---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 22GA and 22I. I would very much like your Lordships to emulate the behaviour that we have just witnessed in the passing of the previous Bill. I invite your Lordships to follow suit. The Motion was agreed by the other place on Tuesday 21 March by a majority of 43 votes. I seek—I emphasise the word ““seek””—to persuade your Lordships not to accept Motion A1 of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, which would amend Motion A by adding Amendments Nos. 22J and 22K. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said in our debate on 20 March and I undertake to listen very carefully again today to what he will say in support of his Motion. I am clearly very grateful to him for the time he has taken to consider this issue and to draft these amendments. I should say at once that I recognise that they are intended to be helpful in resolving the stalemate on this one final issue on the Identity Cards Bill and not to undermine the Government’s plans for identity cards. I acknowledge that is the intention. Whether that is the effect, however, is, of course, another matter. However, while in theory an opt-out might well be preferable to an opt-in, the practical impact on delivering the identity card scheme would be much the same. The reason I cannot accept these new amendments is that they would have a very similar impact to the original Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, but withdrawn by him on 20 March when he proposed Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H in lieu. I see the noble Lord nodding his assent in relation to that assessment. These later Amendments Nos. 22G and 22H recognise the principle of linking designated documents to identity cards, albeit with a time limit which would have delayed the automatic linkage between designated documents and identity cards. The debate when the Bill returned to the Commons on 21 March was essentially about the timing of implementing the requirement for people applying for a designated document such as a passport to register and obtain an identity card rather than the principle of doing so. That was certainly the line taken by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman in the Commons, Mr Nick Clegg MP, during the debate in the other place on 21 March. The question now is whether these powers should be available straightaway or whether any delay should be imposed. Indeed, Mr Clegg said that in his view the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, would,"““blow a hole in the Bill””—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/06; col. 192.]." And so it does—it would put a coach and four through the Bill as it is currently before this House. As I made plain in debate on 20 March, the date of 31 December 2011 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is unacceptable to the Government. Such constraint on the linkage between designated documents and identity cards would introduce major uncertainties into our planning and create a high risk of additional costs. There would be delays not just in British passport holders being registered, but in foreign nationals being included on the national identity register.