Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.


Identity Cards Bill

Amendments Nos. 98 and 102A, in my name, are grouped with this amendment. I agree entirely with what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to use statutory instruments to designate documents. If a document becomes a designated document, anyone who applies for that document must also apply for an ID card unless he already has one. The operative term there is that he must apply for an ID card. The compulsion that exists in Clause 5(2)(a) is foreshadowed here. Clause 5(2) says that,"““Where an application to be issued with a designated document is made by an individual””," that person must also apply to be entered on the national identity register. Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Explanatory Notes give passports and residence permits as the only examples of what could be designated documents. My Amendment No. 98 would limit designation to passports alone. Amendment No. 102A gives a list of documents that we say must not become designated documents by statutory instrument. The list could have been much longer, but it is simply a sample of documents to ask the Government what they intend should become designated. We refer simply to driving licences, national health cards, marriage certificates, registration of civil partnerships, documents relating to state retirement pensions and the Criminal Records Bureau disclosure numbers. In debates in this House and in another place, the Government have said time and time again that during the initial period of operation of the register, it will be voluntary to have an ID card. We believe that the reality is very different. As soon as any document is designated, it will be compulsory to have an ID card. We believe that that is compulsion by stealth and it is a theme we will pursue in great depth as we reach Clause 5. I shall not therefore go into too much detail now. My amendments in this group would not remove compulsion—we look at that in Amendment No. 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, but they would at least confine the designation of documents to passports. Why should the Government wish to designate any of the other documents if they are genuine about their claim that the initial period is supposed to be voluntary?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1007-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Biometrics Costs Convictions Delegated legislation Fraud EU countries Fees and charges Fingerprints Immigration EU law Identity cards Documents Fines Eyes Personal records Photographs National identity register Proof of identity Passports Registration
Legislation
Identity Cards Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk