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

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—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

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

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.

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

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   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 (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Newark, Conservative)

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).  

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

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.