---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I do not know whether I will be able to give all the assurances that the noble Baroness wishes, but I shall give her, I hope, a satisfactory explanation with which she will be content. I understand the reasons behind the amendment, but I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that there really is no concern and that therefore there is no need for the amendment. Registering individuals as they replace a designated document will provide a predictable roll-out, which means that there will be a steady volume of applications for the issue of identity cards. That in turn will make planning easier. It will reduce the risk of problems caused by fluctuating or unpredictable volumes and reduce costs because the capacity that the identity card-issuing system will need at varying stages and the roll-out can be more carefully managed and will be much more even. The noble Baroness will know of the volume of passports that are issued every year and that we will therefore be able to predict more precisely when the likely turnover will be. We do not know the scope of the power to recall driving licences precisely, and we will have to come back to the noble Baroness on that. I shall be happy to talk to my noble friend about the matters that she raised with her usual eloquence. The recall of all existing documents would be a risky enterprise. Although volumes will be known, it will take place over a much shorter period, and volumes would be very much higher. That would increase the project risks and, indeed, the costs. It would be much harder to predict how much capacity would be needed at various stages. It would not be wise to build a system designed to issue a very large number of identity cards in a very short time, followed by a long period in which application numbers were small, and ending up 10 years later with another vast influx of applications as all the initial identity cardholders renewed their documents. It would be building into the system capacity issues that would be unhelpful. I can therefore give the noble Baroness an assurance that the Government do not intend to require the recall of any category of document, be it passports or other documents, simply in order to introduce identity cards. When the Government consider that the time is right to proceed to compulsion, so that every United Kingdom resident has an ID card, then, as we have always made clear, we would proceed by way of a compulsion order under Clause 6, if that clause is in due course restored to the Bill, rather than by attempting to recall all remaining passports or other designated documents. The noble Baroness was right to anticipate what might happen in due course. As we have discussed, we will roll out the issue of identity cards incrementally as people naturally apply for or renew the documents that it is intended to designate, such as the passport for British citizens and residence permits for foreign nationals. Paragraph (b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 58A would also have a negative impact on the scheme. It would prevent the encouragement of people to upgrade their existing document once it had been designated. Home Office research has shown that 26 per cent of people said that they would be prepared to renew their passport earlier in order to obtain a joint identity card and passport package. It would not make sense if a new agency established to issue identity cards could not encourage such people to take up that opportunity—for example, by offering a discount on the combined fee for a passport and identity card for existent passport holders who wished to renew early. As I have just made clear, we have no intention of recalling existing documents to introduce identity cards. However, we would not want in any way to delay the benefits of the scheme by preventing the new agency encouraging people to update their documents so as to obtain a card. It has always been made clear that there could be no ““big bang”” introduction of identity cards. So, rather than speeding up their introduction by recalling existing documents, it will be necessary to spread it over a number of years. It would be wrong to be constrained as the new clause provides. Amendments Nos. 62A and 62C to Clause 13, which covers invalidity and surrender of ID cards, would both affect the cancellation of a group of identity cards. Amendment No. 62A would prevent the Secretary of State cancelling a particular class of identity cards that he had decided should be re-issued and amended, while Amendment No. 62C would prevent the requiring of the surrender of an ID card in such a category. They could have a serious impact on the security of the identity card scheme. If it were not possible to recall a group of identity cards, it might be necessary to require a particular category of identity cards to be surrendered and re-issued, if their security had somehow been compromised. That might affect just one batch of identity cards, something that we touched on earlier this evening. However, in such a case it would be essential for all the cards in that batch to be cancelled, recalled and reissued as quickly as possible, which would be necessary as much for the interests of the identity card holders as the overall integrity of the identity card scheme. I hope that the noble Baroness understands why we think that the amendments are unnecessary and that the Bill is drawn appropriately. I therefore invite her to withdraw her amendment.