Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not find it necessary to move the amendment. To some extent, we discussed the penalties in an earlier debate, but it is important that we should briefly discuss whether clause 9 should be part of the Bill. I place in parentheses my usual complaint about the enabling nature of the Bill, which produces all these unseen   powers. That is worth saying on every occasion so that nobody is in any doubt about the point. The aspect of the clause that I want to touch on relates to subsections (3), (4) and (5).

Subsection (3) says that

''Where an individual applies for an ID card in pursuance of this section, the Secretary of State may require him to do such one or more of the things specified in subsection (4) as the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purpose of—

(a) verifying information provided for the purposes of the application; or

(b) otherwise ensuring that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry about that individual in the Register.''

So far, almost so good, even though the subsection provides the Secretary of State with unmeasured powers.

Under subsection (4), the Secretary of State can require the individual

''(a) to attend at a specified place and time''.

We dealt with the point about distance and difficult access in an earlier debate. The Secretary of State can also require the individual

''(b) to allow his fingerprints, and other biometric information about himself, to be taken and recorded''.

To some extent, we touched on that point, although we may return to it. The Secretary of State can also require the individual

''(c) to allow himself to be photographed''.

That does not necessarily mean that the individual must be photographed by an agent of the state. When one gets a passport, one can go to a public photograph booth, where not only the property and the paper but the copyright and the image belong to the individual and not to the Government. However, it may be implied as part of the contract of getting a passport that one passes ownership of the paper and copyright of the photograph to Her Majesty for the purpose of securing a passport and all that goes with it.

The subsection that particularly concerns me is (4)(d), which says that the individual is

''otherwise to provide such information as may be required by the Secretary of State.''

That could mean absolutely anything. Clearly there is a scheme behind it. No doubt, in due course some regulation will be put before us for consideration. As yet, we do not know what on earth subsection (4)(d) could comprise.

The matter is all the worse because people who contravene that requirement could

''be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.''

We have had an argument about civil and criminal penalties. The points still stand. How can it be right for a Government to legislate that a Secretary of State can do anything and that if people do not comply they will be fined £1,000? I do not like that sort of society. I do not like this sort of legislation.

It is not good enough for the Government to say, ''We will sort the matter out in due course and everything will be fine.'' It will not be. Before they force clause 9 on Parliament and on the people of this   country, the Government should condescend to be more specific than they have been in the Bill.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I shall be brief. I bring the attention of the Committee to subsection (2), which states:

''If the individual—

(a) holds a valid ID card that is due to expire within the prescribed period;

or

(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.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

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.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

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   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.

Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

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.