---

Identity Cards Bill

I thought you would like that, my Lords. If one looks first at the UNCRC, the relevant article is almost identical to Article 8 of the ECHR. There is no absolute ban on interference with rights to privacy, but it needs to be justified as a proportionate response in the public interest. We are satisfied that any interference will be compatible with our international and domestic legal obligations. I remind the House that those at the age of 16 are in a position to apply for a passport. We made it clear in Committee that the age of 16 was set for good reason: it is the age at which an adult 10-year passport is issued, and is the school leaving age. In that discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggested that the accepted definition of a child in this country is someone aged under 18. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is right that, in various pieces of legislation, a child is differently defined because of the confines of that particular legislation. We give a chronological age, rather than simply leaving it as ““a child””, for the reasons implicit in the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, on Amendment No. 16A. Amendment No. 16B would, in effect, prevent the Secretary of State from transferring any information from the children’s register to the national identity register without the written permission of the parent or guardian. We have no plans to reduce the age of registration. The ID cards scheme is being designed for those aged 16 and over. However, that is not to say that there may not be good reason to vary this age in future. Any orders laid under this section will, as the noble Baroness knows, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore Parliament would have to agree to any modification of the age of registration. It is one of those issues which we can be quite definitive about, particularly on the new way in which we will use affirmative resolution. The proper time for discussions relating to the children’s register will therefore be if and when the Secretary of State lays an order to reduce the age of registration. As I have already made clear, Parliament will have ample opportunity to debate such points. In any case, the children’s register has not yet been set up. It is premature to discuss the interfaces between the NIR and databases which are not yet in existence. However, it is right that I should reassure the House that we have no plans to obtain information from the children’s register. Indeed, to do so would require the express authorisation of Parliament via an affirmative order under Clause 11. In addition, the children’s register and the national identity register have two very different functions, which the noble Baroness was kind enough to allude to in her remarks. The NIR is a database concerned with the identification of individuals, whereas the children’s register will allow practitioners to share information about children in order to improve their well-being and to safeguard and promote their welfare. The noble Baroness will know as well as anyone that one of the difficulties we have had historically in dealing with children’s issues is when information is held but not shared, so that unfortunately a proper informed decision is not made. Children then fall through the net in a way that causes us all great pain and anguish. Hopefully this is a means of stopping that happening. In the same way the NIR will not hold details in relation to medical or tax records. It will not hold any information that might relate to the welfare of children. Therefore, it is our view that the amendment is unnecessary. I assure the noble Baroness that I am particularly concerned about how this will work for some very obvious reasons, with which she will be only too familiar. I hope that I have answered the noble Baroness’s concerns on those two matters so that she will feel content, and that other noble Lords will agree that it is not necessary to bring the matter back. We absolutely understand why it was proper to raise the issue, and we have made a response for the record.