The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 30 November 2005, together with the Explanatory Memorandum now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. The draft order amends the International Organisations Act 1968, the Companies Act 1985 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The International Organisations Act 1968 allows the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on international organisations and individuals connected with international organisations. Orders made under Sections 1 and 2 of the International Organisations Act 1968 (Sections 1(6)(a) and 2(5)) can confer only the privileges and immunities expressly provided for in the international agreement which is being implemented. Therefore, unless an international agreement provides for privileges and immunities to be conferred on the civil partner of the primary beneficiary of the privileges and immunities, we currently do not have the vires to do so.

This draft order will amend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on civil partners. Section 153(4)(bb) of the Companies Act 1985 provides that share ownership incentive schemes for spouses of employees and former
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1047
 
employees of a company are not prohibited as a form of financial assistance for the purchase of shares under Section 151 of the Act. Section 743 of the Companies Act 1985 defines "employees' share scheme" for the purposes of the Act, as including share schemes for the benefit of the spouses of employees and former employees of a company. The draft order will amend Section 153(4)(bb) and Section 743 so that share incentive schemes apply equally to civil partners and spouses of employees, and former employees, of a company.

Section 79(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which extends to England and Wales only, was amended by Section 79(8) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, to provide for civil partnership to be included alongside the references to marriage. The draft order will further amend Section 79(7) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. This will enable the registrar general to advise an adopted person who wishes to form a civil partnership whether he and his proposed civil partner are within the prohibited degrees of relationship, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 provides a new legal framework that will enable recognition of same-sex relationships through the new status of civil partner and the new legal relationship of civil partnership. Civil partners will now have legally binding rights and responsibilities in relation to each other and will have acquired a new status, which will affect how they are treated by third parties, including the state. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 aims to ensure parity of treatment between married couples and civil partners, except where there is an objective justification for a difference in treatment. The amendments made in this draft order will allow the United Kingdom to ensure that parity of treatment is accorded to civil partners.

I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is important and I hope and trust, given the decisions of Parliament on the status of civil partnerships, that it is non-controversial and that it will receive the full support of your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30 November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

8 pm

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We are getting into a field that is rather novel to me and I am not sure that I would understand all the ins and outs of it. However, one of the strange anomalies is that if two old sisters living together thought they would like to adopt a child, they would not be allowed to have a civil partnership under the civil partnership law. Could one
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1048
 
of them adopt a child, or would it count against them that they were in a relationship within the prohibited degrees in the Civil Partnership Act?

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for bringing forward the order and assure him that these Benches are delighted to accept it.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke and to the noble Baroness for their support, even with the question. The question about sisters arose during the substantive discussion on civil partnerships. Your Lordships' House and the other place decided that the definition of an appropriate civil partnership was fully and frankly debated and a conclusion was reached. That conclusion did not include sisters in that state of affairs. Should a sister want to adopt a child, the question would be about the suitability of the adoption in its own right, in those circumstances, and without bearing on the civil partnership status, which would not exist between them.

It was an intriguing, perhaps even a teasing, question and I hope that I have answered it as factually as I can. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.02 to 8.30 pm.]

Identity Cards Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 5.

[Amendments Nos. 107 to 111 not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 5, line 20, leave out ", and other biometric information about himself,"

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 112 picks up the theme of exploring the relationship between Schedule 1 and the rest of the Bill. It asks the very straightforward question of what other biometric information may be added in future to the Government's expressed requirement that fingerprints, iris scans and face scans should be registered. Earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, addressed a slightly different point when he probed whether an iris scan was an internal or external characteristic. My question is different, because it asks what the Government have in mind as other biometric data. The difficulty is that if the Government are not able to give the Committee information on this now, we suspect that their calculations on costs will become even more haphazard because any change to the collection of biometric data will have an impact on their collection and storage, and there will be an impact on the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1049
 
operation of the readers that will be used by other departments, such as the NHS and the DWP, to check whether people are entitled to the health services or benefits that they claim. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendments Nos. 155A and 172 in this group are tabled in my name. Amendment No. 155A relates to Clause 9 and Amendment No. 172 relates to Clause 12, and they exclude reference to biometric information in those clauses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we had a long discussion on this earlier this afternoon, and I am content to leave things as they were then because the Minister said she would consider this matter further. Therefore, I propose to say no more.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the noble Lord's brevity. We need to have some flexibility in circumstances where it might not be possible for an individual to provide a fingerprint or other biometric data. That is all we are seeking to do and all that this provision does. I hope that answers the point about which the noble Baroness was concerned. If it does not, I shall go further.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Will the Minister consider the matter further and write to me on it? I appreciate that it may be sensible to say that if somebody cannot satisfy the requirement for all the biometric data—10 fingerprints, an iris scan and a facial scan—it may be appropriate for just one of those specific identifiers to be required of him. I seek assurance that the Government will not in future specify other types of biometric identifiers. I cannot see what else could be designated as a biometric identifier that could later be added. I was seeking that kind of assurance; that there is nothing hiding in the wings. The answer the Minister has given us is to a different question from the one I posed. I certainly accept that what he has said so far contains a lot of sense, but I am looking into the future at what else could be lurking. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to give a quick reflection on that now or whether he would prefer to write to me on it. I look to him.