen having access to information. There are other examples of the kind of harm we are talking about. Something may have happened to the system that meant that a citizen was denied entry to another country. They may have spent several thousand pounds to somewhere, but then have immediately been flown home again. That would be a serious incident in anyone's life. If that occurs, they must be able to obtain information about what went wrong. If there is any suggestion of blanket coverage, if the individual was told for example, that it was an agreement between the UK and the United States authorities covered by terribly secret terrorism provisions, when they were merely going on holiday to Disneyworld, that would not be satisfactory in terms of the citizen's ability to obtain redress. I question the point of having a commissioner if they were unable to expose that type of information. I hope that the citizen could go to the commissioner and say, "I turned up at Orlando airport and they sent me back. They said it was something that came out of the identity system that we are all part of now." I hope that the commissioner could say, "Right, I'm going to get on with that. We will take the case through whatever process we need to get the redress that you are after."
My fear is that the citizen will meet a blank wall and the commissioner will not offer such satisfaction. I hope that the Minister, in the time available to him, will be able to offer some more assurances. I suspect that this is one of the issues that will have to be picked up at greater length in the Committee proceedings down the corridor in the Lords, where they often do have sufficient time to consider such things. I certainly feel that to establish the commissioner without testing his real powers and accepting some of the amendments will not offer citizens the safeguards that they need for a scheme of this significance.
I shall be brief because this is a time-limited debate. I shall confine myself to three points. First, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an important point. It is certain that errors will be made with regard to individuals. One of the problems about the Bill is that the individual will not be well placed, perhaps not placed at all, to identify the fact of an error or to challenge it. The advantage of the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is that it will make it possible for a citizen, using the procedure set out in new clause 4, to identify errors of fact made in relation to them. Once an error of fact has been identified, corrective action is possible. I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that new clause 4 goes directly to the anxiety that he has properly expressed.
Secondly, looking at the wide powers set out in clause 25(4), one has to accept that, in reality, they give the Secretary of State of the day the power to amend at will the report of the commissioner. Phrases such as
"would be otherwise contrary to the public interest,"
and
"prejudicial to . . . the continued discharge of the functions of any public authority"
are so wide that there are few Secretaries of State who could not bring their own prejudices within the parameters of those phrases. And of course the discharge of that amending function is not reviewable, which takes one back to new clause 4. If new clause 4 is accepted, individuals—whether they be Members of this House or someone else—will be able to say, having obtained that information, that the exclusion of material from the commissioner's report is unreasonable and does not fall within the language of this Bill and either raise it as a parliamentary matter or seek judicial review of it. That is particularly important when one reflects that the commissioner might well wish to use his annual report as a vehicle for criticising the Government's use of the scheme. It would be intolerable if the Secretary of State was able, by using the language of clause 25(4), to delete that criticism.
My final point is that my own preference, and one that I commend to the House, and through this House to the other place, is the approach recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, namely, to approve new clause 4 or something like it and to amend the language of clause 25(4) broadly in terms of amendment No. 38, which is in this group, so as to remove the offensively wide language on which I have addressed the House.
As time is pressing, that is all that I wish to say, although were time not so limited, I would wish to say a lot more.
I rise to oppose the new clause and amendments and to speak to amendment No. 56, which I think, when I explain it, will give some significant comfort to hon. Members, especially those who espouse the provisions of new clause 4. Amendment No. 56 in substantial measure covers exactly the same ground as new clause 4, although there are qualifications, which I shall come to in a moment.
Before I deal with the new clause and amendments and the questions that I have been asked—to the extent that I am able to answer them—it is important that I put on record the position in relation to the Government's response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report. I am disappointed at the way in which hon. Members have implied in the House that the Government were dilatory or that there was some attempt not to make the information available to Members of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I might say that those observations were made to some degree in bad faith because no one asked me about the matter at any point or made any inquiries about the true circumstances.
The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is correct. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested that the Home Secretary respond to the Committee's report within seven days and named the date of 7 February. The letter that was sent from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was dated 26 January, and it arrived at the Home Office and was received by the Home Secretary on 28 January. He responded by 8 February, which was one day out. Bearing in mind the fact that the report was received two days after the date of the letter that accompanied it, I do not think that that is a matter of serious criticism.
I think that all hon. Members have now had access to the letter, and they will see that its final paragraph contains an appropriate request to the Chair of the Joint Committee that with her permission, which was sought by implication in the request,
"it would be helpful . . . to make this reply available to the House for the remaining stages of the Bill on 10th February."
That permission was given yesterday, and the letter was deposited in the Vote Office before 10 o'clock this morning. Nothing could have been done in any sense any quicker, and I do not think that there can be any criticism of the way in which the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have acted in relation to this issue.
The Committee set the date of 7 February, but it would not have been aware that we would debate the Bill on Report so soon. Obviously, the Committee has not been given sufficient time to report to the House about whether it considers the Home Secretary's response satisfactory.
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. All those observations are truisms, but the workings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights are matters entirely for the members of the Joint Committee, and the timetable for their work and the priority that they give to their work are matters entirely for them. The Bill has been published in draft form—substantially the same form as at present—for some months now. I make no criticism of the members of that Committee. Indeed, I was a member of it at one stage and served with some members of the current Committee for whom I have the greatest regard. However, it cannot be a criticism of the Government that a Committee of the House adopted a certain timetable—that is the only point that I make.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as I understand that he is a member of the Joint Committee.
I am a member of the Joint Committee. Of course, the drumbeat of Home Office legislation that touches on human rights matters is so great that we are running behind the Government. That is the difficulty that this huge volume of legislation places on us, as well the constraints that lie within it. It is in the Government's gift to make reasonable the passage of Bills and the deliberation of Select Committees. That is what all this is about.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I remind the House that, before the Government's incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the law of this land, there was probably no need in the House for the Joint Committee on Humans Rights.
I am afraid that that simply will not do. I have the very highest regard for the Minister's ability, as he knows. Moreover, I do not on a daily basis make partisan points for the sake of it—when the Government are right, I am quite happy to say so—but what we have just heard in relation to this matter from the Minister is a very shabby piece of buck-passing. No hon. Member on the Floor of the House is suggesting for one moment that the timetable for the activities of the Joint Committee, or those of any other Committee, should properly be a matter for the Minister. Does the Minister accept that one is entitled to say that the Government should operate on a joined-up basis? If the Minister did not know what the Whips Office had in mind when scheduling the Bill's consideration on Report and Third Reading, he certainly should have done. It should have been his priority to do everything that he could to ensure that the Joint Committee's report was available for consideration by Members well before today's debate.
I do not want this to turn into a mutual admiration society, but I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, too, although he is perhaps inflating the debate on this issue slightly. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been available to hon. Members for some time. Nothing that the Government have done has interfered in any way with hon. Members' ability to access the report. I thought that I would be able to cover this matter in a few minutes, but it has turned into a mini-debate of its own. However, hon. Members will agree that some comments that were made strongly implied that the Government delayed their response to the report and produced it at the last minute. I was merely pointing out that the Government responded within the Joint Committee's requested timetable—albeit one day out—and that a further day's delay was required before the Joint Committee gave permission for the letter to be placed in the Vote Office.
I never attribute bad faith to the Minister—quite the reverse—but now is the time for frankness. Does he think that it would have been helpful to the Standing Committee if it had had the benefit of the report during its deliberations? Does he also think that all hon. Members would have benefited if the Government had produced their report a little earlier? I am sure that he will be frank and say yes.
I will be frank and say yes. It would be nonsensical to say anything but that that would have been helpful. I am merely explaining to the House how events arose because although there was a clear implication that timings were manipulated, they were not.
In the few minutes that remain, may I try to reassure hon. Members who want to be satisfied that the Government intend the commissioner to work with teeth and be a formidable person? The Government's response to the report of the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that we accepted the recommendation that the national identity scheme commissioner should have a broader oversight of the whole scheme, which is provided for by clauses 24 and 25. The commissioner's remit will thus include examining the uses to which ID cards are put, the dealings of all recipients of information held on the register and the administration of the issuing of cards.
Will the Minister specify the relationship of the commissioner with the Scottish Parliament and its Committees?
The commissioner will have no relationship with the Scottish Parliament and its Committees under the Bill's structure because we are not considering a devolved matter. There would be no reason for the commissioner to have a direct relationship with the Scottish Parliament.
The Minister said that one aspect of the commissioner's remit will be examining the uses to which identity cards are put. Many of the uses to which they will be put in England will not be those to which they will be put in Scotland. How can the Minister maintain that that is of no relevance to the Scottish Parliament and its Committees?
I am not suggesting that the commissioner's actions will be of no relevance to the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question to which I gave a specific answer.
Hon. Members posed questions about the commissioner's ability to listen to specific complaints. The commissioner will of course be able to listen to specific complaints and will have a strong advisory role to the Secretary of State. I understand that there is a clear and established process if there are errors in the issuing of driving licences, which eventually ends with the possibility of judicial review, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out. The commissioner will be able to take individual complaints from people who are affected by the process and from people whose attempts to correct information on the register were not successful.
New clause 4 relates to the status of reports and information from the national identity scheme commissioner in respect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The most important aspect of the new clause is that subsection (2) would make the commissioner a public authority under that Act. Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act lists all public authorities for the purpose of the Act.
I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising that. They are no doubt aware that it is not strictly necessary for the Bill to be amended because it is possible to add to the list of public authorities by order. The Government could do that later, which was our intention. However, as dealing with that important issue in the Bill has merit, I accordingly tabled Government amendment No. 56 to do just that. I must, however, reject subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause which relate to Freedom of Information Act exemptions for the formulation of Government policy—
It being fifteen minutes to Four o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Clause 24 — Appointment of National Identity Scheme Commissioner
Amendment made: No. 56, in page 21, line 45 at end insert—
'( ) In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) (public authorities for the purposes of that Act), at the appropriate place, insert—
"The National Identity Scheme Commissioner.".'.— [Mr. Heppell]
Clause 25 — Reports by Commissioner
Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 22, line 3 [Clause 25], leave out from 'must' to 'about' and insert
'lay before each House of Parliament a general report'.— [Mr. Malins]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 236.
New Clause 3 — Disclosure from the Register: Unlawful Activities
'(1) This section shall have effect in relation to any disclosure from the Register which is authorised by provisions in sections 19 to 23.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who obtains information about an individual from the Register to retain copies of that information for the purpose of duplicating the Register or part of the Register.
(3) It shall be unlawful for any person who obtains information about a particular individual from the Register to disclose that information about that individual to another public authority unless an entry relating to that disclosure is recorded in the Register for that individual.
(4) It shall be unlawful for any person who obtains information about a particular individual from the Register to disclose that information about that individual to another person for his (the second person's) purpose where the other person is not authorised to obtain that information directly from the Register.
(5) The term "connected with" shall not be construed as meaning that the connection with a particular event is remote or unlikely, but to the contrary, that the connection with an event is significant or that failure to obtain the information from the Register could prejudice an investigation into that event.
(6) The phrase "in the interests of national security" shall be construed as meaning that failure to obtain the information from the Register would cause prejudice to the objective of safeguarding national security.
(7) Any person who obtains information from the Register shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that any obtaining, use or disclosure of the information is consistent with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).'.—[Patrick Mercer.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—The Register and CCTV Systems—
'Use of the National Identity Register in conjunction with CCTV systems shall be considered to be directed surveillance for the purposes of Part 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23).'.
Government amendment No. 53.
Amendment No. 46, in clause 22, page 19, line 43, after 'information', insert
'not falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1'.
Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
Amendment No. 47, in clause 22, page 20, line 1, after 'person', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.
Amendment No. 30, in clause 23, page 20, line 13, leave out 'reasonably practicable' and insert 'possible'.
Amendment No. 32, in clause 23, page 20, line 26, leave out from 'person' to end of line 28.
Amendment No. 31, in clause 23, page 20, line 47, at end insert—
'(6) The Secretary of State must not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of such regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
I am conscious that we have a lot to get through in a very short space of time. Certainly, Conservative Members feel that we did not have enough time to cover as many clauses as we would have liked in Committee, where we constantly ran out of time, although I hope that I spoke with great brevity. I will try to do so again today, so that Members who are interested in speaking to their amendments in the available 15 minutes or so will have the opportunity to take part in the debate.
I will speak briefly to new clause 3, as well as amendments Nos. 30 to 32. It is designed to address the issue of disclosure from the register in terms of unlawful activities. First and foremost, I am extremely concerned about the wide powers in clause 19(1), which, to remind the House, says:
"The Secretary of State may, without the individual's consent, provide a person with information recorded in an individual's entry in the Register if . . . the provision of the information is authorised by this section; and . . . there is compliance with any requirements imposed by or under section 23 in relation to the provision of the information."
I am concerned about such wide powers to disclose information held on the register without the consent of registered individuals. The range of eligible authorities under clause 19(2)—the director general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of the Government Communications Headquarters and the director general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—means that far too wide a register of individuals can be concerned with this. Moreover, the test on what information can be disclosed to such bodies—in other words, "for purposes connected with"—is insufficient. That is why new clause 3 would provide that the
"term 'connected with' shall not be construed as meaning that the connection with a particular event is remote or unlikely, but to the contrary, that the connection with an event is significant or that failure to obtain the information from the Register could prejudice an investigation into that event."
Similarly, the authorisation to disclose information that does not fall within paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to a chief officer of police for the prevention and detection of crime under clause 19(4) is far too wide. I shall not bore hon. Members by talking about that in great detail except to underline that subsection (4) specifies
"in the interests of national security".
New clause 3 tries to redefine that by stating:
"The phrase 'in the interests of national security' shall be construed as meaning that failure to obtain the information from the Register would cause prejudice to the objective of safeguarding national security."
I am concerned that the police could conceivably have information routinely disclosed through the powers of the clause. I also view the disclosure of information that does not fall within paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to a prescribed Department
"for purposes connected with the carrying out of any prescribed functions of that department or of a Minister in charge of it"
in clause 19(5) as not tight enough. The provisions need to be much more clearly focused and new clause 3 achieves that.
I am worried about the powers of disclosure in clause 21(2), which would allow disclosure to a person who provides "inaccurate or incomplete information" of the discrepancies between it and the information recorded on the register. Regardless of whether the person who provides the information is an individual who represents himself or herself to an organisation for entitlement or an organisation that requests information to check against what an individual provides, disclosing the discrepancies would be most unwise.
The seventh data protection principle requires data controllers to take appropriate technical and organisational measures against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss, destruction or damage to personal data. Given the importance of the national register and its security and the number of linking organisations, that will be tremendously difficult and technical. Above all, the managerial task, which includes staff vetting, and dealing with the rules and different cultures across the many organisations, will be difficult. To ensure that the principle is met, there should be clear information for users about how their data will be used, processed and transferred. We need unambiguous consent—that is essential—and I believe that new clause 3 would cover that.
I am concerned about the extended powers of disclosure without consent in clause 22. Previous clauses provide an extensive list of personnel, some of whom we have covered, who may get access to an individual's information. However, clause 22 provides the Home Secretary with an opportunity to add people and purposes by order. Again, it is far too slackly defined and bestows far too much power.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important in highlighting to the public the scope and dangers of the Bill that we should underline what secondary legislation means? As my hon. Friend well knows, it means that, subsequently, the Government will set up delegated legislation Committees to sit upstairs and consider proposed extensions of power for an hour and a half at most. The Government are contemplating that, and they hope that the public will either not notice or understand and cannot therefore complain.
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a clear and unambiguous point, which we are trying to achieve in new clause 3. We made that point consistently in Committee. I hope that the Government have listened, but I take my hon. Friend's point. If we try to tighten the clause and explain it in unambiguous language, we will get some way towards tackling my hon. Friend's point.
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, which deal with the rules for using information without an individual's consent. Amendment No. 30 would substitute the word "possible" for "reasonably practicable" in clause 23(1). Amendment No. 32 would delete clause 23(3)(c), and amendment No. 31 would add to the clause the sentence:
"The Secretary of State must not make any regulations under this section unless a draft of such regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
That addresses the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just made.
New clause 3 and our other amendments in this group would considerably clarify what is going on, and considerably narrow the scope of the provisions, making them much less likely to be abused.
I rise to speak to new clause 6 and amendments Nos. 46 and 47. I shall deal with the amendments briefly, because Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55 seem to deal with the issues involved, which came out of our considerations in Committee. Amendment No. 46 identifies a particular kind of data that Committee veterans will know as "schedule 1, paragraph 9 data". These are the audit data, the trial of information on every time the national identity database has been checked. Significant invasions of privacy could occur as a result of its use, because it could be shown that someone had accessed a public service in a particular place, or been abroad at a certain time, for example. The gathering of this kind of data is most intrusive, and I am pleased that amendment No. 54 seems to accept that it should not be available to be given out under the powers in clause 22.
Amendment No. 47 was important. I asked the Minister in Committee whether he could introduce an order under clause 22 to allow the FBI, Europol or any other external, foreign agency access to the entirety of our national identity database without our consent. He replied in his usual forthright manner that, yes, the existing wording would allow that. I hope that he will now confirm that amendment No. 55—which changes the word "person" to "public authority"—will achieve what we were trying to achieve, namely, that the authority in question would have to be a UK public authority. People are interested to know who will be using the national identity register database, and their legitimate concerns are motivated not by xenophobia but by an interest in whether the bodies that will have access to the data will be accountable under the British constitution and jurisdiction, or whether the provision will extend to external bodies. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what is meant by "public authority".
I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. If I have a chance later, I will expand on that, but I can give him that reassurance now.
I am grateful to the Minister.
New clause 6 merits a much longer debate, but I shall spend just a few minutes on it now. It springs from a question that arose in my mind as I was reading Jane's Police Review—my normal bedtime reading—which is a police product review that describes the products that are available to the police. It talks about the use of biometric technology in combination with technology such as closed-circuit TV cameras. This country has more CCTV cameras per head of population than anywhere else. There are 4 million of them out there, and they have their uses. However, one use to which they had not been able to be put, because the technology was not there, was the real-time monitoring of people as they go round the streets. They are used for evidence gathering and deterrence, but if we were to move to such monitoring, it would be a significant change.
Tim Lott writes in the Evening Standard tonight:
"For most of us, liberty is a feeling rather than the difference between jail and freedom—but it is a feeling I value tremendously. The idea of being able to go about my private business without being stopped by a policeman, or observed by a secret camera, strikes me as something many of us so take for granted that we can't imagine what it would be like to lose it."
That is at the heart of this issue: the idea that we could be monitored everywhere we went changes the feeling that we have as we go about our business. We are trying to test that in our proposals, and to understand whether the protections that Parliament has rightly put in place—including the legal safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which establish who authorises any surveillance, what suspicion has to be shown and what thresholds apply—will apply under the new regime if the Government have their way. Questioning that is justified. Jane's Police Review provides some lovely quotes—for example:
"The co-ordinated national use of intelligent tracking systems . . . which can piggyback onto the CCTV network is viewed within the service as something of a holy grail."
I accept that it may be a holy grail for law enforcement purposes, but it is not necessarily a holy grail for privacy. Throughout this debate, we have tried to argue that law enforcement measures are necessary, but they must always be necessary and proportionate in respect of the invasion of privacy that takes place. It is a delicate balance to strike, and we are trying to establish whether it has gone too far.
If one of the hon. Gentleman's or my constituents were attacked by a group of youths, and were they to find themselves recorded on CCTV cameras, is he saying that we should not use that for identification, along with national identity cards?
The hon. Gentleman has described the kind of circumstances in which, under normal policing procedures, it would be acceptable. I am not seeking to rule out the use of the technology where appropriate; I am trying to establish the bounds of that technology. What would be inappropriate, for example, would be people outside the police service who monitor CCTV cameras having access to the database to monitor everybody going past. There would be temptations for people to seek to abuse that. What I am trying to do, and what the amendment specifically tries to do, is to ask: will the strict legal safeguards that would be in place were the police doing it be applied universally? If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the cards, as I believe that he is, he needs to assure his constituents that they will be used for the purposes that he intends, and not abused.
On the question of priority, would the hon. Gentleman's priority be the privacy of someone walking the streets or the fact that CCTV cameras would enable them to walk the streets safely?
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the balance that we must always strike. We want both, and the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A clear principle is established in the Human Rights Act 1998, which he and his Government support, whereby breaches of privacy can take place if they are necessary and proportionate to that which we are seeking achieve. Throughout discussion of the Bill, we have tried to establish where that boundary is. It is possible to have a complete surveillance state. It is possible for CCTV cameras to scan everybody, with a record of where everybody in the country is at any particular moment. The technology will enable that. The decision for us is whether the benefit of being able to catch additional criminals outweighs the potential loss of privacy and freedom. We are approaching that debate with an open mind, and we are seeking to establish those boundaries in the new clause.
With an eye to the clock, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that my view is that the proper interpretation of the Bill, should it become an Act, in relation to its specific purposes and the issue of proportionality, would rule out the very use of CCTV cameras and such images that he fears. They could not be used under the Act in the way that he fears, whereas they could be used in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) suggests, as he agrees that they should be.
If nothing else, the debate has been helpful for producing that intervention from the Minister.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is precisely the kind of issue that we should have discussed in full, so that we would understand the answers? Those of us who are in favour of identity cards now find ourselves progressively wanting to vote against the Bill, simply because we have not had the time to discuss these issues, and our constituents deserve an answer to those questions.
I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to continue progressing towards wanting to vote against this Bill. He is right in saying that, as that is precisely what we have found. As we have explored these issues, we have found more and more implications that have not necessarily been considered. We are asking people to buy into this scheme with their own money—for a family to take part in the scheme, they will have to put their hands in their pockets and pay several hundred pounds. With all the promises made, we do not really understand the full implications. That is what we have been trying to tease out, and we still do not have all the answers. The Minister has given some kind of assurance.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we welcome what the Minister has said, but is this a Pepper v. Hart situation? The Minister, who commands considerable respect in all parts of the House, has said something helpful, but I am not sure that what he has said is in the Bill.
It would be useful to have a further 20 minutes to discuss this issue of fundamental importance, about which a number of us feel strongly. Instead, we have 20 seconds, which I will give to the Minister to allow him to do his best or worst.
I feel that I must speak to the Government amendments, which are responsive to issues raised in Committee. When clause 22 was debated, I undertook further to consider some of the issues and I have proposed three Government amendments, two of which would make amendment No. 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), redundant. Government amendments Nos. 53 and 55 restrict the bodies to whom information can be provided without consent to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act—
It being half-past Four o'clock Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
New clause 3 disagreed to.
It being after half-past Four o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
Clause 5 — Applications Relating to Entries in Register
Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 4, line 43, at end insert
'(d) state that the individual does not consent to be included in the Register on the basis of the application.'.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his point of order relates to the Division?
I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could tell us what we are voting on. Amendment No. 44 does not appear on the list of amendments to be considered.
The sequence of voting is correct. The amendment was under discussion in a previous debate.
Clause 4 — Designation of Documents for Purposes of Registration etc.
Amendment made: No. 52, in page 4, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State must not make an order containing (with or without other provision) any provision designating a description of documents for the purposes of this Act unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 22 — Power to Authorise Other Uses of Information
Amendments made: No. 53, in page 19, line 43, leave out 'person' and insert 'public authority'.
No. 54, in page 19, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) the information is not information falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1;'.
No. 55, in page 20, line 1, leave out 'person' and insert 'public authority'.—[Mr. Browne]
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, no Member is allowed to criticise the Chairman's choice of speaker or amendment, but is that not, in effect, what has just happened in terms of the Government's restriction of time motion? Nine amendments, duly selected by Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means, were down for debate, in order, yet as a result of the timetable motion we have not even been allowed to start that debate. The timetable motion is so restrictive that the Minister did not even have time to introduce them—[Interruption.]
Order. I cannot hear. The hon. Member will continue with his point of order.
Those key amendments affect Scotland and Wales. The Minister, who represents Kilmarnock and Loudoun, has arranged for them not to be discussed. Is not that an abuse not just of the House and its procedures but of the Chair? Given that no hon. Member would be allowed to do that, why should the Government be allowed to do it?
The Chair is in no way responsible for the timetable and the programme motion. I am afraid, therefore, that we must follow the programme agreed by the House.
Clause 28 — Identity Documents for the Purposes of S. 27
I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 25, line 11, at end insert 'or'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58 to 60 and 75 to 78.
During debate in Committee, I undertook to look again at the legal status of the counterpart driving licence, which forms part of the definition of a UK driving licence in clause 28. The clause lists the identity documents to which the clause 27 offences of possessing false identity documents apply. Doubts were raised at the time about whether the counterpart—that is, the paper part of a photographic card driving licence—should be considered an identity document.
On 3 February, I wrote to the Chair of the Committee with the results of my consideration, which I will briefly summarise. Both the photocard licence and the counterpart have to be produced to the police and courts in certain circumstances relating to road traffic offences. Many people of course still hold valid paper driving licences that incorporate the counterpart. However, the Road Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to create an electronic driving record that will be available to the police. The legislation includes a provision to remove references to the counterpart in existing legislation. It is anticipated that the Bill, if enacted, would not come into force until about 2007 or 2008.
In view of the intention to abolish the counterpart licence, I have decided that we should simplify the definition of a UK driving licence by removing it from clause 28(3)(c) in respect of that offence. I therefore invite the House to agree to the amendment.
Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60 bring the commissioner and his staff within the remit of the clause 29 offence of unauthorised disclosure of information. Disclosures made as part of the commissioner's functions will not be caught by the offence, but clearly it would be unacceptable for the commissioner's staff to make unauthorised disclosures of information to which they had access as a result of their employment. I see no reason why such behaviour should not be criminalised. It is therefore right that the clause 29 offence should be extended in the way proposed in Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60, and I invite the House to accept them.
Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 restructure the offence in clause 31 of tampering with the register and Government amendment No. 77 is a technical amendment which replaces "is" with "may be". It is not intended to be a substantial change. The effect of amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78 is to make it clearer that it is a defence to a charge under this clause to have an honest and reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that the modification made to the register was authorised. The way in which a prosecution under clause 31 would work is as follows. The prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant caused a modification of the register and that the modification was unauthorised. "Unauthorised" is a term defined in subsection (5); it is an objective concept.
It would be a defence for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that, notwithstanding the lack of objective authority, he held a reasonable subjective belief that the modification was authorised. I consider that the amendments structure the offence in a clearer way, and I urge hon. Members to support them.
I have nothing further to add on this group of amendments and I commend them to the House.
I am grateful to the Minister. There were times in Committee when it seemed that we were making no progress and that nothing at all was being given by the Minister. Therefore, much of what he has just said meets with our approval, especially about amendment No. 57, which relates to clause 28 and the driving licence. It strikes me as a helpful and sensible way forward. I suggest that our amendment No. 41 would have been clearer, simpler and probably easier than Government amendments Nos. 59 and 60, which achieve the same end.
Everything that the Minister says about so-called whistleblowers and public interest disclosures makes a great deal of sense. We dwelt on that quite long enough in Committee to show how important it was. I broadly welcome what he has said.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's comments. This is an example of constructive Committee work. We had to go through the clauses to which these amendments relate fairly quickly. It would have been good to spend a little more time on them in Committee. The issues that we picked up are ones that the Government have accepted.
I raised the issue of the counterpart driving licence as much as anything so that I could highlight the ridiculous system for getting a replacement driving licence. If one loses the whole licence, it is considerably easier to get a replacement than if one loses one part of it. The Minister has told us today that there is a broader solution to that, which will filter its way through to the provisions in the Bill, and has tabled amendments for that purpose. That is entirely welcome.
The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) raised the point about whistleblowing or public interest disclosure. We feel that it is an important one. People should be able to report abuses of the system. We felt we had good reason for that because there have been abuses of other systems such as the police national computer, and they have resulted in prosecutions. Fortunately, they are few and far between, but when they occur it is important that no one feels legally constrained in making allegations if they are justified.
Both sets of amendments are thoroughly welcome and non-contentious. I hazard to suggest that if we had longer in Committee we could have made even more helpful suggestions to improve a Bill that the Liberal Democrats do not want to see go through, but wish to do what they can to make it less bad.
I wish to take a few more minutes of the House's time to put on record how grateful I am to the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for their constructive response. As this may be the last opportunity that I have to speak to the Bill in the House—it may not; we do not know—I wish to say that I appreciate the constructive way in which the Committee conducted most of its work. I greatly appreciated the atmosphere in which its work was done, even when I did not think that significant progress was being made—and that was a comparatively short period.
The Government amendments contain examples of the Government listening to constructive criticism and responding, and I hope that that response has improved the Bill. I am particularly proud of the Bill for the paucity of Government amendments that had to be introduced unprompted by the Committee. That is a credit to the officials and the draftsmanship of the Bill, as well as the pre-legislative scrutiny that it received.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he is speaking. He may remember that he offered a bet to each of us who served on the Committee that the Government would introduce fewer amendments than could be counted on the fingers of one hand. We thought that each of us would win a bottle of champagne if the number exceeded three or four. I wonder whether he can help us.
The hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. Part of what he remembers is correct, but we will need to check the Official Report to find out whether his memory is comprehensive. I think that I made a rash prediction that a smaller number than this very small number of Government amendments would be introduced. I should not have underestimated the persuasive powers of the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee.
I hope that the Minister will accept in a positive spirit that the scale of what is required from his pocket should be roughly in proportion to the scale by which the Government have exceeded the number of amendments that he originally envisaged introducing. On my mathematics, the Government have introduced no fewer than 12 amendments. In other words, they have introduced four times as many as he had in mind. That seems to suggest that, ethically, he should buy at least four bottles of champagne for the members of the Opposition Front-Bench team.
Given the history of Government amendments under Governments of all colours and the fact that there are only 12 Government amendments to a Bill with 45 clauses and two schedules, perhaps I should suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the drinks should be on him.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 58, in page 25, line 13, leave out from '(S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1))' to end of line 15.—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 29 — Unauthorised Disclosure of Information
Amendments made: No. 59, in page 25, line 31, leave out second 'or'.
No. 60, in page 25, line 32, at end insert
'; or
( ) the carrying out of the Commissioner's functions.'.—[Mr. Browne.]
Clause 31 — Tampering with the Register etc.
Amendments made: No. 75, in page 26, line 34, leave out 'and the requisite knowledge'.
No. 76, in page 26, line 38, leave out from 'modification' to end of line 41.
No. 77, in page 27, line 10, leave out 'is' and insert 'may be'.
No. 78, in page 27, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section in respect of conduct causing a modification of information recorded in the Register it is to be a defence for that person to show that, at the time of the conduct, he believed, on reasonable grounds—
(a) that he was a person entitled to determine if that modification might be made; or
(b) that consent to the modification had been given by a person so entitled.'.—[Mr Browne.]
Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I begin, on behalf of the Government, by thanking all those who have worked hard to bring the Bill to this stage. I associate myself entirely with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration in commending the work of the Joint Committee and hon. Members from all parties who contributed to that. I thank officials in the Home Office for the consistent and coherent work that they have done over a long time. I also thank the staff of the House for their work to bring the Bill to this stage.
The time has now come for the House to agree that we need the benefits and safeguards that an identity card system will provide both to individuals, who will be able to prove their identities securely and reliably, and in the wider public interest. Rather than seeing identity cards as a threat to civil liberties, most people now regard them as essential to safeguard our civil liberties.
My right hon. Friend says that an advantage of the scheme is that it will allow people to secure their identity. However, we do not know about the form or accuracy of the biometrics that the Government will demand, or how secure the database will be, so how can he have such confidence before the assessment work has been done?
An assessment is under way on the different forms of biometrics that could be used, such as fingerprints, iris examinations and photographs. I am confident that, as in many countries throughout the world, the biometric regime that we establish will provide the security that people rightly look for.
The Bill has been given proper scrutiny. Indeed, in preparation for the legislation, we started a six-month public consultation exercise in 2002.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
I will not give way at the moment.
The Home Affairs Committee started an inquiry in 2003, and there was further consultation on a draft Bill in 2004. Changes have been made to the Bill, and I assure the House that I shall continue to listen to, and act on, constructive comments on plans for delivering the identity card scheme after this enabling Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. It is our intention that the first ID cards will be issued in 2008, and there will be further opportunities between now and then for the House to examine the detailed provisions to be set out in secondary legislation.
How can the Home Secretary claim that the Bill has been given proper scrutiny when seven amendments, including all those specifically relating to Scotland and Wales, were not debated in Committee or on Report as a result of the Government's programme motion?
I can claim that the Bill has been given proper scrutiny for exactly the reasons that I set out a moment ago. There has been a long-standing debate about the issues, and a range of discussions on the specific matters that have been taken forward has been held in the Chamber and in Committee.
The simple fact is that the possession of a clear, unequivocal and unique form of identity in the shape of a card that is linked to a database holding biometrics will offer clear benefits to us all. Such benefits include the prevention of terrorist activity, the proper control of immigration and illegal working, help for the more efficient and effective provision of public services, and specific measures to deal with crime. That is why recent surveys show that 80 per cent. of the public support the introduction of identity cards.
Biometrics are being developed around the world to improve the security and reliability of identity documents, including fingerprint biometrics on visas and our own biometric passports with a facial image biometric that will be introduced in about a year's time. The scheme will not create threats to privacy or change the way in which we live our lives. We have never proposed a scheme under which it would be compulsory to carry a card.
I want to pin down the Secretary of State on the question of terrorism. Will he explain exactly how a voluntary identity card will protect us against terrorism? If identity cards are to become compulsory in 10 years, does he think that the war on terror will still be being fought in 2015?
We dealt with that on Second Reading, but let me go back to the core points. There is no guarantee that any scheme—identity cards or anything else—will be able to deal with and eliminate the terrorist threat. There is no silver bullet to solve the problem. However, identity theft and fraud represent a significant modus operandi for those involved in terrorism, serious and organised crime, people trafficking and drug dealing. The fact that we will have an identity card scheme will give us the capacity to attack the problem that would not otherwise exist. It is true that a compulsory card would give us more power to attack the problem than a voluntary card, but it is also true that a voluntary card gives us more capacity to attack the problem than we have at present. I think most people acknowledge that that is true.
It is, moreover, the case that ID cards will help in tackling fraud and will save tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. The Government have proceeded in a measured way by consulting on the principles and, most recently, on the draft legislation. The Bill sets out a clear legal framework for the scheme. It provides a means for everyone legally resident in the country to assert their right to be here and to help them gain access to the services to which they are entitled. It will help preserve national security and assist the work of law enforcement. It will enable the public to have the ID card system that they say they want.
Those are the reasons why people in all parties have supported the legislation. In an article in The Daily Telegraph on 20 December 2004, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the Opposition, said:
"I have listened to the police and security service chiefs. They have told me that ID cards can and will help their efforts to protect the lives of British citizens against terrorist acts. How can I disregard that? We must protect our citizen in every way, and in my judgment that includes ID cards."
In that same article of a couple of months ago or less, he went on to write:
"In my first speech as Leader of the Opposition, I would not oppose Government policy just for the sake of opposition. It is wrong to sacrifice the national interest for political expediency."
I applauded those remarks at the time and wish that they had been carried through. They reflected previous remarks also by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On 23 September 2001, he wrote in the News of the World:
"Britain is the easiest country in western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem, there is one obvious remedy: identity cards."
Even earlier, in 1994, at the Conservative party conference, he said:
"In time, carrying your ID card would seem as natural as carrying a credit card is at the moment."
Perhaps that is why the 1997 Conservative party manifesto had a commitment to introduce ID cards.
I find it utterly extraordinary that the Opposition have decided to abstain on this vital issue, affecting the future of the nation.
I can assure the Home Secretary that a number of Conservative Members have no intention of abstaining. We voted against the Bill on Second Reading and have every intention of doing so this evening, because his proposal is a serious invasion of the civil liberties of the people of this country.
To be candid, the hon. Gentleman has more to say for his position than his Front-Bench colleagues. The fact is that some people—he is one of them, and some of my Labour colleagues agree with him—have issues of principle with ID cards and find it difficult to support them for the reason that he identified.
Will my right hon. Friend distinguish between the opportunist position of the Conservative party and those of us who oppose ID cards in principle but would change our minds—certainly I would, without the slightest hesitation—if we thought that they would help in the fight against international terrorism? I hope he recognises that although my opposition is based on principle, it would change were I so persuaded.
I accept that distinction, which I have sought to make, including in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee earlier this week. Some people, for reasons that I respect but with which I do not agree, think that ID cards pose such a threat to our civil liberties that it is necessary to oppose them. Those people exist on both sides of the House. They are entitled to take that position to a vote and to carry it through.
My point is different, however. The Government and, in my opinion, the Opposition have to assess, when considering national security, precisely the balance of issues, as described by my hon. Friend, that arise from ID cards. The Government have made that assessment and believe that the ID card is in the interest of the country. The Leader of the Opposition made that same assessment and came to the conclusions that I quoted, but he has now decided to abstain—not to vote against, not to vote in favour—on this key national issue, and abstention is not an honourable position. I believe there is a reason—
Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be very careful about impugning the honour of any other right hon. or hon. Member.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House. I was not intending to impugn the honour, in the parliamentary sense, of the Opposition or of anyone else. I withdraw that word at your request.
It is not defensible, however, for an Opposition party or a Government party to abstain on an issue of this sort. There is a clear reason for the abstention. It is that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who I am delighted to see in his place—he has forgone his chance to be at the shadow Cabinet meeting in Manchester with the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps to undermine the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position even further—has been clear about his scepticism of ID cards in a variety of different ways. The truth is that he has rolled over his leader and reached an abstention position. That is the reality. I say that that is not defensible.
I may be able to help my right hon. Friend. My Conservative opponent in my constituency was until recently the press spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition. He says that his position is that he is opposed to ID cards in principle but that if they are required for international travel he might be persuaded otherwise. Does my right hon. Friend hope that we can yet persuade the Opposition to do a second U-turn?
I shall be even more candid than I was earlier. I have that hope. I ask the Opposition to reconsider their position. The position of abstention is not defensible, in my view, for a serious political party. It has an implication that is of meaning. When the other place considers the proposed legislation, if there is not agreement from the official Opposition there are real issues about whether the Bill can be brought into effect in this Session, were a dissolution to be sought. The normal wash-up issues would arise, but a decision of the Conservative party to oppose the Bill in the other place would lead to a delay in carrying forward this important measure for the security of the country.
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I voted for and spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading? I attended all the debates on the Bill to seek to continue that support. I have to tell him that the way in which he treated the House—the failure to enable me to ask a number of questions on key issues and the time given, which did not allow his junior Minister to respond to many of the debates—has led me to believe that indeed we should act differently, and I shall vote against the Bill.
Those right hon. and hon. Members who come to the view that they must cast their vote against, either for the reasons just given by the right hon. Gentleman or by others, are taking a position that I can understand, although I do not agree with it. I cannot understand those who say, "We shall abstain on this key issue that is facing the country." I believe that it is a matter of internal politics within the main Opposition party and a betrayal of the interests of the country. If, in the final event, we are not able to carry through the proposed legislation in this Session, we will know clearly that that is because of the decision taken by the Opposition—their decision to put peace within their party ahead of the national interest.
I commend the Bill to the House.
So much for the constructive and open debate on liberty and freedom and on security of the state that the Home Secretary was so keen to tell us we would have when we talked about identity cards and house arrest, an issue on which he is in even more trouble.I join him, at least in one respect, in thanking those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report. At the same time, I sympathise with them in what must have been the most frustrating process of their political lives.
The Bill attempts to strike a balance involving a number of extremely serious issues: individual privacy, the relationship of the citizen and the state versus security, prevention of fraud, control of immigration and a number of other serious issues. That is why I set some tests for the Bill on Second Reading. I did not just want to test individual practicalities but to establish the balance between those principles and the Bill's competence to achieve some of the things that the Home Secretary talked about. A competent Bill would do what he said and that would, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, have a significant effect in improving security. It would make a minimum intrusion into the liberty and privacy of the individual, and there would be strong safeguards where such intrusions proved necessary. An incompetent Bill would have a weak or non-existent impact on security, the prevention of fraud and the control of immigration. It would prove highly expensive and too intrusive into liberties, and would provide few effective safeguards for those liberties.
The point of those five tests is to establish, as I said, the balance or imbalance between those serious principles which matter, as the Home Secretary rightly said, and the competence or incompetence of the proposal. Having read all the Hansard reports of the Committee and listened to today's debate, which I attended when I could, I do not think that we have had a real or persuasive answer to any of the tests. It is not only our questions that remain unanswered. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said on page five of its report on the Bill:
"Explanatory notes to the Bill have been published. They do not, however, contain any explanation of the Government's reasons for believing the Bill to be compatible with the Convention rights."
The next part is important:
"We consider the absence of such an explanation to be deeply unsatisfactory in a Bill which is concerned throughout with issues of personal privacy, and with the delicate balances to be struck between individual rights to private life and the protection of the community."
That is not the stated view of the Conservative party but of the important and distinguished all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are not the only ones to have reached the conclusion that we have had a dreadfully inadequate set of answers to an important set of questions as well as dreadfully inadequate time in which to debate those questions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The hon. Gentleman has not been here all day, so he is not qualified to comment on the Bill, as he lacks the information or attendance record to do so.
The first test in that important series of tests deals with clarity of purpose. That matters, because it has implications for every other aspect of the Bill. As I said at the outset I, like the hon. Member for Walsall, would be persuaded as a sceptic to support the measure if it had the aim of dealing with terrorism. We tried to include that aim in the Bill, but we failed because the Government refused to do so. We tried to make the priorities explicit, but Ministers refused. Foreign travellers, particularly from the European Union, can come here under EU rules without identification for three months, which means that the Bill is quite inadequate for use as an anti-terrorism measure, unless we have a way of dealing with that problem. The common travel area is another problem, as is the issue of Ireland, which I shall address in a moment. Those issues may be soluble, but there has not been a single attempt to answer our questions. If identity cards are an anti-terrorism measure, it should be made compulsory to carry them, otherwise they will not work. I do not want to have such a compulsory card in this country. As has been said, we do not want to hear our policemen saying, "Papers please, citizen". However, there has been not been any attempt to answer the problem.
The Bill could have been used to tackle illegal working but before we introduce a draconian measure we should try everything else first. For several years under this Government, under legislation that the Conservatives passed to make the employment of illegal immigrant workers a crime, there was one successful conviction a year. Only after the tragedy at Morecambe bay and the brave campaign of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith)—she is a Labour Member, but I am happy to give her credit—and, I am afraid, a campaign by my party on the failure of Government policy that led to the departure of a Minister, have we gone from one conviction a year to well over 600 operations a year against employers of illegal immigrant workers. That is what must be done first; instead of throwing away liberties, the Government should do their job.
On benefit fraud, we have again not been told all. The Home Secretary told us that the provisions will save us tens of millions of pounds; the cost of the scheme may be tens of billions of pounds. I hope that he is never Chancellor, because with that sort of return on capital, the Government will go bankrupt very quickly.
Black Wednesday.
Those claims have been discounted recently, I notice, but I am happy to recognise the single success of the Government's freedom of information programme so far.
The primary problem is not concealment of identity, but concealment of circumstance, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State for Social Security, was only too well aware during his review of the issue during the 1990s.
We have had no answers. On illegal immigration, which was raised on Report today, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made the very good point that nine tenths of the issue is dealt with by the asylum identity card—a registered card. So we have 90 per cent. of the solution for 1 per cent. of the grief.
My point to the Government is that those questions could have been answered in Committee, but no attempt was made to give an answer. Why? It is hard to understand why, unless the Government do not believe their own case or their supposed reasons for the ID card. That is very worrying, and it is more worrying in many ways than other points that I shall raise in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman says that his position is consistent: the Conservative party supports ID cards, but on condition that these questions are answered. He says that it would be possible to answer them, but he feels that the Government have not done so. Does that mean that a Conservative Government would answer their own questions and introduce ID cards?
The hon. Gentleman should not put words in my mouth. If I wanted someone to rearticulate my views, I would not pick him.
What have we heard today? We have heard from the Home Secretary—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that this issue shows that the Tory party is "soft on crime, soft on immigration, soft on terror." We will let the public decide the plausibility of that proposal. In many ways, I would worry more about being called stupid on crime, stupid on immigration and stupid on terror, which is the risk if we do not get the matter right. That is the point: we must get it right. It is a question not of being pro or anti a particular matter, but of getting the issue right.
I have to say that this is a very poor start to the Home Secretary's serious debate on liberty and security, because this issue is one of the key components of that debate; indeed, perhaps it is the most important one. Let us go on to the second test, which concerns technology.
Is there any chance of anyone else speaking in this debate?
I beg my hon. Friend's pardon; I shall be as quick as I can.
The second test is important, and I shall quote the Home Affairs Committee, which said that it is
"essential that, before the system is given final approval, there should be exhaustive testing of the reliability and security of the biometrics chosen, and that the results of those tests should be made available to expert independent scrutiny, perhaps led by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser."
Again, we put that point into an amendment, which the Government turned down. Not only the Home Affairs Committee, but Privacy International and the Association for Payment Clearing Services have raised concerns.
No, I will not give way because I am pressed for time.
The next issue is the high value of the database, which will be an extremely large target that will attract attack. Putting aside the weaknesses on biometrics, the Government have not even tried to answer how they will prevent those attacks, which will destroy the system.
Test three concerns cost, which has gone from £1.2 billion to £3.5 billion to £5.5 billion. Conventional wisdom puts the overall cost somewhere between £10 billion and £20 billion. Bart Vansevenant, the director of the organisation that runs Belgium's ID card system, has said that
"the amount of people you catch will not be worth the price of the infrastructure . . . If you look at this from a distance and look at the goal, I'm afraid a lot of money will be wasted and the real cost will be much higher than any of the figures currently suggested."
How will the Government control the cost? They do not have a good track record. Would that money be better spent on trying to stop illegal immigration, terrorism and benefit fraud?
The final issue concerns civil liberties and privacy. In the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), this is the "largest change in relationship between the individual and the state". Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has said:
"There are huge questions about access to the national identity register: who has access to it, for what sorts of purposes, and how is that information to be used".
As the debate has progressed, it has become increasingly apparent that many organisations—more than we thought—will have access to the database, which means that the scope for unauthorised access will be unmanageable. There is even the possibility that the data must be shared with other countries such as Ireland, because of the common travel area.
The Home Secretary introduced a new concept in his winding-up speech, during which he would not take an intervention. He said that his card will enable us to "assert the right to be here". I do not know what that means. Is he telling my constituents and the people of Britain that they have no right to be here unless they assert it through his means of an ID card?
My hon. Friend makes the same point as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. ID cards involve a completely new view of citizenship. Being a subject of the Crown is a right, which it is not for the Government to give or take away.
The Bill deals with massively important issues, and we have adopted a constructive approach. The Government have denied us time for debate and answers to proper questions, and they have even delayed the response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This House has had no chance to consider the Bill, but the Home Secretary promised a serious and constructive debate on security and human rights.
I will not give way because I am about to finish. I heard what the Minister had to say earlier, and I thought it a weak response to the issue.
The Government have denied debate and treated this House with contempt. I will recommend that my hon. Friends in the other place commend the Bill to a Joint Committee to answer the unanswered questions. Until that point, I cannot recommend that my hon. Friends should vote for the Bill.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who just made the speech that he wanted to make on Second Reading, but was not allowed to—his speech was better late than never and it was a pleasure to hear it tonight. He was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in the previous Parliament and he knows a lot about systems and what can go wrong with them, so the warning that he has issued again tonight is appropriate.
The Liberal Democrat position is based on both principle and practice. At various points, it has been put to us that those two ideas are contradictory and that one must oppose the Bill on the grounds of either principle or practice. However, some policies are so flawed and so offensive that one can oppose them on the grounds of both principle and practice, and tonight's debate is such an occasion.
The Minister has challenged us a number of times to discuss the issues of principle, and I thank him for those challenges, which were appropriate. I boil the matter down to the extent to which one values privacy. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights concerns privacy. It states that states have the right to breach the right to privacy, where such a breach is necessary and proportional to the end that they are trying to achieve. That clearly shows that there is no absolute right to privacy and that it can be breached under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, a threshold needs to be set. The Liberal Democrat view is that the Minister's ID card proposals do not meet that threshold, and that the benefits he suggests—if they can be realised—are not sufficient to outweigh the disbenefits, in terms of the cost to the privacy of citizens of the United Kingdom.
Before the hon. Gentleman moves off this subject, can he tell the House which of the 21 out of 25 members of the European Union that are social democracies are also breaching that article of the European convention on human rights—some of them with compulsory ID card schemes that require people to carry them?
The Minister certificated the Bill as being compatible with the European convention on human rights. There are elements that may be compatible, but there is a variation in the threshold that one may apply. There is a political difference here between Liberal Democrat and Labour Members and, indeed, between Conservative Front Benchers, because we set the threshold at a different level. That is a political judgment; both a legal and a political judgment needs to be made in this respect.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Minister was covered by the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which states that
"an identity card containing only a person's name, sex, date and place of birth, current address, and the name of their spouse, does not in itself raise issues of the right to private life under Article 8 . . . Neither does the obligation to hold or carry such a card engage Article 8."
Nevertheless, the Committee went on to make serious criticisms of the Government's proposals.
The hon. Lady is right to remind us that the scheme being put forward is not necessarily comparable to ID card systems in other countries and goes a lot further. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the Home Secretary's unfortunate turn of phrase when he said that the cards will allow people to assert their right to be in the United Kingdom.
The Government are essentially proposing to put us all on a criminal intelligence database and to treat us all as potential suspects. That creates a fundamental change in the relationship between state and citizen. The scope of the database that the Government propose is far more comprehensive than any that has been suggested elsewhere. Indeed, the Minister has said at various points that the scheme that he is putting forward is bigger and more complex than anyone else's. He said that with a certain note of pride, and then with a slightly hysterical look of fear as we came to consider the implications of doing something more comprehensive than is to be found anywhere else.
Another paradox, and therefore a failure to justify the scheme, is that whereas British citizens—people who have never had to prove to the state their right to be here—will have to have the cards, people who come here with no right to be here will not. That seems to be one of those ridiculous examples that identifies the fundamental flaws.
My hon. Friend's intervention is helpful.
I should like to nail a red herring, if one can nail a herring, in relation to whether one has to carry the cards compulsorily. We debated that in Committee. Most of us carry our irises and fingers wherever we go. The point about being on the database is that people can be checked against it wherever they go—whether they have their ID card with them is immaterial. The fundamental question is the extent to which the benefits derived in terms of catching people involved with terrorism and crime—something with which we agree—are so great as to justify holding all that data, and presumably using it and checking it regularly. Are those benefits worth the disbenefits of a citizen having to pay, having to go through the inconvenience, and having the potential loss of privacy? We come to a different judgment from the Government, and have consistently done so throughout proceedings on the Bill.
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case against the Bill. He mentioned inconvenience. My constituents, many of whom live on islands, will be faced with great inconvenience if they are forced to go to Glasgow to get biometrics taken for their ID cards. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the Home Office is considering a mobile facility, but that will take ages and it will cost a huge amount to go round the highlands and islands. The Government have not answered those questions at all.
My hon. Friend helpfully moves me on to the significant practical considerations. The Government have tried to write off or trivialise the matter. They have talked down the costs and suggested that they will be less than they are, but whatever happens, they will be several billion pounds more than zero. They have talked down the costs and the inconvenience. It could cost several hundred pounds for a family of four adults in a remote area of Scotland who simply want to renew their passports to go on holiday by the time they have travelled to a centre, had the biometrics taken and paid for the documents. That is a significant change from the current position, and the Government have not made enough of it.
The hon. Gentleman's party now supports the policy of biometrics in passports.
The Minister knows that only facial biometrics, which can be taken from a photograph, are required for a passport. That is different from the proposals for irises and fingerprints.
I know that some hon. Members support identity cards but I urge all hon. Members, whatever their views on the cards, to vote against the Bill. The scheme that the Bill presents is simply not ready. If we proceeded with an identity card scheme, we should start by going ahead with some sort of passport biometric—we are told that we must do that for international reasons—but at a much lower level than the Government suggest. We should test the technology for several years to ascertain how it works.
We should move on to getting our NHS medical records database right because that gives immediate benefits to the citizen and would allow us to establish whether we could securely give access to systems at multiple points of contact with our public services. We should then get our national insurance records system right and ensure that there is one number per person in the country so that we can establish whether we are genuinely competent to run such identification regimes. We need to take those steps first and demonstrate that we can fulfil all those tasks before we consider an identity card scheme.
If the Government approached us in four or five years, we could have a reasoned debate about the matter. Even the Government say that the card will be pointless. In a couple of years, they will tell people to pay money and go through all the hassle to get their passports for something that is functionally pointless because a passport is good enough; an identity card as well would be unnecessary. The system and the scheme may change in the intervening period. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
Even if hon. Members support identity cards, they should seriously consider whether they want to support the Bill. It is clearly being introduced for political reasons. It is outrageous of the Home Secretary to say that, if the Conservatives vote against something that will not be effected for several years, it makes them the friends of the terrorists. That accusation is normally made against us. It is an absurd assertion.
Will my hon. Friend give way one more time?
No. If hon. Members believe that the Bill does not pass the tests of proportionality and necessity and that too much uncertainty remains about exactly what we are being asked to buy and how much it will cost; and if hon. Members believe that any additional money for which Parliament asks from citizens could be better spent on other measures to achieve the same objectives, I urge them to vote against the Bill.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Opposition spokesman criticised the Government—
Order. I can already sense that it is not a point of order but a point of debate.
I shall let the hon. Member try again, but I hope that he will not take up too much time.
Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that new clause 2 was not selected by the Speaker and that that is the reason why it was not debated?
The record will show that. This particular occupant of the Chair does not have such recall, but I am sure that the record will show whether that is correct.
I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. My position has always been clear. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and the more I hear about it, the less I like it. I shall vote against it again this evening.
I agree with one point that the Home Secretary made. I do not agree with much that he said about the measure but he was right about the Tory Front-Bench position. It is pathetic not to be able to reach a decision about whether to vote for or against such an important measure on Third Reading. We have had a limited time for debate this afternoon, but what are the reasons for that? The usual Front-Bench channels made agreements to discuss the measure on a Thursday, when there is one less hour for debate, so those on the Tory Front Bench are shedding crocodile tears.
Listening to the debates on some of the amendments this afternoon, I felt as though I was listening to discussions about angels on pinheads, because, however we amend the Bill, we cannot make it acceptable. What it sets out to do is fundamentally objectionable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised a host of objections to it, and I have just had a brief chance to read through the Government's response to them. It does not really answer them.
On Second Reading, we debated issues such as whether the cards would become compulsory. I am absolutely sure that it will become compulsory to have this card, because the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that this was the first step towards compulsion. We also discussed disclosure to service providers, the police and people in the private sector, and the audit trail that will exist. The real problem with this measure will be the register, rather than having to carry a card.
The public's view on this will change. At the moment, we might find 80 per cent. of people saying that they support the measure, but once they realise that they are going to have to have these things, their view will change. Once the next, short step is taken, as I believe it undoubtedly will be, and carrying the card becomes compulsory, public opinion will certainly shift. We are going down a very dangerous road.
Everyone here knows which people will be the most likely to be asked to produce their card when it becomes compulsory to carry one. All the evidence from every European country that has cards—including those where they are voluntary—shows that the people who are most often asked to produce their card are from minority ethnic communities. To pretend, as the Government did in their race relations assessment, that this measure will actually improve race relations, strikes me as absurd.
I do not like enabling legislation of this kind. A mass of detail remains to be introduced in secondary legislation, which means that it will never be properly debated in this place. Of course, we cannot amend secondary legislation, so whatever form it takes, we shall just have to take it or leave it. I am also unconvinced that the Home Office can produce information technology infrastructure that will work, which could perhaps be the saving grace in all this. This concept is fundamentally flawed in principle, and we should not be going down this road.
I entirely agree with the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Indeed, he made his points with a great clarity that I could not surpass. I shall confine myself to speaking for just a few minutes.
It is not right to say that the Bill has been properly debated. The Home Secretary is wrong about that. Had he been present during the Report stage, he would have appreciated that fact. He has only to look at early-day motion 684, which has been signed by many of his hon. Friends, to see what was omitted in Committee.
I am perfectly willing to accept that there are some benefits to be gained from identification cards. The question is: how do they weigh in the balance with the disadvantages? I agree entirely that the money involved in this provision could be spent very much better in dealing with its stated objectives differently. I am extremely sceptical about the ability of the technology to deliver, and, if it fails, very serious injustice could result. I question whether the measures will address the questions of terrorism or serious fraud, because a high proportion of such cases rest on questions not of concealed identity but of concealed circumstances or concealed intentions.
On matters of principle, I shall confine myself to two points. First, I believe that this represents a huge extension of statism. We are changing the relationship between the individual and the state, and we should not do that without a really compelling reason.
Secondly, I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. Inevitably, what will happen down the track if this policy is to be made effective is that the citizen will have to carry and produce an identity card on demand. He is entirely right that that will bear down most oppressively on the ethnic minority communities.
I have been in the House long enough to remember the old sus laws and what rows they caused. I do not wish to create a situation in which the ordinary citizen can be arrested for not carrying a card. That is the inevitable consequence of that which we do today. It is wrong in principle. I hope that my party will change its mind and vote against this Bill.
I want to speak in favour of the Bill. It is supported overwhelmingly by more than 90 per cent. of my constituents in Hodge Hill. They will be surprised and disappointed to hear about the Liberal Democrat and Conservative position tonight. Not too long ago, Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members voted in favour of a ten-minute Bill supporting the principle of ID cards. They will also remember that more than a decade ago, the Leader of the Opposition, as he is now, said to his party conference:
"In time, carrying an ID card would seem as natural as carrying a credit card."
My constituents will be particularly perplexed to hear the Liberal Democrat position that this money would be best spent on police, because this is not public money. This is money raised from individual contributions. No one in the House would seriously propose that one should finance the police by passing a hat around in the community and hiring as many police officers as one could afford from what is left in the pot. That is the implication, however, of the Liberal Democrat policy in this area.
Will the hon. Gentleman remind us what the Prime Minister said about ID cards at the same time?
Can I remind the hon. Gentleman what his colleague the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said in the police revenue debate last week? He said that his answer was
"to relate the policing of an area directly to the amount that people pay to support that policing."—[Official Report, 2 February 2005; Vol.430, c. 885.]
He was unable to refute the charge that that would end up with rich communities hiring more police while the rest of us were left in the lurch.
People in Hodge Hill see three clear reasons why this Bill deserves their support: it is a fast track to a fairer deal in public services; it is the best means that we have for tackling illegal immigration; and it is another spoke in the wheel for tackling global terrorism.
Many Members will have read the report of the 9/11 commission and will have seen, like me, the conclusion:
"For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack."
The report continued:
"We found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were potentially vulnerable to interception by . . . authorities."
That is exactly the kind of development that ID cards will allow, and that is why the proposal deserves commendation from both sides of the House.
I shall vote in principle against the Bill tonight. I shall do so because it fails to meet the four tests enunciated excellently by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. It will not protect civil liberties, it will not work to curb terrorism, it will not be cost-effective and I have serious doubts as to whether the Home Office is in any event capable of implementing it within any kind of meaningful time frame.
I am proud that my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Gainsborough, Harry Crookshank, when Postmaster General, four months after the Conservatives won the 1951 election, abolished ID cards. He came to the House and said that the Conservative Government believe that
"it is no longer necessary to require the public to possess and produce an identity card, or to notify change of address for National Registration purposes".—[Official Report, 21 February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 415.]
That was a popular policy. Our policy of getting a grip and asking questions about the identity card is also right.
That abolition of ID cards in 1951 came on the back of the case of Clarence Willcock—[Interruption.] He was a Liberal; quite right. He was stopped in the street, his card was demanded by the police and he refused to produce it. Lord Chief Justice Goddard said that ID cards were an "annoyance" and
"tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers".
We believed then, and I believe now, that ID cards are appropriate only in wartime.
I do not want to live in a "Your papers, please" society. One reason why ID cards were abolished in 1951 was that people remembered the cry in wartime Europe, "Ihre Papieren, bitte!" We do not want that sort of society here, and that is what will happen. As night follows day, the police will start to demand that people produce their ID cards. That is why I shall vote, in principle, against the Bill.
Mention has been made of my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. If this Bill becomes an Act and it actually happens—we know that the chance of ID cards actually happening is very remote—there will be numerous PAC reports, showing that it is way out of budget. The initial estimate was £1.3 billion, then £3.1 billion and now £5 billion. When is it going to stop? The card will not curb terrorism or stop illegal immigrants. What it will do is cost us a lot of money and fundamentally attack our civil liberties. I urge the House to reject it.
It is normal practice for the Opposition to complain about the lack of parliamentary time. We did so when we were in opposition, but on this occasion, I agree that inadequate time has been allotted for such an important measure. It should not have been crowded in on a Thursday and there should have been far greater examination of the detail. If I may say so, I know that the Home Secretary is not responsible for the allocation of time, but we should have had at least two days. I genuinely regret that, irrespective of one's views, inadequate time has been allotted to examine the measure on Report.
I remain unpersuaded that ID cards are needed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—if he is listening—referred to a number of countries, including fellow members of the European Union, that have identity cards, but those countries have exactly the same the problems that we have. They face the same problems of terrorism, as we have seen in Madrid, corruption, illegal working and so forth. No argument has yet been put forward to explain how identity cards, biometric or otherwise, will resolve the problems that we, in common with other European countries that have such cards, face.
Yes, identity cards may be popular at the moment, as has been said. For all I know, it may be that 80 per cent. of the population are in favour, but high expectation is the reason for that. People believe at this stage that the cards will help to resolve the problems of illegal working, illegal immigration and all the rest of it. I believe that when people realise, as they are bound to do, that the cards offer no panacea, their expectations will drop a great deal. Undoubtedly, one question that some people will ask is, as with child support legislation, "What examination was given to the Identity Cards Bill as it went through Parliament?" They will ask how much time was allotted to examine it in full detail.
I shall continue, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
As to costs, I agree—it has to be said, it is usually on very rare occasions—with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Whatever the estimated cost now, it will prove to be much more at the end of it all.
I know that other Members want to speak, so I shall finish by saying that I am going to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. I remain uneasy. I believe that the Bill will lead to an infringement of civil liberties. As I said in an intervention earlier, if I believed that it could be an effective tool against international terrorism—I am the last person to underestimate the terrorist threat—I would simply enter the Aye Lobby and vote accordingly. I am not so persuaded. I am uneasy because I feel that we are going down a wrong path. I may be proved wrong and the Government may be proved right, but at present, I remain uneasy about the unnecessary infringement of civil liberties. I believe that we can live without identity cards as we have done for more than half a century. For all those reasons, I simply cannot support the measure. The only option is to vote against it.
The Government say that identity cards are necessary. William Pitt, as long ago as 1783, said:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Moreover, the Labour party has not always enunciated this position:
"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory identity cards, as the Tory right demands, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities."
So said the current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, at the 1995 Labour party conference. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) seriously thinks that he advances the calibre of the argument by quoting what was said by other people in the past, he will learn in this place that two can play at that game.
I am interested in a more serious debate. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration know that I am very ready to pay tribute to the Government when I think that they are right. However, we should be unremitting in our criticism of them when they are wrong. Today, hon. Members from all the different political traditions have explained eloquently that the Government are wrong.
The Government's arguments have shown no sureness of touch. They have shifted their position constantly—one minute, it is a question of reducing the threat from terrorists, the next it is about reducing illegal immigration, and the next it is about reducing benefit fraud. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), took the biscuit when he asserted 18 months ago that the merit of the introduction of identity cards—eventually to become compulsory—was that they would enable us to assert our "sense of belonging".
Many people in this country feel a sense of alienation, from the Government or their local community, or both. I have yet to meet a single constituent in Buckingham who has said to me, "John, I feel a terrible inability to assert my sense of belonging because I do not possess an identity card."
Does my hon. Friend agree that even those of us who believe in identity cards and who have argued for them for years cannot support this Bill, as the Government have not even allowed Ministers enough time to explain their case and respond to any of our debates? That is why I feel that I must vote against the Bill. It has nothing to do with identity cards, but with the abuse of this House on an important constitutional matter.
My right hon. Friend is right. In politics, as in life as a whole, self-knowledge is a valuable thing. The Home Secretary has gravely embarrassed himself by his behaviour. If he is not aware of that simple fact, he needs to go away for a bit of therapeutic reconditioning.
The arguments against the Bill are powerful. First, it involves a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, to the disadvantage of the citizen. Secondly, as many hon. Members have explained, it is virtually certain that there will be a growth in function creep. If that were not the case, why do no fewer than 25 out of the Bill's 45 clauses provide for order-making powers? The Bill is littered with phrases such as "the Secretary of State may at any time decide", "the Secretary of State may by order", "the Secretary of State may as he thinks fit", or "regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide." That is not acceptable.
There is a real problem to do with discrimination, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) powerfully explained. After the recent improvement in race relations, we risk taking a retrograde step. The House should take care to resist any idea of putting a match to gunpowder.
The argument to do with cost has been made, but I shall conclude with the argument about public opinion. The Government have propagated a very downmarket line of argument. We all quote polls when it suits us, but I remind the House that we are elected representatives. I am not a robot, a sheep or a button to be pressed. I have a responsibility to look at the issues, study the legislation, identify the arguments and make a judgment. It is risible to contend that we need simply say, "Oh, the opinion polls show 80 per cent. in favour." Everyone knows that there was mass support in Australia for the introduction of identity cards, but people there recognised the drawbacks when they saw the real implications. They knew the impracticalities, they appreciated the threats to their liberty and they turned against the proposal.
People in this country will turn against the proposal too, and against the Home Secretary and he will richly deserve the hostility of the public when that happens. He will not be laughing—he will need to take cover. I shall vote against Third Reading.
I was one of those who voted for the Bill with considerable reservations on Second Reading in the hope that the Committee stage and today's Third Reading would resolve them. However, the more I have heard today and the more I study the Bill, the more my reservations, far from being resolved, have been aggravated. I was looking for a tightly drawn Bill with plenty of checks and balances, the right for individuals to access information, the right to prompt redress from the commissioner, and a good, strong commissioner.
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration attempted, nobly, to try to address some of those problems—
It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 64.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Extradition
That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
Question agreed to.
Immigration
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Asylum (Designated States) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.— [Mr. McAvoy.]
Question agreed to.
European Community Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
European Defence Market Equipment
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13177/04, on the European Commission Green Paper on Defence Procurement; endorses the Government's support for the Green Paper's aim to open up a debate on the competitiveness of the European defence industry; and supports the Government's wider objective to create an effective and competitive European defence equipment market.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
Question agreed to.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 22nd February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Secretary Johnson relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
Hospital Services (Paddington)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mc.Avoy.]
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for his drawing the short straw of replying to the Thursday Adjournment debate.
Before I begin, I want to declare the ultimate non-pecuniary interest. My feelings about St. Mary's hospital are motivated in no small part by the fact that over the past 25 years it has seen me through serious illness, major surgery, a cancer scare and the birth of my child. I am committed totally to the hospital and its place in what, if we get it right, will be one of the most exciting hospital developments that has ever been attempted in this country.
The time is drawing near for a decision on the future of St. Mary's hospital in the context of the Paddington health campus. The fact that this has been a difficult decision to take—it has been seven years in planning and development—is not surprising, given the fast-changing backdrop of the development of health policy and the complexity of the specific scheme in the very heart of London. It is understandable—indeed, it is right and proper—that such a project should be rigorously scrutinised and meet the demands of the future, as defined in 2005, as much as it would have done when it was first conceived not far off a decade ago.
I have no argument about the fact that the scheme has been subject to rigorous scrutiny in the Department of Health and elsewhere, but my worry and the reason why I requested this debate is that some of the negative publicity that has accrued to the scheme over the years, and even the old ennui factor that is inevitably attendant on a scheme that has been so long in gestation, may have obscured some very important central facts and prevented us from the viewing the scheme and the new offers that are being made to facilitate it at this late stage clearly on their merits.
I do not intend to dwell on some of that negative publicity, although it is important that its existence is not denied because it provides a proper context for the debate. I merely wish to point out that the whole concept of the Paddington campus has had its opponents from the beginning, and they have been largely motivated by opposition to the closure of Harefield hospital. That is in many ways understandable from their perspective, but I very much regret that the local concern that has been expressed has muddied the waters a great deal around the campus itself.
The key fact is that the Paddington health campus continues to offer us an extraordinary, once-in-a-generation opportunity to renew and improve health care in north-west London. The most recent business case presented to the Department just before Christmas has the backing of all three local primary care trusts, the strategic health authority, clinicians from all three of the participant hospitals and the medical school, patients and the patients organisations, Conservative-controlled Westminster city council, the Mayor of London and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Indeed, in response to a question that I asked a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister described it as "extraordinary", "imaginative" and "state of the art". I could describe a political—with a small "p"—coalition of that kind as implausible. In fact, I have never known that breadth and depth of support across agencies in 25 years in public life.
It is worth recapping for a moment the importance of the scheme and what it has to offer. Combining heart and lung services with acute general specialist services will dramatically improve patient care for the seriously ill, children and those with complex health problems. All the renowned expertise of the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals, Imperial college postgraduate research and teaching centres and St. Mary's hospital will be available to patients on a single site. The two hospital trusts and Imperial college have a tradition of research into improving health care, linking science to medicine. Harefield has the largest European heart and lung transplantation programme. The national heart and lung institute at the Brompton hospital is an internationally recognised five-star research centre, and St. Mary's is a leading research centre into infection in its own right. Bringing together all that research with Imperial college's world-renowned expertise will enable a major centre for research to be created, which will strengthen London's standing internationally, as well as directly benefiting patient care. However, a few myths need to be demolished for the record.
Myth No. 1 is that this is some kind of bloated super-hospital, a dinosaur from a bygone age and a over-ambitious amalgamation that is in danger of looking old-fashioned before it has even started. In fact, it is two hospitals on one site, with parallel academic development. It is not a single hospital, but a way to reduce costs by relocating three existing hospitals on to one site that is strategically located, with superb communications available to it that are not available anywhere else in north-west London. It is adjacent to Paddington station and, I hope, to a new Crossrail site, with easy access to Heathrow—a location advantage that cannot be replicated on any other site in inner, north or west London.
Myth No. 2 is that the campus will lock London into a surplus capacity of NHS beds. In fact, the Paddington health campus assumes that the requirement for 15 per cent. of routine surgery will be supplied by the private sector, and most routine elective surgery will be carried out in other hospitals in north-west London in any event. The campus has been designed to deal with complex tertiary work at St. Mary's and the new Brompton and Harefield, with St. Mary's also providing emergency services with appropriate backup for the local population, as at present.
Myth No. 3 is perhaps the most important of the myths doing the rounds: there is a quicker, cheaper and easier alternative. Relocating the Brompton and Harefield and rebuilding St. Mary's on this inner London site is complex and challenging, but the value-for-money case is strong. The other options—there must be other options because doing nothing is neither clinically nor financially viable—remain tentative in financial and planning terms. Significant cost benefits could be enjoyed by pooling central services, such as administration, payroll, catering and a range of others. It is estimated that revenue savings of £20 million a year could be made, but they would not materialise under other options that involved upgrading the hospitals separately or using any other configuration.
If we did not proceed with the campus, it would not reduce the need to move specialist heart and lung services away from Harefield hospital, or modernise the Brompton and St. Mary's facilities. If detailed capital and revenue cost plans for alternative options exist to demonstrate that they would represent better value for money, and all their details on the cost of such things as land assembly and planning permission have been scrutinised to the extent of those for the Paddington health campus, I am not aware of it.
All the arguments in favour of the Paddington health campus have been strengthened even more in recent days by the latest offer from Westminster city council to reduce the cost to the NHS of the land deal required for the campus. The council has offered to broker land deals in a manner that would cut both the cost and complexity of the scheme. That would represent better value than all previous options and would save the NHS in excess of £60 million more than the existing scheme. The capital surplus would be increased, the steady state operating position would be substantially improved and contingent liabilities would be greatly reduced.
Westminster city council can explain its own motives for the latest offer. However, it would be true to say not only that it is committed to maintaining a local hospital with international teaching excellence, but that it sees the scheme as a further step in the wider regeneration of the Paddington area. The retention and improvement of hospital facilities is thought of as not only being of direct benefit to people, but allowing further redevelopment throughout the Paddington basin. The campus is one piece of a jigsaw that has already included the introduction of the Heathrow Express, the refurbishment of Paddington station, the £62 million Paddington bridge project, the establishment of 97,000 sq ft of office space and 922 residential units, and substantial changes to education provision. There is more to come, including Crossrail—the hybrid Bill will hopefully be introduced in the near future—a potential business improvement district, the re-provisioning of the City of Westminster college, and a major new affordable housing development.
Additional benefits have already included 7,000 permanent jobs, thousands of construction jobs and huge investment in the local economy. That was much needed when we remember that despite the mythology of Westminster's uniform prosperity and the fact that it includes some of the most prosperous parts of the country, the four wards immediately surrounding Paddington are among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country. Other wards in the surrounding district are among the 30 per cent. most deprived in the country.
When critics say, as they sometimes do, that the campus development has been seven years in the making and has yet to reach fruition, it would be true to say, "So has Paddington." The Paddington that we knew seven years ago when the health campus began to evolve is not the Paddington that we see now, because at that stage there were no academy schools or plans for the redevelopment of the secondary sector, no business improvement districts, and no immediate prospect of the blight on the Crossrail development being lifted. The project has been fluid and constantly changing, so inevitably land assembly deals have had to be done. Additionally, the hospital has been subject to constant re-evaluation because as health needs change, capacity needs change. It would be unfair to make harsh judgments about the Paddington campus without appreciating the momentum of the whole regeneration scheme.
If the final decision is taken to rebuild St. Mary's hospital alone, I am confident that a fine teaching hospital will continue to be available for my constituents. St. Mary's is not a hospital that is any longer fit for purpose because many of its buildings are inappropriate for a 21st century hospital. It is absolutely essential to redevelop the hospital, ideally within the campus site. If it is not situated on the campus site, however, it will continue to provide first-class services. The quality of services within St. Mary's was recognised when it won the Dr. Foster's hospital of the year award three years ago, when it received its star ratings and when, only a few weeks ago, it was included in the latest wave of possible foundation status hospitals.
I am more worried about the long-term viability of institutions that will not benefit from the scale and concentration of resources. Without the campus, health facilities in north-west London will continue to suffer from fragmentation and dispersal, with services for children in particular increasingly at risk. The failure to consolidate heart, lung and paediatric specialties would deny patients the opportunity to improve the quality of care for complex medical conditions in particular.
The case for the campus clinically, in terms of overall value of money and regeneration, is compelling. The chance, once lost, will not come again. Given the new financial impetus that has been afforded by Westminster city council's latest offer on land assembly, I urge the Minister to take back the message that the scheme must proceed. I look forward to hearing his comments and hope that we get the clearest possible indication that, after all these years, those who looked forward to having the most prestigious hospital teaching and research developments in Europe will, at last, be satisfied.
I am grateful for this brief opportunity to add my comments in support of the remarks made by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
As has been said, the Paddington health campus is a large undertaking, but it is also a project whose time has come. It will offer all the people of London and, indeed, the country more generally, world-class facilities across a range of medical disciplines. It is an essential component of Westminster's regeneration plans for a highly visible part of our capital, the significance of which goes way beyond the local level. I endorse the hon. Lady's comments. She rightly said that Paddington is a much changed area, and that change continues. It is a little unfair to compare the plans with those of even six or seven years ago.
The Minister is aware that a vast amount of preparatory work and expenditure have been invested to get to where we are today, and I urge him to recognise how much has been achieved. That there have been difficulties and disagreements along the way is not surprising. The crucial point to note is that there is now a strong, influential and robust coalition of support for the scheme, both medically and politically. Any project that unites the Conservative leader of Westminster city council and the Mayor of London—never mind hon. Members from opposing parties who have a direct constituency interest—is surely also worthy of the Government's support.
This has been described as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and few would demur from that description. Indeed, only occasionally can we say that all the planets are aligned in favour of such an important project being given the go-ahead, but that is now the case. There is nothing to be gained from delaying a decision until after the election. Political uncertainty is perhaps the project's greatest threat.
I understand that the rector of Imperial college, Sir Richard Sykes, has only this afternoon been in touch with No. 10 Downing street to express that wonderful global institution's support for the scheme and, I have no doubt, to muse on the significant boost it would give to Britain's ability to continue playing a leading role in international medical and scientific research.
Westminster city council is, as we speak, engaged in discussions to reduce still further the public sector's exposure and to strike a more beneficial accommodation for the taxpayer with the private sector partners, whose positive contribution and needs in unlocking the project must also be recognised.
I do not wish to rehearse the formidable points that the hon. Lady made, but here today and, I suspect, on many other occasions, the will for the project to succeed and bring its undoubted benefits to London and the country is very much apparent among the trusts and politicians involved locally. I urge the Minister and his Government to demonstrate their political will and support the Paddington health campus.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on his interest in the matter. I know that the subject is of real concern to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. She has raised it before with Ministers and, as she said, with the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that the matter is also of great concern to her constituents and to many national health service patients in west London and throughout the United Kingdom. It will have significance to them.
In October 2001, the Department of Health announced that it intended to develop a new health campus at Paddington. I emphasise at the outset, as did my hon. Friend, that this is not a proposal to build a single super-hospital but a development that would bring together three major hospitals and a medical faculty on a single new campus.
The proposed Paddington health campus scheme embodies a bold and exciting vision for the wholesale redevelopment and renewal of services and facilities that are currently dispersed across north-west London and exist, in many instances, in outmoded and unsuitable accommodation. It plans to combine this on the new site, bringing together the renowned expertise of the Royal Brompton hospital and Harefield hospital, along with St. Mary's hospital, a busy secondary and tertiary centre with a strong focus on serving the needs of Paddington. Imperial College postgraduate research and teaching centres will share the campus, which will embrace the use of technology to improve levels of patient care. The environment for patients and staff will include state-of-the-art facilities and diagnostics in both new and fully refurbished buildings, replacing run-down, old and unsuitable accommodation.
This is a vision that the Government fully support. We see it as an excellent proposal not only for local health services but for the specialist services that will be provided to the wider NHS on the site. There is substantial support within the local NHS for the Paddington health campus, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said. I understand and appreciate this. We are working with the local NHS to find a sensible way forward for the campus.
Any new proposal—my hon. Friend alluded to this—must offer the very best value for money and be affordable by the health economy. Before the Government can finally turn their support for the vision into a final commitment to proceed, we need to work through the business proposals to ascertain whether the numbers add up. Until now, the key challenge facing the campus project team has been to demonstrate value for money with acquisition of the land needed. That is not to criticise it—any project board would have the same challenge. A scheme of this size or complexity has never been undertaken by the NHS, and transparently demonstrating its viability takes time, hence the apparent delays.
In 2001, the original outline business case estimated the cost of this redevelopment at £325 million. However, in 2003 it was recognised that the price of the project had escalated way beyond its original OBC approval figure to £800 million. Given this rise in the cost, a review of the OBC and the management of the project was necessary, and this was undertaken in late 2003.
The review team was led by officials from the Department of Health and included officials from the Treasury and the National Audit Office. I believe that it was right to conduct the review. In October 2004 the review concluded that a revised OBC should be submitted by the project team to the Department. It was agreed that, when approved by Department officials, the OBC would be submitted to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for consideration and approval.
The revised OBC was approved by North West London strategic health authority and submitted by the project team to the Department in December 2004, and it is currently being reviewed by Department officials. One key issue from the revised OBC is that the NHS needed to acquire land from Westminster city council and Paddington Development Corporation Ltd., a privately owned consortium. It is this complex land transaction, linked to a large PFI hospital contract, that has until now made this such a difficult project to progress.
However, the campus project team is right now considering an exciting new proposal whereby Westminster city council would enable the land deal for significantly better value for money than the proposal described in the current OBC. For Westminster city council, the campus project would be the final piece in the regeneration of Paddington. It would provide key benefits to the local economy, including 7,000 permanent jobs, thousands of construction jobs, millions of pounds of investment in the local economy and significant amounts of key worker housing in an area adjacent to some of the most deprived wards in London. The four wards surrounding the site are among the 10 per cent. most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK.
Full details of the proposal and its possible impact on the project should shortly be with the Department. They will be worked through as quickly as possible, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept that we cannot progress the work in detail until we have the final proposal in our hands. Work will, however, take place as quickly as possible, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Department and Ministers will do everything that we can, working with the local NHS, to expedite progress, to evaluate the proposal and develop it into an addendum to the original business case. Like her, I await those details with great interest.
Of course, not everyone shares my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the project, as she openly admitted. The Paddington health campus plans have generated considerable controversy, not only in constituencies in the area but in others. However, the quality of building stock at Paddington, Chelsea and Harefield needs to be improved. Two thirds of the Royal Brompton and the vast majority of both Harefield and St. Mary's are long overdue for replacement. Those issues cannot be ducked and must be dealt with in the very near future, health campus or not.
In addition, Harefield hospital will, in the not-too-distant future, become unsustainable as a viable specialist heart hospital. It is crucial for the success of single-speciality hospitals that they have access to a wide range of related sub-specialities. Harefield, which is several miles from local general hospitals, is not in a position to draw on the support of the wider range of specialties that are found at such hospitals. The high-quality work and legacy of Harefield hospital will be sustained at Paddington health campus through proximity with St. Mary's. Even if that were not the case, Harefield is on a greenbelt site, and therefore constrained by planning regulations. It is difficult for people who do not live in the local area to access it by public transport, and a major redevelopment at Harefield would have a knock-on effect on the surrounding hospitals.
It must be remembered that a large proportion of Harefield's patients will receive routine care and treatment at their local hospitals. Only patients requiring specialist care would go to Paddington health campus. I am sure that the House will agree that that we should all be prepared to accept that hospital and community services must, from time to time, change if we are to continue to fulfil patients' needs and improve services. Services should not remain static for ever, but must reflect advances in technology and clinical practice. Of course, all the planning and analysis is bound to create uncertainty. Throughout the transitional phase, staff involved in the scheme and those who have continued to provide health care to Paddington patients have worked tirelessly, despite their concerns. I pay tribute to all the staff who contribute to the excellent work of those hospitals.
I can assure my hon. Friend—and I hope that this is the promise that she was seeking from tonight's debate—that Department officials are working closely with North West London strategic health authority, commissioners and providers of health care in Paddington and west London to arrive at the best solution quickly and expeditiously for the local health economy. Like her, I remain excited by the project and its potential. The Government and I want decisions to be made as quickly as is safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Seven o'clock.