Identity Cards Bill

We have had a very interesting debate. I will deal with the substantive points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but, first, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that I have been looking at the point that he raised in relation to ““purpose”” or ““purposes””. I think that it will have to be looked at and I will come back to him on that. We need to be clear that there are a number of purposes for which the identity card scheme will be helpful. We do not seek to say that that list is in any way to be restrained by further and other useful purposes to which it could be put. I say to the noble Baroness that there is no competition or hierarchy in relation to these issues, but a number of purposes are of real importance. Amendments Nos. 16 and 140 and Clause 1 are connected with the statutory purposes and the definition of ““public interest””. The second statutory purpose of the national identity register, which underpins the identity card scheme, is to facilitate the provision of a secure and reliable method for identity or registrable facts to be verified or ascertained where it is in the public interest. The key is how we should define exactly what is meant by ““public interest””. As we have discussed this afternoon, the second limb of the statutory purposes of the identity card scheme is set out in Clause 1(3)(b). I do not think that during the debate anyone has disputed the fact that we need to define what the public interest test should be. But we should not overlook the first limb of the statutory purposes in Clause 1(3)(a) because, as I have already said, this identity card scheme is intended first and foremost to provide a means for people to identify themselves. I hope we all accept that not only will identity cards help to combat crime and the enforcement of immigration controls but they will also help our citizens to safeguard their identities. It is right to record that at present one of the most sought-after items from many suppliers is a shredder machine. That is because more and more people consider it important to shred personal details as it helps them to feel more secure and able to keep their identity safe. Amendments Nos. 16, 140 and 274 would make five specific changes to the purposes of the scheme. We cannot understand the reasoning behind all of them—or, at least, we could not until the noble Baroness made it clear that they were probing amendments which were not seeking to be exclusive in their effect but were intended as a means of stimulating debate. We believe either that they are unnecessary or that they would seriously undermine the benefits of the identity card scheme by changing the definition of ““public interest””. I hope that the noble Baroness will also accept that limiting the provision strictly to indictable offences, even in England and Wales, would unnecessarily restrict us in relation to a whole series of criminal issues which should be properly dealt with. I know that the noble Baroness, having sat as a magistrate and having been cognisant of those issues, would not wish to see that happen. We know, for example, that terrorists will try to use false identities in order to evade surveillance or arrest. One of the key benefits of the introduction of identity cards is that not only would such activities be very much harder but identity cards would assist the police and security services in the vital work that they do to combat terrorism. As a number of noble Lords know, identity and verification of identity is often a key to the success or failure of police investigations. But there are no new police powers in the Bill. Under PACE, the police must have reasonable grounds to stop or stop and search a person. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to a person stopped for speeding. As is currently the case, a police officer will ask the person to identify himself. The difference under this scheme is that there would be far less scope for the person to give a false name because the police officer would no longer have to waste time in investigating it as there would be a safer means of doing so. I emphasise again that it will not be necessary for a person to carry his card with him. Nothing in the Bill would enable the police to demand that any individual produce an ID card.