Identification Cards
The next item of business is a statement by Tom McCabe on identification cards. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.
I welcome the opportunity to update the Parliament on the identity card scheme that is being proposed at Westminster. It is not long since the Identity Cards Bill was re-introduced at Westminster, so it is helpful to state our position on the bill and set out how the proposals will affect Scotland.
First, I make it clear once again that the proposals for an identity card scheme are confined to reserved policy areas. It is neither for me nor for any Scottish minister to seek to persuade the Parliament of the merits of the United Kingdom Government's proposals—that is a job for the Westminster Parliament and its representatives. Our role, if Westminster seeks to legislate in ways that might raise questions on areas of policy that are devolved to this Parliament, is to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected and maintained. That is the job that we have been doing on the identity card scheme. We have followed the development of proposals; investigated their implications; maintained a dialogue with Westminster and Whitehall; and, where necessary, worked to influence the shaping of the policy so that Scotland's freedom to make its own policy decisions in devolved areas is protected and sustained.
The Identity Cards Bill does not encroach on devolved matters and therefore it does not need a Sewel motion in this Parliament. I repeat our previously stated position that we are satisfied that the provisions of the bill and the powers that it would create are for reserved purposes only.
Our position on the use of identity cards in Scotland has been clear all along: we do not wish to link them to the provision of devolved services. The bill devotes an entire clause to provisions that state clearly that if we changed our minds on that critical point and wanted to allow the use of identity cards for devolved purposes in Scotland we could do so only by legislating in a specific act of the Scottish Parliament. We believe that there can be no more solid assurance about our approach to the scheme with regard to Scotland.
If and when the bill is enacted, Scots who apply for designated services that are the responsibility of the UK Government, such as passports or Department for Work and Pensions benefits, will face the same requirements as other UK residents.
I also take the opportunity to allay concerns about the proposed national identity register. An individual's information will not be recorded on the register before it has been checked by the enrolment service and there are strict limits on the information that can be held. I hope that we can put behind us the unhelpful confusion that has been generated around identity cards. They are Westminster's responsibility and the bill will not affect how Scots decide about devolved matters.
By contrast, and to avoid any confusion, I take a few moments to draw to the Parliament's attention the work that we are doing to make a positive difference to the people of Scotland by making public services more efficient. We will harness technology to introduce voluntary smart cards, which will enable citizens to enjoy easier, better access to the public services that they want to use. Sometimes, our work in that area is wrongly confused with the issues around identity cards. In fact, the smart cards that we are developing are different in almost every way from the proposed identity card scheme. As we promised in the partnership agreement, we have evaluated the local pilot projects that assessed the desirability of the creation of a national citizen's entitlement card for appropriate public services, taking great care to protect individual privacy.
The cards are intended to improve citizens' access to public services and to allow people to use services in convenient, joined-up ways. The evaluation report shows that 280,000 young people have Young Scot cards, 60,000 of which are smart cards that provide access to education, transport, library, leisure, recreation and retail services; that 50,000 other citizens have a card that provides access to transport, library and leisure services; that a nationally accredited voluntary proof-of-age scheme has been introduced; that pilot testing is complete for cashless catering and library services; and that pilot testing continues for concessionary and integrated transport applications.
In addition, early case studies show an increased uptake of free school meals. In the first pilot school in Dumfries and Galloway, the increase was 20 per cent in the first month, and takings for school meals showed a general increase of £100 per day. Feedback from Dundee identified savings of £20,000 per annum from reduced paperwork in processing concessionary taxi fares and a potential saving of £100,000 by reducing the risk of fraud in the concessionary fares scheme.
Savings are also achievable by local authorities packaging together multiple entitlements to services on a single card, rather than issuing separate cards for individual services. Of course, the citizen benefits from having to use only a single card. We are beginning to turn that idea into reality.
Our next major step is the introduction of the national concessionary fares scheme in 2006. We are working with councils to develop the technology, including smart cards, to support the scheme, for which 1.2 million older people will be eligible.
I stress that the Scottish smart card will not be an identity card. It will be entirely voluntary and will not include biometric data. It has support from all 32 Scottish local authorities and it will allow citizens to use fewer cards than at present. One card could cover a range of services, such as libraries, leisure and transport. Most important, it will deliver better, more joined-up and more efficient public services. Just as important is that any expansion of the card's use to a wider range of devolved services will require the individual citizen's informed consent.
Early indications are promising, but there is much more that we can do. I hope that the Parliament will agree that we should focus on making practical improvements to public services. In doing so, we will take care to be sensitive about civil liberty considerations and to ensure that any extension to the range of services that is available through using the entitlement card will require the individual citizen's informed consent.
The minister will take questions on the issues that his statement raised. I will allow 20 minutes or so for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. I remind members who wish to ask a question that it is indeed a question that they are to ask, not a speech and a question or five questions in one; it is one question.
I will follow that maxim. The minister said:
"The Identity Cards Bill does not encroach on devolved matters".
I understand that some devolved organisations will have access to the national identity register. If devolved institutions such as the police or other organisations that are accountable to the Scottish Executive and to the Parliament can access the national identity register, how can the minister's statement that the bill does not encroach on devolved matters be correct?
I am not aware of how Mr Swinney arrived at that understanding. I have given an assurance about how the system will be used for devolved services. We have never been anything other than clear about the access that the police would have to the identity register. We have said many times that we have no intention whatever of hampering the legitimate work of the police on the detection or prevention of crime or on national security issues. I said that their job is hard enough. We have no intention whatever of hampering them in their important work.
I do not know to which other services Mr Swinney refers, but if he gives me more detail, I will be happy to try to deal with that in correspondence.
On behalf of Scotland's senior citizens, has the minister sought clarification from the UK Government about the cost implications for them of obtaining an ID card to access their pensions? Does he agree that that must be free of charge?
Such matters are clearly for the United Kingdom Government. As I said in my statement, we have engaged in a series of conversations with it to protect the devolution settlement and to explain our view in Scotland on such matters. I would understand any concern that senior citizens might express if they had to pay a fee to access their pensions. I would be more than happy to make such representations on the member's behalf when we next speak to the United Kingdom Government.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, almost a whole half of which was about ID cards. Will he go a little further on the issue that John Swinney touched on? Given that the minister has been clear about the piece of plastic—people will not use an ID card to access devolved services—and given that the motion that my party lodged and to which the Parliament agreed was about the use of the register by devolved institutions, will he give a clear and simple assurance that in no way and in no circumstances will access to devolved services be restricted, limited or affected by information that is held on the register and is disclosed to devolved institutions?
I am glad that Mr Harvie received the statement, although I am not convinced that he read it or that he listened to what I said, because I just gave exactly that assurance to the Parliament. I also gave such assurances at a private meeting with Mr Harvie a few months ago. At that time, he accepted that assurances were given, but he felt the need for us to make a statement to Parliament and we were happy to comply.
It is not the Scottish Executive's job to write in big letters on a postcard what we are saying. We have made a statement to the Parliament; I think that it was clear and that most members will understand what we have said.
Will the minister outline what the relationship will be between the national identity scheme commissioner and devolved bodies that the UK legislation may require to provide information and associated documents—about the residency of Scottish residents, for example—to ensure transparency in that relationship?
I can certainly give the assurance that we want to maintain such transparency. From our point of view, we will engage in discussions to ensure that that is the case as far as we can. I have seen no indication that we will encounter difficulties.
I am interested in the point that privacy will be regarded at all costs. The minister talked about the introduction of smart cards. Is he willing to list for those who may sign up for smart cards all the organisations and departments that will have access to the computerised information? For example, my five-year-old came home with a smart card from primary 1, which has all his information on it. The voluntary element is not great. If I do not want him to have a smart card to access services, what is the alternative? I would like to know where the information is, how it got there and how it ended up on his smart card.
The alternative is simple: if any citizen, irrespective of their age, does not want to use a smart card, they will access services conventionally.
The minister has said expressly that the Executive does not wish to link ID cards to the provision of devolved services. Will the much more restricted use of ID cards in Scotland mean that the cards will cost less in Scotland?
People in Scotland are citizens of the United Kingdom. They may require a form of identity card in connection with a passport, for instance. An identity card and a passport may be the same document in the future. As citizens of the United Kingdom, people in Scotland should share the same burden as people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Will the voluntary smart card be separate from or amalgamated with the national concessionary fares scheme card? In either event, will we still have the concessionary fares scheme in 2006?
I will deal with the second question first. Our firm intention is to have a national concessionary fares scheme in 2006—that is a fundamental plank of the partnership agreement programme. There are parties in the Parliament that are rather jealous of that intention, but what happens depends on how people present themselves to the electorate, and some of us have more success than others in that respect.
On how the smart card will be used, citizens have always required some form of photographic identification to access concessionary travel. An important aspect that a parliamentary committee has rightly highlighted is the concern about the potential for operators to use fraudulent practices to increase their income through concessionary travel. We want to ensure that access to the benefit is as wide as possible for the citizens of Scotland, but we also—rightly—want to ensure that public funds are used vigilantly. Smart card technology will be important in ensuring that we pay the appropriate amount for the delivery of services. Lest anyone should introduce additional confusion to the debate, I stress again that people who want to access free concessionary travel have always been required to prove that they are entitled to that benefit. Individuals would understand that requirement.
Will the minister clarify the relationship between what he has described and proof-of-age cards, about which there have been various proposals? Following the Parliament's consideration of licensing and smoking laws, there have been various proposals for voluntary or compulsory proof-of-age cards. How would those fit in? If the Parliament goes ahead with compulsory or voluntary proof-of-age cards, will they be covered by the smart card or will they be a separate issue?
As I said in my statement, we see great benefits in citizens being able to access as many services as possible with one card, and we see considerable benefits in the smart card also being used as a proof-of-age card and, in effect, becoming the Young Scot card. An important fundamental principle is involved. All such things are done with the informed consent of the citizen, irrespective of their age, and therefore individuals can make choices on all those initiatives.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I ask him to focus on the designated services that are the responsibility of the UK Government, but that Scots will require to access. In particular, will he give an indication of the potential cost to businesses in Scotland that will be incurred by the installation of the sophisticated equipment that is necessary to read cards in order to allow employers to check the entitlement of employees to work in the UK?
That is very much a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Earlier, I said that our interest is in protecting the devolution settlement and the interests of people in Scotland. In the light of the powers that are available to the Parliament, I ask Mrs Mitchell to consult her Westminster representative—who will probably be a Labour member of Parliament—on such details.
I direct the minister's attention to paragraph 1 of schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Bill, which is on personal information. That paragraph states:
"The following may be recorded in an individual's entry in the Register—
(a) his full name;
(b) other names by which he is or has been known;
(c) his date of birth;
(d) his place of birth"
and so on. The minister will probably know a few Scots who work in London—perhaps his colleagues. There are also Scots who live in Scotland. In issuing identity cards, how will that data be verified before being placed on the national identity register, given that Scottish data that are owned and controlled by the Scottish Parliament will require to be verified? Is it not true that, contrary to what the minister said, there will be implications for devolved areas?
It is pretty bold to say that the information is owned and controlled by the Parliament. I do not necessarily agree with that and do not think that Scotland's citizens would like to think that we own and control that information.
I know a considerable number of people who work in London around the Palace of Westminster—I even know the alleged leader of the Scottish National Party, although why he is leading that party down in London is a mystery to me, as it is to everyone else in Scotland.
On the data, the enrolment service will control the way in which anything is entered on the national identity register and strict protocols will ensure that only appropriate information is inserted in it.
As we have reached the end of the debate before the time that is set out in the Business Bulletin and before we are due to start the next item of business, I suspend the meeting under rule 7.4.1 of standing orders until 11.40.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—