Identity Cards Bill

I have never said that it would be necessary to carry identity cards. That has consistently been disavowed. We have said very clearly that it is important to be able to identify individuals. Noble Lords will remember our debates about the number of terrorists and others who have multiple identities. The ability to identify individuals as the same individual passing from country to country is very important. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the extracts from the al-Qaeda manual that said that one of the principal tasks was to acquire multiple identities. Identity cards will greatly assist us. Noble Lords will remember the information we had from the Spaniards about their ability to identify people as a result of having identity cards. We have debated all these things again and again, in Questions and debates, at Second Reading and elsewhere. Of course, this is Committee, not another Second Reading debate. The eventual requirement for everyone who is economically active to register underpins the whole scheme. The Government have always been clear that the scheme will eventually become compulsory, and our qualitative ID cards proposition research, Public Response to Proposed Customer Propositions, a copy of which is in the Library, provides a good understanding of the public’s view on compulsion. The research concluded that there is a strong belief that for the scheme to work effectively it will have to be compulsory to hold an identity card and to use it in some circumstances. If we removed Clause 6, the identity card scheme could not become compulsory, as the Secretary of State would not have the power to require people to register. The noble Baroness was right when she said that this clause is fundamental. If we removed it, she would put a coach and four through the Bill. The scheme will be made compulsory by orders made under Clause 6, which would be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Parliament will therefore scrutinise and vote on any orders made. The noble Baroness asked about what my honourable friend Mr Burnham said in the other place on the scheme. I always hesitate to contradict what a colleague has said, but my honourable friend was probably referring to the final way in which we would have to implement this if the super-affirmative procedure was not adopted. I think he meant that if both Houses did not agree, ultimately it would be up to the other place to determine the matter by primary legislation. But the process of the super-affirmative order set out in Clause 7 is clear and is understood by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips: each House can alter or add to the proposal and only if both Houses approve it can an order giving effect to it be laid. That order is then subject to the ordinary affirmative resolution procedure. The procedure is not yet usual, but it is precedented; for example, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recognised that it is,"““the most stringent available secondary legislation mechanism””." The order cannot be forced through by the Parliament Acts—to answer the question raised about that. This House can modify the proposal, although I hope it would not come to that. Ultimately this House could veto any order under Clause 7. So it is amazingly strong in terms of procedure. Even with the powers to link ID cards to existing documents through designation—for example, passports under Clause 4—there will still be some people who may not hold a passport and so will not obtain an ID card when their passport is renewed. Without this clause, further primary legislation would be required to take the final step in making the scheme universal. This Parliament should decide whether we are to introduce a compulsory identity cards scheme in the United Kingdom. It would be quite wrong to put off that decision until some point in the future. I absolutely understand that noble Lords will want to return to that point on Report. It is only right that I should make clear the Government’s stance on that. Amendment No. 118, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would make it impossible to require everyone entitled to be registered to do so under Clause 6. The amendment is not needed, as Clause 6 already provides that compulsory registration can be phased in to particular groups of individuals. Indeed, as we have always made clear, this would allow us to exclude completely particular categories of persons from a requirement to register. Thus—to give an example—the very elderly, persons in residential care or other special cases could be excluded. Where we should draw the line will need to be determined when the compulsion order is discussed, but it would be wrong to tie our hands unnecessarily by making it impossible to require everyone entitled to register to do so. Indeed, I remember well the point made about that earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when it was suggested that some may be excluded. Clause 7 sets out the super-affirmative procedure to bring in the compulsory registration order, with which I have already dealt. Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and its report. I agree with her and the quotation she gave regarding how it describes the super-affirmative procedure. It said that it was appropriate and,"““the most stringent available secondary legislation mechanism””." We believe, for the reasons I have given, that it was right to so describe it and to say that primary legislation was needed—the primary vehicle is the Bill we are now discussing. Amendment No. 133 would add a time delay of five years before the order-making power to bring in compulsion could be used. The Government rightly have not set a definite timetable for the move to compulsion. That would be wrong, as we need to ensure that the initial phase of the scheme is implemented successfully. Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would make minor drafting changes to Clause 7 by making the report on compulsion subject to ““amendment”” rather than ““modification”” and for it to be approved by ““each”” rather than ““both”” Houses of Parliament. We do not see that these changes would have any effect, and we believe that we should be guided by parliamentary draftsmen on the most appropriate form of words. As I understand it, ““amendment”” is the appropriate form of words for changes in primary legislation. ““Modification”” is defined in Clause 43(1) as including ““omission, addition or alteration””, so there can be absolutely no doubt that Clause 7 allows this House and the other place to make any changes they wish to the proposal for compulsion set out in the report. For the reasons that I have given, I invite the noble Baroness not to press the amendments. Clauses 6 and 7 must stand part of the Bill. I understand that the noble Baroness may want to bring back the amendments but, after my full explanation, I may have persuaded her that the clauses make eminently good sense and that they should remain in the Bill. Somehow, I feel that that is optimism that will prove to be lacking in foundation.