Identity Cards Bill

Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 seek to remove the link; I understand that. Amendments Nos. 148 and 150 seek the same regarding applications for the issue of ID cards. The Government do not intend to make an individual surrender a lawfully held document to obtain a replacement document that has been designated. The intention is that, for example in the case of passports, an individual will renew his passport after designation when it is due to expire and will be issued with an ID card. There will be no need to surrender a still-valid passport to be issued with an ID card. That makes Amendment No. 101 unnecessary. I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness about that. We have always been clear that linking registration and ID cards to the issue of the designated documents is a central part of the scheme. No one is forced to obtain a British passport and to travel abroad, nor are foreign nationals forced to come here and obtain residence permits. However, once designation is implemented, there will be no opt-in: either the individual renews the designated document and is entered on to the register and issued with an ID card, or he decides not to apply for one, as he is free to do until compulsion is introduced. Amendment No. 102, which requires the applicant to consent to the entry on to the register, is therefore not necessary. In addition, Amendment No. 148, which seeks the consent of an individual to be issued with an identity card via a designated document authority, is also not necessary. Amendment No. 150 would not allow an individual to apply for an ID card via a designated document authority without an application for the designated document. If it is convenient for an individual to make an application for his ID card in that way, I do not see any reason to preclude him doing so. The designated document authority could process the application in the same way, and it is irrelevant to the ID card scheme whether a designated document is issued at the same time. Amendment No. 147 would remove the distinction in Clause 8(6) between an application for an ID card and an application to be entered in, or to confirm an entry on, the register. An application for an identity card can normally be made only in conjunction with an application to be entered in, or to confirm an entry on, the register, which may or may not be in conjunction with applying for a designated document. However, there is good reason for drafting Clause 8(6) in this way. It reflects the structure of the legislation as a whole, which deals with the entry into the register and the issue of ID cards separately. It would not be open to an individual applying to be entered on to the register to opt not to have an ID card, but there are circumstances in which a person may be entered on the register but not provided with an ID card. Clause 8(4) gives power to prescribe cases in which a person need not be issued with an ID card, notwithstanding that he is entitled to be, and is in fact, registered. Clause 8(5) conversely allows an ID card to be issued to someone who is not entitled to register but about whom facts are recorded on the register. In practice, an application to be registered and an application for an ID card will probably be made on a combined form. However, it is right that for the purposes of this legislation the two are recognised as separate applications. There may be cases where it is appropriate to enter someone on the register but not issue them with a card, or to issue a card to someone not entitled to be registered. I hope that that explains to the noble Baroness’s satisfaction why we think this way forward is appropriate and why we believe that, until the scheme becomes compulsory, there is an opportunity for choice.