Identity Cards Act 2006 (Information and Code of Practice on Penalties) Order 2009

My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister could help me out of a fog. I am sure that when he was in the Navy he got into intense fogs and managed to find his way out of them. I find the whole business of identity cards enormously complicated. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, you can prove who you are quite easily in lots of different ways, including credit cards, driving licences and so forth. Therefore, why do we have to have another one? That seems to me to be a fairly fundamental thing. I think that the Minister said that it will not be compulsory and that it will be voluntary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. What is the point of that? About 20 years ago, I had the privilege of being an ornament in the Home Office. At that time a lot of people said that we should have voluntary identity cards. I said that I could not see any point in it being voluntary because all it would mean was that all the goodies would get the voluntary card and all the baddies would not bother. Therefore, from the point of view of catching the baddies, there would be no purpose. The same applies with this: what is the point of it being voluntary? Why should people be obliged to buy something which will not be of much help to them, unless you come to a point where you say, "If you have not got an ID card, you cannot have a passport, a driving licence or whatever else"? But in that case it becomes compulsory. Will the Minister be good enough to explain whether it is voluntary or compulsory? If so, what is the reason for saying which it is? I fear also that this will create more penalties. The Government—bless their heart—think that the best way to run the country now is to create more penalties for everything that you do. We really do not want to have a new identity card produced and have a range of penalties, including one whereby if you forget to say you have changed your house, you get done for £1,000 or whatever it is. In fact, I thought that it was £5,000, so I suppose we can be grateful for small mercies. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that this is supposed to protect the individual. It rather looks as if it is giving more information to the Government, which is a major worry because they want more information on everything and we are rapidly becoming a police state. The Minister should heed this. It is not just a passing flippant remark. It is a fact that the Government want more information and if you do not provide it, you are a baddie and you will get caught for it. My noble friend Lord Selsdon was interested in knowing the names of people. Perhaps I may offer the Minister this advice: again, when I was in the Home Office, we had problems over the new computerised passport. I said, "My name is Ferrers and therefore it must say Ferrers". I was told, "No, no, the computer does not work that way. It has got to have Shirley written on it". I said, "If I go to a place overseas and ask to cash a cheque and I am asked my name—Ferrers—and my card says Shirley, that will not marry up". I was told, "But then it will say on the bottom, if you look at page 13A it will say that the proper name of the person is Earl Ferrers". It took two years to get that sorted out, but I warn the Minister that he is opening a big elephant trap.