| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment would remove the provision that ID cards such as passports remain the property of the issuer, which will normally be the Secretary of State. It would replace it with a statement that the card was the property of the person to whom it was issued.
Our view is clear. It would be completely unprecedented for a document of this nature to be issued in those terms. A good analogy is a passport, which is endorsed:
"This passport remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and may be withdrawn at any time".
If the cards were to be the property of the user, that would seriously undermine confidence in the reliability of the scheme both in this country and in the rest of the European Union. It would also contravene standard practice across the world for travel documents. The issuing of ID cards and the maintenance of the integrity of the system as a whole is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, so it is entirely appropriate that the cards remain the property of the Government.
The noble Baroness said that she felt that the cards being the property of the persons to whom they were issued would be a check on potential criminality. We could argue the contrary. If they were to be the property of the person to whom they were issued, it would be very difficult to have its sale or transfer to another person blocked. The product would be that much more easily transferable and knowledge of it and what was on it would be that much more difficult to obtain. So, for safety and security reasons—if for no other—it would be much wiser for it to remain the property of the government of the United Kingdom, as is the case with passports.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 52H:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52J not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 53:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved an amendment in Committee to make clear that the issue of cards under Clause 8(5) could be done only with the consent of the person to whom the card was to be issued. Amendments were moved today by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, broadly along that line.
In discussions with the ever-helpful Bill team, I was told that Clause 8(6) applies to the whole of Clause 8 and makes clear that no card can be issued under Clause 8(5) or (4) which is not consensual—that it does not proceed other than on an application made to the register by the individual concerned. My amendment is designed to make that express and explicit. It does not change the sense of the clause; that is not intended. I have removed the superfluous words "relating to an individual"—an ID card can relate only to an individual—and inserted "issued under this section". Therefore, Clause 8(6) would state:
and so on.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1017
I hope that the amendment is uncontentious and will make clear what is currently less clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that the noble Lord's understanding of the operation of Clause 8 (6) is correct. It is not to be read in isolation. I can state categorically that subsection (6) applies to the other subsections including subsection (5). Therefore the identify card mentioned in Clause 8(5) is the same ID card mentioned in Clause 8(6) and (1). Clause 8(5) has to be read in conjunction with Clause 8(6). It cannot be read in isolation.
It is important to state that it operates in relation to all parts of that clause. I understand why the noble Lord moved his amendment. However, it casts doubt on other areas of the Bill. If Clause 8(6) reiterated in effect that it must be read in conjunction with other subsections, that may cast doubt on whether this is the case with other clauses which do not contain such a provision.
Clause 8(5) is intended for those who have not yet been resident in the UK for the prescribed period but who wish to apply for a card immediately for their own convenience. Another example could be an Irish citizen residing in Dublin but who makes frequent journeys to the UK and would find an ID card a useful method for proving his identity while he is here. However, all individuals would have to make an application for the card and to be entered on to the register. The Secretary of State could not use this subsection as a way of bringing in compulsion through the back door. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, that we can leave the structure of the clause as it is, and that it will have the effect he desires. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
7.15 pm
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her explanation, which I shall read carefully. At first hearing, it seemed to satisfy my desire—except in one respect. I always come back to this question. For the poor people who have to do so hereafter, how easy will it be to construe the Bill? I thought it would be helpful to clarify in the manner indicated. I understand the noble Baroness to say that that would have potential interpretative repercussions elsewhere. One must have close regard to that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 54:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has been spoken to at length and we have had a vote on it. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted. I beg to move.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1018
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 54A:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 54B:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a short and simple amendment which removes lines 14 to 16 of subsection (8) of Clause 8. This is to probe why the Government feel that these particular words are needed on the face of the Bill when it already appears to me to be covered by paragraph (b) which states that applications may be made by the Secretary of State or, in prescribed cases, to a designated documents authority. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment seeks to remove the clarification that the Secretary of State may delegate to a designated documents authority the power to issue a stand-alone ID card. At present we have no plans for anyone but the Secretary of State to issue stand-alone cards—that is, through the new agency to be based, as we have explained many times, around the United Kingdom Passport Agency. However, we would not wish to rule out the possibility altogether. If the designated documents authority were to be fully set up to issue ID cards it would be an unnecessary restriction if a person wishing to apply for a stand-alone card were unable to do so to the authority most convenient for him. It is simply for that reason that we have retained this provision. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 55:
( ) the registrable facts which are to be relevant for the purposes of subsection (4)(b),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [ID cards for those compulsorily registered]:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |