---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 58A: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause— ““RECALL, SURRENDER ETC OF DOCUMENTS    The Secretary of State or a designated documents authority may not by order under this Act, or any other enactment— (a)   require the recall or surrender of, or act to invalidate, a document issued by a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department or any person authorised by them, which is lawfully held by an individual, if a purpose of the recall or invalidation is to— (i)   require the individual to apply for or to purchase a replacement document which the Secretary of State has ordered or intends to order to be a designated document under this Act; or (ii)   require the individual to apply to be entered in the Register; or (iii)   require the individual to apply to be issued with an identity card; or (iv)   enable the individual to be registered or to be issued with an identity card without his consent. (b)   charge any individual for the cost of the replacement of a document issued by a Minister of the Crown or Northern Ireland department or any person authorised by them, which is lawfully held by any individual, if he has encouraged or required the individual to surrender the document, or has invalidated the document, in order to— (i)   require the individual to apply for or to purchase a replacement document which the Secretary of State has ordered or intends to order to be a designated document under this Act; or (ii)   require the individual to apply to be entered in the Register; or (iii)   require the individual to apply to be issued with an identity card; or (iv)   enable the individual to be registered or to be issued with an identity card without his consent.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 62A and 62C. I have given notice that we will not move the following amendments, which would normally be debated before the target amendment, Amendment No. 64E, tonight: Amendments Nos. 59A to 59D, 62D, 64C and 64D. The matters that I wish to raise on those probing amendments may either properly be covered in other groups to be dealt with tonight, or I will able to consider whether they need to be brought to Third Reading. I hope that they will not. The purpose of the amendments under consideration is to prevent the Secretary of State recalling documents used in our everyday life, simply so that he may then force us to go on to the national identity register and have an ID card. I have alluded to that on occasions, particularly today. The concern is that, if the Secretary of State has already designated a passport under Clause 4, perhaps I have only just applied for one, and it has almost 10 years to run. I would expect to possess it for a period of 10 years, when I can decide whether I wish to apply for registration, with a new passport, ID card and all that that entails. I will not try to rerun some of the arguments on what is voluntary and what is forced about that. If the Secretary of the State forces me to surrender the passport before its time is up and to apply for another one—hey, presto—in the Government’s initial period of so-called voluntary operation I will find myself forced to go on the register and to have an ID card whether I want one or not. That is the power given to the Secretary of State in what was the Government’s unamended version of Clause 5. Of course, if the Government at a later stage were to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, my amendment would not be so important. The problem would not subsist, but as I mentioned earlier with my own amendment to remove Clause 6, I rather suspect that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, may come winging back to us. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has more confidence in the foresight of the Government and feels that they will accept his amendment as they should—quite right too. My amendment does only what the Minister assured me that the Government intended; I therefore think it is hardly controversial. As the Minister said on 12 December:"““The Government do not intend to make an individual surrender a lawfully held document to obtain a replacement document that has been designated””.—[Official Report, 12/12/05; cols. 1011-12.]" If that is the case, why not make it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State will abide by that assurance? That would bind not only the current Government, but any future one as well. As I said, we know that in the Road Safety Bill the Government tried to give themselves just such a power of requiring surrender of driving licences. The House voted on 29 November to remove that power by taking out Clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. I move this amendment because I read carefully over the weekend the response that was given by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield on these very matters. The Minister failed to give an assurance that the power in the Road Safety Bill would not be used to recall driving licences so that they could be reissued as designated documents requiring a person to register on the national identity register and have an ID card. He went about his answer in a different way and did not therefore give the assurances that we required to allay our suspicions. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, merely repeated earlier assurances that the Government had no plans at the moment to designate driving licences and, if they were to do so, it would be prescribed by order under the affirmative procedure as in Clause 4 of the Bill. We know that, we can see that in the Bill. We sought a different kind of assurance. He simply did not address that. Has the Minister had any assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about the recall of driving licences? Will the Government accept the view of the House that Clauses 29 and 30 of the Road Safety Bill should not form part of this Bill? Overall, my concern remains that the Government should not be able to recall documents in order to force an early take-up of ID cards. I appreciate that the Minister may not have had a communication from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. That is why this is a probing amendment at this stage. It may well be that she can give an assurance tonight and surprise me, or she may wish to give that assurance at Third Reading. But assurance there has to be, preferably a belt and braces provision in the Bill. I beg to move.