Clause 8 - Issue etc. of ID cards
Identity Cards Bill
9:30 pm
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)
Some people do that, of course, and need to do so in pursuance of their trade or profession. Cheerfully, as far as I am aware, MPs do not require that, and nor do most people. The hon. Gentleman is right. Some names are duly copyrighted and are the name of the company under which an individual trades. We shall not return to whether Elton John is Elton John or Reg Dwight, an earlier subject. We have also said that, in the main, if they do not involve the reissuing of a subsequent card, updates are free. All the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about damage, things being damaged, destroyed or lost and other elements are covered, and we shall discuss them—albeit by regulation, I fully accept—when we reach clause 13.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should use his Liberal Democrat card for scraping his windows, not the ID card. Even at this stage, the value of the ID card is certainly higher than that of a Liberal Democrat card. The point about ownership of the card is that it is a Government scheme, which is underpinned with the Government's integrity and, in that context, an important part of the scheme—the card—should, to avoid confusion, be retained by the Government.
People in this Room do not own their passports. It says inside a passport that it remains the property of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and may be withdrawn at any time. No sinister reasons are involved but, purely for simplicity, the issuing of ID cards and the maintenance and integrity of the system as a whole is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. We believe it appropriate that the cards should remain the property of the Government in those terms.
The side issues that we have discussed in respect of the intellectual property rights of the database are interesting but not terribly germane to the argument. I understand that they were used to make a point. As I said, nothing sinister is involved. I know that such words from a Minister are more likely to rile people than settle their objections, but I strongly contend that the amendment is entirely unnecessary. We have had an interesting discussion, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.