Identity Cards Bill

I understand from Amendment No. 9 that the eminently reasonable noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, wants to ensure that no one is asked to produce an ID card unreasonably. However we can see no reason to be concerned about that. First, there is already a significant safeguard in Clause 18, which means that no one will be required to produce an ID card as the only method of proving identity until it has become a requirement to register and be issued with an ID card, or unless a requirement is imposed under Clause 15 in relation to public services or under another legislative power. Once it becomes a requirement to register and to hold an identity card, it is surely a matter for personal judgment rather than government regulation for an individual to decide whether it is reasonable in the circumstances to be asked to produce an identity card. The wording suggested in the amendment would be difficult to enforce, so I see little point in including it. The fact is that this limb of the statutory purposes for the national identity register is there to provide a convenient method for individuals to prove their identity. We think that individuals are the best judge of their own convenience. If there is no legal requirement to produce an identity card, it is surely for the individual to decide what is reasonable and what is not, just as people already decide for themselves whether they consider it reasonable if licensed premises require proof of age or even standards of dress to obtain entry. A bank or building society already requires proof of identity before a new account can be opened. Again, it will help in everyday transactions for people to be able to use identity cards to prove their identity. In the case of public services, any requirement to produce a card is governed by regulations made under Clause 15. Strict conditions apply to those regulations, which would require consultation with those likely to be affected, as well as parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. The purpose of those regulations is not only the convenience of the individual by making it easier to prove identity but also the wider public interest in ensuring the efficient and effective provision of public services. The role of the new commissioner should be considered alongside the other safeguards. The newly created post of national identity scheme commissioner will have oversight of the whole scheme, including as set out in Clause 24(2)(d):"““the uses to which ID cards are being put””." If the commissioner believes that identity cards are being requested unreasonably, he can bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State and Parliament. So, although I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, I hope that I have reassured the Committee that there are already adequate safeguards in place and that where the public interest is not engaged, we should essentially leave it to individuals to decide for themselves when they wish to produce an identity card. For that reason, I suggest to the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary and invite her to withdraw it.