---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I am more sympathetic to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The noble and learned Lord, having led us this far up the garden path regarding his former nickname, should tell us why he was given it. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will tell us in reply to the amendment that, surely, the requirement to provide a ““full name””, which is unaffected by the amendment, must mean the current full name. My other point is that it will make little difference whether or not the amendment is allowed. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would help the House, because the Bill is always springing little surprises on us, even at Third Reading. As I understand it, Schedule 1 has a paragraph entitled ““Validation information””, which clearly states that:"““The following may be recorded in the entry in the Register for an individual””," and begins,"““the information provided in connection with every application,””" for an ID card. That relates to all the background information. Paragraph 7(c ) states:"““particulars of the steps taken, in connection with an application . . . for identifying the applicant or for verifying the information provided””." I anticipate that the procedure in connection with applications for ID cards and their consideration by the Passport Office will centre heavily around identification and, in particular, around the name. Thus, with or without the amendment, it seems to me that you will have logged on your file in the national register all the stuff about previous names—I will not say nicknames. It would be helpful for us to know the rights and wrongs of that.