Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not quite sure what I am grateful for. I did not intend to press my amendment to a vote, as it is silly to ask to leave the words out, but the purpose of my amendment was to ask what they mean and whether it would be possible to improve on them. The Minister may find herself, following the lead of her department, entirely wedded to the principle of vagueness, in which case the words are very satisfactory. I am prepared to give way to the Minister if she will say a word about my amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I apologise if the noble Lord does not feel that I did justice to his amendment, because I am anxious to do so. Clause 4(2)(a) covers documents issued under a statutory power, either by a Minister or by some other person with statutory authority. Clause 4(2)(b) is designed to cover
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1010
 
documents issued by Ministers under prerogative powers, such as passports. The short answer is that the clause is not vague; it is precise in order to capture those two different entities. I hope the noble Lord is reassured.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Although not vague, Clause 4(2) covers a wide range of bodies. I believe I am right in thinking that television licences would come within it, as well as practising certificates for solicitors and bookies' licences.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I think we have now abolished dog licences, but I take the point that the noble Lord has raised. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but the Minister's claim that the words I quoted had anything precise about them was stretching language too far.

It never occurred to me to accuse the Government of stealth in this matter. As guileless and innocent as I am, I was never so simple-minded as to believe that the Government would not eventually wish to make this scheme compulsory. That was clear to me at all times. I suspected, and I still suspect, that the Government thought that they might as well get the clamour over. They rightly foresaw that the Bill would not be to everybody's taste, and therefore they decided to sweeten it, to put a bit of sugar on the pill so that everyone could swallow it more or less comfortably. Then, by the time they come to make it compulsory, the most powerful weapon they have—boring everybody, wearying everybody and tiring them out—will have had a chance to take effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 4, line 35, at end insert—

"( ) No United Kingdom citizen may be subject to any charge or civil or criminal penalty, arising from his refusal to surrender any lawfully held document issued by a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department or any other person authorised by them, if a purpose of requiring its surrender is to replace it, or require its replacement, by the issue of a document designated under this Act, if that person does not wish to participate in an identity card scheme or Register, unless that identity card scheme has been made compulsory for all United Kingdom citizens over the age of 18."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 101, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102, 147, 148 and 150, in my name. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 were originally in this group, but they have been degrouped with my consent and will be dealt with later.

As ever, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Like him, I was not so guileless as to believe that this scheme is not intended to be compulsory overall. My noble friend is right that the Government have made clear their ultimate objective:
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1011
 
to force all of us to have ID cards. In the beginning, we were not clear about what kind of scheme it is, with its mammoth register and all the difficulties involved in that. The public, who I am sure all avidly read the Labour Party manifesto, would not have believed that, because it said:

"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".

The Minister has made it clear that when the Government use the word "voluntary" they mean "compulsory". In that case, I have to look at the Bill in a different way. I am sure we will have full debates on that issue when we come to Clauses 5, 6 and 7.

My amendments are modest. Amendment No. 101 would protect United Kingdom citizens from being forced to suffer any penalty if they refused to surrender to a Minister of the Crown or a Northern Ireland department any document that they hold lawfully, provided that the purpose of the demand for the surrender of that document arose out of the Government's determination to replace it with a designated document that would carry with it a requirement for the person to apply to be entered on the national identity register and thereby to have an ID card, according to the Bill. They would be subject to a penalty only after the scheme has been made compulsory—the Government would say "fully compulsory"—for all by the super-affirmative process.

Amendment No. 102 goes further and establishes that somebody who has to apply for a new document that is a designated document for the purposes of the Bill cannot be forced to have an ID card unless certain conditions are met. They are that the person has stated in writing that he wants to have an ID card, or that the scheme has been made compulsory for everybody over the age of 18.

Amendment No. 147 removes the distinction in Clause 8(6) between an application for an ID card and an application to be entered on, or to confirm an entry on, the national identity register. We believe that people should be given the opportunity to refuse to have an ID card in the initial period, the so-called "voluntary period", even if they are entered on the register.

Amendments Nos. 148 and 150 knock out more of the compulsion by stealth in the voluntary period. They remove subsections that force one to apply for an ID card when one applies for a designated document. I believe that my amendments are entirely in line with the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto. Therefore, I have high hopes that the Minister will want to adopt them. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: 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
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1012
 
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
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1013
 
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.

5.45 pm