The Earl of Onslow: It is made worse by the fact that it will be a civil penalty. Presumably the burden of proof will be on the balance of probability or be fined 2,500 quid. When people stood around a small place called Runnymede they did not expect their government to behave like that, but it is not unsurprising with this Government.

Lord Monson: I have not taken much part in our deliberations on the Bill so far, mainly because the attacks mounted upon the Bill by noble Lords on the two Opposition Benches have been so effective that there is very little one can add. However, mere silence should not indicate acquiescence in what the Government propose. The changes—or perhaps one should say the ameliorations—proposed in this group of amendments are particularly necessary in a free society such as ours. I trust that if the Government refuse to give way today, these amendments—or some of them—will be pressed to a Division at Report stage.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This part of the Bill has to change. Again I draw the attention of the Committee to how the whole procedure will look to individual citizens. Once the scheme becomes compulsory, we simply must not tell people that they have got to be at a certain place at a certain time or there will be a penalty. Surely it will be possible to write to people and say, "By a given date, everybody has got to have an ID card. You have not got one yet, so you require one. There are a series of centres. The ones nearest to where you live are . . . Will you please make an appointment to attend?"

We are not talking about everybody; we are talking about 20 per cent because the others will have done so already. It is absolutely essential that this should be done properly but, as far as I can see, it is not allowed for in the Bill. The Minister will have to consider this problem and get into the shoes of people in the future—when, alas, she probably will not be the Minister and will not be answerable; someone quite different will be answerable—and think how this is going to look. It is something we simply cannot ask people to do and this part of the Bill has to change.

Lord Crickhowell: I thank my noble friend for giving way. She is wrong on one point: that there will be only 20 per cent. I think she is referring to the compulsory stage of the Bill on the assumption that it follows on for the people who have dealt with the passport applications and so on. I think I am right in saying that
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1024
 
the first part of the scheme will apply as soon the Bill becomes law and that, therefore, people may be required to go to these places to get their identity cards when there are far fewer than the 20 per cent suggested by my noble friend.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend is absolutely right. At least then people will want to get a passport, I take it—unless I misunderstand—or will want an identity card. They can, I suppose, put it off, but if it is compulsory to come at a certain time or miss out on the whole system—this is my point—it will make it worse. But of course my noble friend is right.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Let us not think of this as a one-off application. Clause 12 states that if there is a change of circumstances affecting the information recorded about a person in the register, you are then subject to a requirement to notify. You may then be required to attend at a specified place and time for your fingerprints to be taken again; for your biometric information to be taken and recorded; for you to be photographed; and to provide any information that is required by the Secretary of State.

What are these circumstances? Any change of name. You would have to do that if you wanted to change your name on marriage. If you changed your address, you would have to give notice; if you changed your work number; if you acquired a designated document—and I go back to the debate we had on that.

One of the virtues of the identity card scheme, it is said by the Government, is that it prevents benefit fraud. One has to assume that if you draw benefit and you obtain a document to entitle you to draw benefit, with numbers on it, that is one of the documents that will be designated under Clause 4(2)(b). There will be a change of circumstance when you apply for benefit and when you cease to be entitled to benefit. A dog licence could become a designated document under subsection (2)(a)—it is a change of circumstance. Every change of circumstance which may happen once, twice or three times a year lays you open to a requirement to attend at one of these centres to be interviewed, to be photographed and for your particulars to be gone into all over again. If you do not, you are a defaulter—shades of the congestion charge here—subject to large fines for which you can be pursued no doubt through the Northampton county court or a similar gulag somewhere in England. That is what is promised to us by the Government. You must notify a change of circumstance—if you do not, you are a defaulter.

I believe that, unameliorated by the amendments, which I support, Clause 12 will see the Bill off. I cannot imagine that the people of this country will stand for form-filling every time there is a change of circumstance on pain of being described as a defaulter and pursued for large sums of money. The people of this country will rise up and reject it.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1025
 

6.30 pm

The Earl of Erroll: I agree with pretty well everything that has been said. I suspect that people will not be called in to have their fingerprints taken every time they notify a change of circumstances but that the provision will be used to bring people in at least once every three to five years, because that is the period over which biometrics tend to change. They will want to fingerprint, scan or photograph everyone's iris again within that sort of period.

Clause 12(2)(b) refers to "within the prescribed period". That will be critical. What happens when people are away because they are posted abroad, on an extended holiday or have taken a trip round the world on their retirement? You do not know when this will hit you. I hope that the system will be better by that stage than the current hospital booking system—I expect it will.

There is an existing database that could be used to fulfil most of the functions of the proposed identity card—the driving licence database, as I have already said. I had my secretary ring up the DVLA to find out what the prescribed period was within which you have to notify a change of address. It is a criminal offence not to do so, for which there is a £1,000 fine. Interestingly, the people at the DVLA said that there was a £1,000 fine but that there was no prescribed period. Perhaps if a prescribed period was slapped on to the driving licence that would again fulfil many of the functions of the identity card, which might solve the problem more cheaply.

Lord Hylton: What the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said prompts me to ask whether the Government have considered people who move in and out of employment and therefore in and out of benefit. Those with experience of housing administration will know that this is a critical and important matter, and it seems to be relevant here.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The great irony of the Bill is that it has been brought forward by a Labour Government. I have said this before and I shall repeat it. If the Labour Party had been in opposition when such a Bill had been brought forward, there would have been not only a parliamentary explosion but a nationwide explosion. On marches up and down the country, people would have been protesting that we were losing our well established individual freedoms.

We have heard the details of these provisions and what is likely to happen. I believe that everything that has been said by those speaking to the amendments will come to pass. They are bound to come to pass because what is proposed is likely to turn out to be an administrative and civil liberties nightmare. We are talking about the registration of 60 million people—eventually, the compulsory registration of 60 million people.

Let us not forget that very shortly, if I am not mistaken, a national child register will come into operation. You can see what will happen. The Bill currently applies to people over the age of 16; the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1026
 
national child register will then be combined with the national identity register and the identity card. This Labour Government, who used to want to look after you from the cradle to the grave, now want to be after you from the cradle to the grave. They will have every bit of information that they want and which they can alter from time to time and increase from time to time. They will know where you live, what you do, how many cars you have, and so on.

The Government really believe that this can be done for 60 million people. Let us think of some of the administrative disasters that we have had so far. Indeed, let us think of just one—the Child Support Agency. That has been an administrative disaster in every respect. It has not done what was intended; it has not done what was promised; and it has not given to women the benefits that were promised under the Bill introducing it. We recently found out that this organisation, set up to chase after defaulters, has managed to get £8 million in arrears at a cost of £12 million in administration.

In that organisation, far from the absent parent being caught and made to pay, more men—it is usually men—probably pay less than they would have done had the matter continued to be administered by the courts. This has been at a huge cost to the Exchequer, and to the lives of some men who were so oppressed that they committed suicide. Despite having failed to get some money out of absent parents, who are relatively few in number, the Government expect to be able eventually to register 60 million people. I simply do not believe that that is possible.

These are ameliorating amendments. They will not cause the Bill to fall. We in this House are doing our best to make the Bill more acceptable.

The provision will not work. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was absolutely right. The general public will rise up against it when they see exactly what is involved. Whoever is in power then—if we have a government foolish enough to proceed with this idea—will feel the electoral backlash.