---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, Amendment No. 15 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to consult members of the public about the draft code of practice before it is laid before Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, I was sympathetic towards this at an earlier stage, and that remains the case. As we have already said, we always had the intention of consulting the public on the code of practice, largely for the reasons which have been averred to in this debate, because we want people to know. We want to make sure that that consultation takes place before it is laid before Parliament. The Government have consulted the public both on the principle of identity cards in 2002 and more recently on the draft Bill that was published in 2004. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, told us about some of her Sunday afternoon activities. It is the sort of thing I occasionally do, though I do not browse the Home Office website extensively on Sunday afternoons— sometimes I watch the football. Currently the draft code of practice is on the ID cards website. The public are free to comment on it if they so choose. I am told by the Bill team that many of them are already doing exactly that. Perhaps the noble Baroness has had some difficulty getting through the various links, but clearly the public have not been so badly put off. We accept that the noble Baroness has a point, and obviously one can improve signposting on websites. By and large, the Home Office site, often the focus of criticism in these matters, is reasonably easy to travel through. We certainly intend further to perfect what is there and will work to improve it because we want people to understand exactly what is being done in their name. We are persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on this matter and are grateful to him for suggesting it. We intend to accept his amendment. Government Amendment No. 16 is consequential on that and has the effect that any revisions of the code of practice will also be subject to the requirement to consult. I am sure the noble Lord will be happy with that. Amendment No. 17, again a government amendment, has the effect that the order bringing into force the first draft of the code of practice that is laid before Parliament will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our Amendment No. 18 is consequential on that. It has the effect of clarifying that orders bringing into force all subsequent drafts will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Government have tabled Amendment No. 17 in response to the noble Lord’s earlier raising of the issue. The amendment does not go as far as the noble Lord’s amendment tabled at Report stage, as that would have had the effect of requiring all drafts of the code to be brought into force by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. That would have meant that any revision of the code would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Even the most minor or technical revision of the code of practice would need to be brought into force by way of affirmative order. We do not think that is necessary or a good use of parliamentary time. I suspect the noble Lord would agree with us in some particulars. As we have made clear, the civil penalties regime is intended to encourage compliance. It is not intended as a punishment, although as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, made clear in her comments, people need to understand that point. We have made clear in the code that once a requirement has been complied with any penalty will normally be waived and that should be the end of the matter. We accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Our amendments are essentially consequential, so in accepting his amendment, I commend the government amendments in the same group.