Identity Cards Bill

All noble Lords present would say that we never expect the noble Baroness to mislead the House because she does not do so: she always treats us with great courtesy. She has given an apology that I did not seek. I was going to say that I have now had the opportunity to speed-read that letter. I note that there is a substantial section on costs, which I think will appropriately be dealt with when we reach Amendment No. 259A, so we will have time in the next two days properly to consider that information. I notice that there are issues in the letter regarding the biometrics. Of course I appreciate that we will return to those specific issues on Report. I cannot at first sight see issues raised in the letter that need to be dealt with today by way of an adjournment. But having done only a speed read, I could be proved completely wrong. I hope not. I turn to my amendments. Amendments Nos. 92 to 95A refer to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which gives the Government the power to require that personal reference numbers should be entered into the national identity register. Amendment No. 96 is grouped with them because it also covers the question of numbers. This is a continuation of our quest to find out what will be behind this skeleton Bill. Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 95 and 96 were tabled in another place and were called to be debated in Committee on 12 July. It is not my normal practice to retable amendments from the Commons when I feel that they have been debated and answered, but unfortunately, not only did the Minister, Mr McNulty, decide not to respond to them, he made it absolutely clear that he would not. He said:"““Let me deal first with the lead amendment. I will then address some of, but not all, the subsequent amendments””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 160.]" That is a red rag to a bull; I had to table the amendments to ask the Government for the answer. Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 make it clear that the ID card number should be the same as the national identity registration number. Why should they be different? Amendment No. 94 is an odd one out; it is new to this House. It would remove the subsection that records the number of any document that can be used instead of a passport. Which documents do the Government mean? Are they documents to use for travel purposes? Would that be within the UK? I am aware that some budget airlines are now imposing restrictions on customers and requiring the production of identity for domestic travel. As I understand it, that is not so much for security reasons as for a simple commercial reason. They want to prevent their customers passing on their tickets for others’ use, thus avoiding the payment of an administration fee to the airline for a change of name. I do not say whether they are right or wrong; I just noticed that that is the practice that they are adopting. Are the documents in subsection (g) those that may only be used when a passport is required or are they documents that we may choose to use, such as a utility bill, when we are not required to produce a passport but find it convenient to show the bill as proof of the reason for inquiry? Amendment No. 95 returns to the unanswered amendments in another place and would delete paragraph 4(1)(l), which deals with personal reference numbers. It refers to,"““the number of any designated document which is held by him and is a document the number of which does not fall within any of the preceding sub-paragraphs””." I am not exactly clear, but I assume that that implies that we will end up with dozens upon dozens of numbers recorded against our name. What kind of numbers do the Government have in mind to be covered by the sub-paragraph? Amendment No. 96 is another unanswered amendment. It removes sub-paragraph (g) from paragraph 6, which covers one’s history of making applications and the changes that are made to one’s national identity register information. Sub-paragraph (g) requires a record to be kept of everyone who has ever countersigned one’s application for an ID card or an application for a designated document. Does a designated document at present mean only a passport? Does it mean a driving licence and what could it mean in future? The more that one reads Schedule 1, the more that one’s mind begins to boggle at the sheer size of the database that we seem to be constructing. We need to be convinced that in the Government’s rush to record every aspect of our lives, we allow them to record only what is strictly necessary and convenient to us. The overall imperative must be to follow what the Government said on Clause 1. This must be a system convenient to the individual, not merely to the Government. Finally, Amendments Nos. 94A and 95A simply remove references to driving licences from Schedule 1. They are probing amendments only to ask the Government to put on record their reasons why they should be included on the national identity register. I beg to move.