---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, not for the first time, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his amendment—in particular, his manuscript Amendment No. 101A to Clause 33, as well as his amendments to Clause 36, which raised some important points that require clarification. On Amendment No. 101A, we agree that there needs to be a warning before a penalty is imposed, but that this needs to be in the code of practice and not in the Bill. That is where we think it is most appropriate. However, on Amendment No. 105A, we believe that the noble Lord has spotted what we accept is an unintended omission from the Bill. The amendment is designed to widen the scope of the code of practice on civil penalties, which is required under Clause 36, from simply determining the amount to be imposed in any particular case by way of a civil penalty to the whole procedure for imposing civil penalties. That is how we are already interpreting the scope of the code; the initial draft that we issued on 9 December covers the whole procedure for civil penalties—not just the determination of the amount of the penalty. I invite the noble Lord to accept that point. We therefore accept that the code must be considered when determining not only the amount of the penalty to be imposed but whether a civil penalty should be imposed. On the basis that we bring back a government amendment on this at Third Reading, I invite the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 105A. Amendment No. 105B would require consultation on the code of practice on penalties with members of the public likely to be affected before it is laid before Parliament. Again, we have sympathy with the purpose of the amendment. We intend to consult extensively on the code; indeed, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would readily acknowledge, we have already prepared an initial draft, which I am sure that many noble Lords have seen. It was placed in the Library on 9 December, and is on the identity cards website. Anyone with access to the Internet may now view it and comment on it if they wish. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we shall be in a position to launch a more formal consultation exercise. Having said all that, we do not believe that there is any need for the consultation to be specified as a requirement in the Bill. Although we are anxious to have the widest possible consultation, we have not yet undertaken specific ethnic monitoring of those who have responded; but we can look at the analysis of those who have responded and we shall look again to ensure that we are getting a representative response from ethnic minority groups. I hope, having said that, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.