---

Identity Cards Bill

We have already had quite a debate on this and I will try to keep my comments brief. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, would remove the deletion of the reference to the enforcement provision prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment. While the use of the scheme to combat illegal working in breach of immigration controls would, to some extent, be covered by the reference to immigration controls in any event, we take the view that it would not be at all helpful to make this change. My noble friend Lady Corston made a very useful intervention on that point. Bona fide employers will want to know exactly who is working for them. And once the scheme is in place, the identity card will be the easiest way to check a prospective employee’s identity and to ensure that, if a foreign national, he or she is entitled to work in this country. It will offer a further measure of protection to employers. It is worth saying that employers have, in the past, expressed the view that the measures they face in relation to illegal working have presented something of a burden to them. This will help them to work though that burden, if burden it be. We think it is a quite proper measure. The use of identity cards to combat illegal working should be spelt out explicitly on the face of the Bill. For example, paragraph (d) would also cover employment laws unrelated to immigration, such as prohibitions or underage working. Again, we think that that is a benefit. Where people are forced into employment for less than the minimum wage, it will help enforce the law, and has value for that reason. I believe that we should not limit the public interest test, as set out in the amendment. For the reasons that my noble friend Lady Corston and I have made plain—and which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay probably agrees with—I think the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment.