Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 2:"Page 1, line 3, leave out ““and maintain””" The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 97. This group of amendments has been tabled to give the Committee the opportunity to debate some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Constitution in its Third report published on 24 October. My amendments focus on the question of who should maintain the register. The Select Committee recommends that,"““because of the scale, complexity and sensitivity of the enterprise now proposed, Parliament should consider the case for amending the Bill to provide for the creation of a new entity (whether registrar, commissioner, commission or other agency), with the duty to maintain the Register in accordance with the primary legislation made by Parliament and the secondary legislation made by the Secretary of State””." Furthermore, the committee also recommends that:"““The Secretary of State’s duties in relation to the appointment and funding of such an entity should also be stated in the Bill””." I tabled these probing amendments in direct response to the committee’s recommendations, and I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for taking such care in drafting them. The Bill’s primary significance lies in the creation of a national scheme for registering the identities of everybody over the age of 16 in the UK, other than foreign nationals who are here for less than three months. The creation of the National Identity Register is therefore the foundation for the Government’s proposal to roll out identity cards until everybody over 16 is compulsorily registered for an ID card. In responding to my previous amendment, the Minister said that she was sure that I understood what ““initially”” meant in the Labour Party manifesto. I do, and I know what the rest of that quote from the manifesto meant and should mean in the context of the Bill. I am also aware that Labour MPs in another place realise what it should mean in the context of the Bill, but we will return to that. The Bill puts the duty to maintain the National Identity Register firmly in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Government have said that they intend that the register should be maintained by an executive agency, reporting to the Secretary of State and with a remit entrusted to it by him. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, confirmed that intention in her letter dated 19 September addressed to the Select Committee on the Constitution. The problem is that the Bill fails to include that proposal in its current form. There is no provision to require the Secretary of State to establish such an agency. There is no provision summarising the essential features of the proposed relationship between the agency and the Secretary of State. It would therefore be possible for a future government to replace the executive agency with a different structure by executive action alone, with no reference to the view of Parliament. For example, a government could adopt the model of administration by civil servants working directly to the instructions of the Secretary of State. The amendments in this group therefore make it clear that the registrar would be independent of government. The new Schedule 1A sets out the proposals as to appointments, remuneration, staff and funding. It is purely a probing amendment. The proposals are not meant to be the end product but are there to prompt a response from the Government. We invite the Government to tell the Committee how they expect the system to operate. If they object to the proposals in the new schedule, will they say why they object and what they intend to put in its place? I believe that we should keep trying to get some clarity in the Bill. I beg to move.