| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 52:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Issue etc. of ID cards]:
Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 52A:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52J.
The amendment alters Clause 8(1)(a), which, as the Explanatory Notes inform us, aims to set out the procedure for issuing ID cards. The amendment
23 Jan 2006 : Column 997
removes the ability to make an ID card part of a designated document, thus ensuring that it has to be a separate, self-standing form of identification. The second amendment is consequential to that separation of the ID card from being part of a designated document, and inserts the phrase,
at the end of subsection (4)(b). This highlights the important point that the choice of having an ID card and what is recorded on it should be the choice of the individual, just as the choice of registration should be voluntary.
We debated the ins and outs of designated documents when we discussed Clauses 4 and 5. We on these Benches feel that this scheme should be voluntary, as the Government initially wished it to be—as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, indicated. Indeed, she made the point that the card will be a useful form of identification, for example, in accessing public services—although, paradoxically, the Government will not make it compulsory for anyone to carry it.
Clause 15 sets out the powers to make public services conditional on identity checks. Subsection (1) states that regulations may require a person who provides a public service,
"to make it a condition of providing the service to an individual that the person produces—(a) an ID card; (b) other evidence of registrable facts about himself; or (c) both".
By potentially combining the ID card as part of a designated document, not only are you then making what could then be two forms of identification into one—not that we agree limiting what could be used under Clause 15(1)(b)—but importantly, it is yet another method of ensuring compulsion by stealth.
The example given in the Explanatory Notes describing an ID card as part of a designated document is of a joint,
While the notes do not mention other options—indeed, they state that an ID card would be a separate card issued with passports—there is nothing in the Bill to say that it will be joint residence permits only. There is nothing to stop ID cards being made part of all designated documents. The amendment would prevent that possibility from occurring, and thus help maintain a truly voluntary scheme for which so many noble Lords voted in Clause 5. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 52A would prevent an ID card being issued as a combined document with a designated document. We could not proceed with our plans to designate, for example, residence permits, issued to foreign nationals so that they would in themselves be both residence permits and ID cards.
We have a number of reasons for wishing to do that. First, it is planned in any event to improve the standard of the residence permit, so that instead of being a sticker in the back of a passport it is a separate card with biometric identifiers. As a residence permit
23 Jan 2006 : Column 998
is a document that non-EU foreign nationals already need to obtain if seeking to remain in the United Kingdom—as a student, or to work here—it is sensible to designate residence permits. It would in theory be possible to issue a separate ID card along with a residence permit, but that would be unnecessary duplication and much less convenient for the individual than receiving a single card that serves all identification needs.
Incidentally, there is a precedent for that approach in the rest of Europe. Those EU countries that issue identity cards to their own nationals, such as France or Germany, also issue residence permits as an equivalent form of identity document to foreign nationals resident in those countries. Some have suggested that in future it might make sense to combine a driving licence with an ID card. Again that would not be possible unless we retain the power in the Bill for the designated document itself to become the ID card.
Amendment No. 52J would require a person to indicate his wish to have an identity card before he or she could be issued with an identity card in accordance with Clause 8(4). I can reassure noble Lords that there is no intention to issue identity cards to people who have not applied for one. They will be issued only to individuals who are either entitled to them, as set out in Clause 2(2), or if not entitled to be issued with one, in the very particular circumstances to be made in regulations under Clause 8(5). That might include people who are not United Kingdom residents, but for whom there might be good reasons to have their details entered on the register and to be issued with an identity card, such as for example, someone living in Ireland who works in Northern Ireland, or someone who lives in France but works in England.
The key point, however, is that subsection (6) of Clause 8 must be complied with before an identity card can be issued. An application for an identity card will have to be made before an identity card can be issued to an individual. As subsection (4) of Clause 8 must be read in conjunction with subsection (6), there can be no question of issuing an identity card to anyone who does not apply for one. On that basis there is no need to add the wording in Amendment No. 52J to Clause 8(4) as, before being issued with an identity card, the person concerned will already have made an application for one.
I hope that it is clear from what I have said that, first, we need to retain the power for designated documents to be an ID card, and secondly, that no one who has not made an application in the first instance will be issued with an identity card, in line with Clause 8(6). I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 52A, and not to move Amendment No. 52J.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, that was not an unexpected reply, but a disappointing one nevertheless. I shall consider the matter further before Third Reading, but beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 999
Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 52B:
Page 7, line 21, leave out from "that" to end of line 22 and insert "the individual has consented should be recorded"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52B, I shall also speak to the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 52E.
The aim of the amendments is to break the link between ID cards and the register. The first amends subsection (2)(a) so that the card will record registrable facts about the individual that he has consented should be recorded, rather than facts that are already part of the entry on the register. Meanwhile, the second amendment is a consequential one to subsection (3)(a), to remove the words, "only the prescribed information" and insert,
We have already highlighted that it should be the individual's personal choice to decide whether to sign up to the register when applying for a new passport or other designated documents. That naturally follows on from the debate. The wording, as it stands in subsection (1)(a), broadly suggests that all registrable facts that are already recorded as part of an individual's entry in the register could be transferred to the ID card itself. Surely the individual should be able to choose which of the necessary registrable facts are recorded on his card, rather than automatically having all those that are recorded on the register transferred.
The example that springs to mind is that of addresses. For identification purposes you only have to prove your main abode—usually achieved by taking along a utility bill or a driving licence. As the Minister explained during debates on Clause 1, the Government have made provision, by Amendment No.7, for the address of every other place in the UK or anywhere else he has a place of residence to be registered, covering holiday homes as well as foreign students' accommodation. We welcomed that move, but it means that there may be more than one current address on the register. Surely the individual should be able to choose which one—if there are two in the UK—should be shown on his card, rather than having the potential for both to be shown.
Similarly, should it not be the individual's choice about which telephone number or e-mail address he wants on the card? Although I have not checked, it occurs to me that the separation of the register and the information recorded on the card could be another method by which the individual's data rights can be protected to some degree. Will the Minister clarify exactly which registrable facts will be transferred to the ID card? Will it be the same for each individual? Who will decide which ones are transferred for each individual? I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |