|
Mr. Carmichael: I shall be brief. I bring the attention of the Committee to subsection (2), which states:
(a) holds a valid ID card that is due to expire within the prescribed period;
(b) does not hold a valid ID card,
he must apply for one within the prescribed period.''
Given the earlier discussion, I would be grateful to know what the Government intend that prescribed period to be.
Mr. McNulty: For all the feigned outrage of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, those items, especially the ones that he referred to directly, simply replicate the application process that we dealt with in some detail under clause 5. In that regard, clause 5(5) is exactly the same as clause 9(4) in each of its elements.
The clause is about the renewal of ID cards and one would rather hope that the renewal of the cards would follow the same process as the initial application and issue of the cards.
Unless technology takes off in leaps and bounds, there will not be little photo-me booths up and down the country where people can get their biometric data before they tootle off to the ID card application store and lay that before those who process the cards, as we do with passport photos. The clause is about renewal and it is right and proper that it replicates the situation as it stands.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is a learned gentleman and he knows fine well that the phrase
''otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary of State''
does not mean everything and anything that the Secretary of State fancies, but rather it means information in the context of the Bill and the processes outlined in it. It meant that in clause 5 and it means it again here. The process for the renewal of an ID card must be the same as that followed when applying. That is all that clause 9 seeks to achieve.
As the clause refers to those who are compulsorily registered, there must be some civil penalty sanction if the renewal is not forthcoming, and that is all that clause 9(5) will provide. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is not moving his previous amendment, because we have gone through precisely the civil and criminal arguments. Nothing untoward can be found in subsection (4)(a), (b), (c) or (d) other than the overwhelming fact that if one is against the process, one is against the process; if one is against clause 5, where those words first appeared in the Bill, one will be against them in clause 9. However, we need that coherence and the application and renewal process should be the same.
Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the Minister. My concern about the Bill is not feigned; it is genuine and is shared by millions of my fellow citizens. We did not
Column Number: 264
have an opportunity to deal with the equivalent section of clause 5 because the knife fell after the debate on amendment No. 133. As far as I can recall, we did not have a stand part debate on clause 5.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister may recall that I asked him what he intended the prescribed periods under subsection (2) to be. Unless I missed it, I do not think that he has told us.
Mr. McNulty: Purely for the theatrics, I should have stood up because the hon. and learned Gentleman was intervening on me, and then sat down so that the hon. Gentleman could intervene. That is by the by, however.
The prescribed period under clause 9 is a matter of policy that is yet to be determined. It is enabling legislation and we will come back to the parliamentary process to determine that. I am sorry that I missed that question the first time round.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Functions of persons issuing designated documents
Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in clause 10, page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
Again, we are seeking to break the link between designated documents and—
9.59 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
10.19 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Carmichael: I cannot remember what I said before we were interrupted, although I had not said an awful lot and I certainly do not have an awful lot to say.
The basis of the amendment is to break the link between designated documents and the identity card. Clause 10(2) states:
''A designated documents authority which issues a designated document to an individual who does not hold a valid ID card must ensure that the document is issued together with an ID card satisfying the prescribed requirements.''
On a number of occasions today, I have expressed the view that the link between identity cards and prescribed documents is not healthy. As I have said already, it is compulsion by stealth.
Mr. McNulty: I commend the hon. Gentleman on both his honesty and brevity. I commend his honesty because he is entirely right in his own terms, and he has been consistent in seeking to break the link between designated documents and ID cards. It will not be news to him that we consider that link fundamental to what we are trying to do with this Bill and scheme, and that we shall strongly resist his amendment.
As I suggested earlier, there is a lot more talking to be done about which documents will be designated. We know for certain that biometric passports will be
Column Number: 265
designated when they are introduced. Other designated documents may include driving licences, Criminal Records Bureau checks and so on. However, if we are to eschew the notion of the ID cards being big-bang, one-hit and all compulsory at the one time, we feel that proceeding via designated documents, particularly passports, is the way through.
I say in the most gentle of terms, given what we are trying to do with the Bill and the scheme in this form, that this is a malevolent wrecking amendment that should be resisted by the Committee. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his honesty and brevity, and in seeking to share and reflect that brevity and honesty, I strongly urge the Committee to resist this malevolent, nasty little amendment.
Patrick Mercer: I need say little more than has already been said. We are seeking to break the link between the card and the designated document. I do not need to expand on the words of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. However unpleasant the amendment may be, we certainly support the aim of removing subsection (2).
Column Number: 266
Mr. Carmichael: It must be one of the most overcooked canards of the day to say that if this had been a wrecking amendment, it would not have been in order. It would not have been selected, and you, Mr. Gale, would have reminded us of that.
I am quite happy for my amendment to be malevolent. To use the Minister's own terms, this is a nasty little Bill. Yet again, I have sought to assist the Government in improving the Bill; yet again the Minister has failed to see the wisdom of my amendment. However, I am confident that, as is always the case with being a Liberal, time will show that I was correct, and that we shall see what nonsense this Bill is in the fullness of time. For the moment, however, I realise that I am on to a loser, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock till Thursday 14 July at quarter-past Nine o'clock.
| 
