Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, much as we all want to see a reduction in the common agricultural policy, that that is a separate issue? We are talking about a budget starting in 2007, by which time our GDP will be around £1,400 billion. So a modest payment to help to improve the position in the incoming governments of the enlarged European Union would certainly not be unreasonable.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we have all made commitments to assist the enlarged Union. From 1990 onwards, well before the accession, considerable sums were committed by governments in the United Kingdom—Conservative as well as Labour—to achieve success. There is a fundamental argument still to be had on the common agricultural policy. Our net contribution between 1995 and 2003 was two and a half times that of France; without the abatement it would have been 15 times as much. The reality is that that system has to go.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 971
 

Identity Cards Bill

3.07 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Schedule 1 [Information that may be recorded in Register]:

[Amendment No. 80A not moved.]

Lord Selsdon moved Amendment No. 80B:

Page 40, line 6, at end insert "as recorded in his passport, or in the form required for a passport"

The noble Lord said: I do not want Members of the Committee to feel that I shall be pursuing a trivial pursuit. The only reason that I put down this amendment is to ask the Government for clarification. What is a full name? I would hate to drag the Committee back thousands of years but, in general, we regarded a full name as having three component parts, possibly as did the Romans—the praenomen, which was effectively the given name or later the Christian name; the nomen, which would be the name of the clan; and the cognomen, which would be the family name. Finally, there could be the agnomen, which effectively would be the nickname or some other sort of name.

Members of the Committee will remember when my noble friend moved an amendment some time ago. We had a rather fourth-form type of debate, which went on for a long time, beginning at 3.30 pm. The Minister, with great humour and charm, tried to diffuse it, although it was not a dangerous situation. But now I return to it and to the subject of logic. Having learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Gould, who monopolised a large part of that debate, that one must undertake some serious economic and social research, I remind the Committee that for many years I was a director of Research Services, which did the biggest social researches in this country. So, taking myself as myself, I have completed over the past week a number of telephone interviews and a number of real interviews. I asked everyone I met: "What is thy name—nomen or nomine? What is your full name? What is your legal name?". Frankly, no one knows.

The object of my amendment is to return to a relationship between our existing documents and what may be our new documents. I have provided a brief for myself, a copy of which I gave to the Minister a short while ago. I have also written to her, but she has not yet replied. In response to one of two Questions for Written Answer, the Government said:

"A passport is only issued after an applicant's nationality, status and identity has been confirmed, and is accepted throughout the world as proof of these".—[Official Report, 22/6/04; cols. WA 121-22.]

 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 972
 

Therefore my question is this: is the passport the ultimate proof of identity? If it is, the name in the passport should surely prevail, and any other form of documentation concerned with someone's name should be related to the passport. Perhaps the passport sets out only three or four names, and many noble Lords have been kind enough to point out with good humour that they are not known by their real name. Surprisingly, when people are asked, "What is your full name?", sometimes they give only their first and last names. When asked if the first name is effectively their Christian or given name, some would respond by saying, "Actually, it is not my Christian name because I am no longer a practising Christian".

The question is not only what is the name, but also in which order should those names be put. I have already explained that I have suffered from being known as "Monsieur Right The" and "Monsieur Croydon Of". More often I have been referred to as just "Monsieur Lord" or even "Doctor Lord". That has caused me difficulties, and to show how important the question is, I handed in my passport in order to get a bus pass. The bus pass, which has my photograph on it, refers to me as "Lord McEacharn". I asked whether it was right to call me by that name. The response was, "On your passport, it is the last name on the second line". I am not trying to be frivolous, but this frivolity could extend to matters quite serious.

Noble Lords will know that one in 12 of the British population was born overseas. Of that number—in total around 4.9 million or 8.3 per cent—a Home Office document states, perhaps incorrectly, that 53 per cent are white, which assumes that 47 per cent are of other ethnic origins. This includes Bangladeshi, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian. Those noble Lords who understand something of the sub-continents will know that confusion over names can be very real indeed. Therefore the purpose of my amendment is simply to suggest that after "full name", we should insert a form of words that states in effect that the name written in the passport should prevail. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support my noble friend. He referred to our previous debate on this issue on 23 November on an amendment that I moved. In withdrawing that amendment, I stated that I thought I had opened another can of worms, but I made it clear that I would reflect further before we reached Report. So it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on my noble friend's amendment save to say that he has managed to find even a few more worms in the can. I look forward to the Minister's response by letter to my own amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As the mover of the amendment has said, we had a long and at times amusing debate on this on the previous occasion that we discussed the Bill in Committee. The only point on which I would be grateful to receive an answer is this: if you are someone with several names, all lawfully
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 973
 
used, will you be able to choose which is to be the principal name, so to speak; that is, that recorded under paragraph 1(a) rather than paragraph 1(b)?

The Countess of Mar: I will not go into a long discussion about names, but I am half-wondering what will happen if you do not have a passport. Some people never travel abroad and have no need of one.

3.15 pm

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for his earlier letter. So intricate were the issues raised that it is taking the researchers some time to respond to it in full. The second letter was handed to me only as I took my seat, but the noble Lord has explained his amendment so fully that it will serve only as elucidation. I also thank him for that.

Although I understand its probing nature, the amendment is not necessary. The Passport Service conforms to the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—regulations when formatting names in a passport, as it has to ensure that it is a valid travel document. It is our intention that identity cards will follow the same convention. Identity cards will be issued to British nationals and they will also be valid for travel. Indeed, if UK passports are designated under Clause 4, as currently anticipated, passports and identity cards will be issued as part of the same process and on the basis of a single application form. It would not be possible to request a passport in one name and an identity card in another. Thus the principle behind the amendment is already accounted for in our current planning.

However, we do not wish to place any unnecessary restrictions in the Bill. Should other documents be designated under the Bill it may be neither convenient nor appropriate to restrict the formatting of names to the manner used in the passport. In consideration of these points, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is satisfied.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about which name will be proposed, I can say that the system will follow very much the same lines. Because the identity card is a travel document, the name used will have to comply with the ICAO criteria. I understand what the noble Countess said about not everyone having a passport, but 80 per cent of the population do. We currently comply with the regulations and that does not appear to have caused any difficulties.

Names are fully explained in the appendix to the letter that I sent from my private office to all noble Lords last Friday, 9 December. In that letter I have tried to go through many of the points which were of concern to noble Lords, but I am sure not everyone will have had an opportunity to read it in detail. Somewhat unusually, it contains about 30 pages, so I know that it is comprehensive. It is available in e-mail. I can certainly e-mail it again or provide hard copy if anyone does not have it, but, as this Committee will go on for a little time and we will have the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 974
 
opportunity to enjoy ourselves even further on Wednesday, I am sure that some of the issues I raise in the letter will come up then.