My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 [Designation of documents for purposes of registration etc.]:

moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 4, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "documents which any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2A) is authorised or required to issue, whether by or under an enactment or otherwise.

(2A) Those persons are—

(a) a Minister of the Crown;

(b) a government department;

(c) a Northern Ireland department;

(d) the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) any other person who carries out functions conferred by or under any enactment that fall to be carried out on behalf of the Crown."

My Lords, this is a relatively straightforward amendment to respond to a concern raised in the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The amendment revises Clause 4 so as to respond to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report, which drew attention to the fact that the drafting of the clause would, in theory, mean that any document issued under an enactment—whoever issued it—would in theory be covered and could, again in theory as there is no intention whatever of doing so, be designated as an ID card under Clause 4.

The Committee pointed out at paragraph 13 of its report that this would include:

"Documents as varied as home information packs or solicitors' practising certificates: any document issued under statutory powers."

That is clearly not the Government's intention. As has been stated many times, our policy is that the only documents that should be capable of being designated are ones issued in accordance with a statutory requirement by a government department or public authority on behalf of the Crown and not documents that are simply issued under statutory powers. We accept the committee's view that the Bill as drafted could technically be construed as wider than the Government's stated intentions and should therefore be amended. The revised form of words in the amendment uses the same formulation as in Clause 11(5), although of course for a quite different purpose. It provides a means of ensuring that the only documents that could be designated would be those issued by a Minister of the Crown, a government department or a devolved Administration.

I hope that the wording, revised as I have just indicated, fully meets the legitimate concern raised by the committee. I again express the Government's thanks to the committee for the advice that it has provided in the report. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise briefly to formally welcome the amendment moved by the Minister. It is not necessary for the House to look at it in more detail because we were given that opportunity when I pressed the Government on these matters in Committee and she was kind enough to give a full response at that stage. I support the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 4, line 37, leave out from second "provision" to "unless" in line 38 and insert "that he is authorised to make by this section"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 37A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 5 [Applications relating to entries in Register]:

moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 5, line 4, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"

This is very much a joint amendment between the opposition parties, as is Amendment No. 46 to delete Clause 6. We seek to replace compulsion by voluntarism. Citizens should not be forced to have ID cards. Compulsion is far too often resorted to by the modern state. That comes from an intensely managerial culture in which regulation rules. That sits uneasily with fundamental rights such as privacy and voluntarism. This Bill is an authentic clash between such rights and managerial efficiency.

Clause 4 allows the Government to designate any official document so that obtaining or renewing one forces the applicant to apply for an ID card under Clause 5. The amendment gives the citizen a choice. Precisely the same amendment was moved on Report in the other place by the Labour Member for Walthamstow, Mr Gerrard, and it received cross-party support. The vote was lost by 32 votes.

The Government have made it clear that they will, when ready, designate passports under Clause 4, which will eventually compel around 85 per cent of the adult population to have ID cards. The issue of compulsion runs deep. When Michael Howard proposed compulsory cards as Home Secretary in 1995, as I reminded the House last Monday, that was roundly condemned by Tony Blair. As Home Secretary, David Blunkett reverted to the Tory plan, although he called the cards "entitlement cards"—he rather hid the fact that the entitlement was for the state rather than the citizen.

Who is to say how any of us might react if we were Home Secretary in a time of suicide bombers? Apparent security gains then tend to dominate thinking. These are just the circumstances where the job of opposition is to counterbalance that natural bias, to probe the proposed measures and to ensure that they are not likely to be counterproductive.

As the House demonstrated last Monday, it already senses that the potential benefits of compulsory cards are exaggerated; that the financial and privacy costs are being underestimated; and that the whole relationship between the state and the citizen is at stake. We have, I fear, gradually become not just a nanny state, but a snooping state—a surveillance state. Both Houses have long been preoccupied by the declining health of our democracy, which is partly related to that. We have lost much of that essential,

"vigour and cheerfulness of allegiance", as John Pym MP vividly put it 360 years ago—an allegiance which, if active and engaged, will do more to combat crime, withstand terrorism and grapple with the other problems purportedly ameliorated by the ID cards than they can ever do without that allegiance.

Ministers repeatedly claim that the Government have a mandate for compulsion which it would be improper for us to frustrate. On page 52 of its 111 pages, under the heading "Strong and Secure Borders", the Labour 2005 manifesto said:

"We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".

I repeat: "voluntary". So how can it possibly be argued that that is a mandate for a compulsory scheme? If as they now claim the intention all along was for the scheme to be compulsory, they only had to change one crucial word or add one clarifying phrase. The amendment is therefore consistent with the manifesto "voluntary" commitment, leaving this or any other government free to bring forward primary legislation if they want to compel later on. We believe that compulsion warrants nothing short of that.

Ministers repeatedly say that we are only following Europe and that we are going to have to have EU biometric passports anyhow. The biometric passport, however, will have far less biometric information on it than that proposed for our ID cards, and none of the personal data in Schedule 1, the so-called audit trail data which will record when, where and for what purpose our ID card is used—not forgetting the huge commercial use to be made of the cards. As for the suggestion that we are just catching up with Europe, of the 23 countries for which the LSE identity project obtained comparative data, only 10 had compulsory cards; 10 had voluntary ones and three had none at all. What is more, most of the countries with compulsory cards had local databases. That is reflected in the fact that in the 10 countries with compulsory cards, citizens are charged an average of under £4 per card.

I briefly revert to the standing of the LSE reports, since Mr Blair had another go at them last week, remarking that he did not think that they represented "an entirely objective assessment". Sir Howard Davies, director of the LSE, has felt it necessary to comprehensively scotch that slur in a letter to the Prime Minister last Friday. Nothing so convinces me of the inadequacy of government claims for compulsory cards as their persistent attempts to rubbish the scrupulous, detailed LSE work, while failing to produce a proper critique or adequate figures of their own.

As I say, we are wholly unconvinced that a compulsory scheme would succeed in its own terms, even by its own principal yardstick, referred to five times by Mr Blair at Question Time last week; namely, protection against identity fraud or theft. The paper on this subject, produced by the Cabinet Office in 2002, has been severely undermined since by industry spokesmen, NGOs and the LSE report. Claims vis-à-vis money laundering, insurance fraud, card theft and so on are insecurely founded at best, but above all a voluntary scheme would allow citizens who believe in the efficacy of ID cards against identity frauds to have one. There is nothing to stop that under our scheme. Indeed, it would take account of some of the points made rather plangently by opposition Members about certain minority groups who want a card. That would be fine.

Compulsion, in our view, is excessive, and excessive, ill judged laws beget an equal and opposite response. Would-be terrorists feed off the extremism of those they view as their opponents. They will always outbid a democratic state in ruthlessness.

A phrase that has been ringing in my ears as I have struggled to find a satisfactory way to explain my deep misgivings about all this is the one used by my wise lawyer father, now dead. He used to say, "You can't do that", in a certain tone of voice. That meant that if you go beyond a certain point you undermine the very institutions, principles and values that the law is there to protect and which have been our beacons. I can see him, or hear him, now, saying that about cutting back juries; about the latest idea that you can convict people of theft without going to court; about outlawing peaceful protest within a kilometre of this place without a permit; about criminalising robust, even offensive, free speech, on the ground that it might be taken as celebrating violence; about detaining people for months without charge or trial; about police arresting citizens for any conduct, vis-à-vis the mild protestor at the Labour Party conference.

What about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, with that plethora of compulsive state powers? What about camera surveillance via literally millions of CCTV cameras—one for every 14 people in this country, by far the greatest number in the world—or the development of facial recognition technology and vehicle-tracking technology, or the escalating use of mobile-phone tracking technology and the prospect of compulsory retention of communications data for up to six years? Every year there is more regulation, more compulsion and more surveillance. I can hear him say it: "You can't do that".

As the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, studiously and publicly advised the country last October vis-à-vis this Bill:

"The extent of the information retained as a core part of the National Identity Register is unwarranted and intrusive . . . It is difficult to see the relevance of all such details . . . Other systems of checks are perfectly feasible".

He also warned explicitly as follows:

"The Information Commissioner is concerned about the way in which demands will grow for individuals to prove their identity. The broad purposes permit function creep into unforeseen and perhaps unacceptable areas of private life".

As one example of that, just consider how Parliament has dealt with the illegal retention in police records of 50,000 sets of fingerprints and DNA samples. Instead of expunging them and making sure that the illegality did not recur, this Government forced through Section 64 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act in 2001 to validate the illegality and, much worse, allowed fingerprints and DNA to be stored in future, whether or not any citizen had been convicted or even charged with an offence. Those highly sensitive data are now held on more than 20,000 innocent juveniles. "Not innocent", I hear new Labour say, "we just didn't have the evidence". The writing really is on the wall.

The amendment, far from being a wrecking one, is an enabling one. Given the doubts about the technology, the cost, the corruptibility, the human rights and cultural consequences of this compulsory scheme, a voluntary scheme will enable us to see just how it works before the country is propelled into compulsion. If ever a proposal warranted that degree of caution and prudence, this is it.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he elucidate on where we are? He mentioned Amendment No. 46. Are we at the same time debating that amendment to leave out Clause 6? He made a general speech against compulsion. Are we dealing with all the amendments together or will we deal with Amendment No. 46 separately?

My Lords, because it is expected that there will be a vote on both amendments—both clauses are important in the voluntary/compulsory debate—Amendment No. 46 will be moved separately. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will later move the amendment to leave out Clause 6, which will be voted on separately.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may mention an issue arising out of that interesting debate, part of it on the old question of ID cards. I have no problem in producing a case in which I believe for having compulsory ID cards. I have no difficulty in producing a case for having no ID cards. However, I cannot for the life of me understand the case for ID cards which are totally voluntary.

My Lords, I shall briefly respond to that intervention. The answer is that 10 European countries have voluntary cards. In Holland, the take-up is 30 per cent. It is extremely useful for those anxious about identity theft or fraud, on which the Prime Minister concentrated last week, because if you believe that the card stops such theft or fraud it is one way of protecting your identity.

For certain citizens and others mentioned by noble Lords in previous debates who want identity cards for convenience and so forth, there is a case for having voluntary cards. Many countries have them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I consider the amendment of great importance. It raises fundamental issues of liberty. Noble Lords will recall that in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith saw written on the walls of the Ministry of Truth "War is peace. Freedom is slavery". I was reminded of those words the other day when some noble Lords on the government Benches said that requiring a person to register, requiring a person to buy an identity card, was to grant him "a new kind of freedom". Those were the very words used by the noble Lord, Lord Gould, on 15 November last year, at col. 1012, when talking about these matters.

I believe that most people will agree that while identity cards might bring some benefits to the individual, compulsory registration means an inroad into liberty and privacy and that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the weekend that identity cards would make it easier for the citizen to deal with the state, what he really meant was that they would make it easier for the state to deal with the citizen.

I can see that creeping compulsion is, from the point of view of the Home Office, a convenient way of proceeding. But is it really right that it should be a lottery as to when any particular person is, as it were, caught in the spider's web; that it should depend on a circumstance entirely outside the individual's control and for which he is in no way to blame, such as when his driving licence happens to come up for renewal? It will be a complete lottery. The Government's scheme means that the state will be saying to the individual: "You are entitled to a driving licence. You have done nothing wrong to disentitle you from having a driving licence. But we will not give you one unless you take a step which has nothing whatever to do with the requirements of the Road Traffic Acts and your ability to drive. We will not give you one unless you buy an identity card and submit to registration". How on earth can that be right?

The Government's scheme is capricious and unfair and we should not support it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in moving the amendment, made a comprehensive and persuasive speech. Therefore, I can be brief. He started, I think rightly, and as I was going to, by quoting from the Labour Party manifesto. There is a considerable contrast between the words quoted from the manifesto and the words used by the Minister on the fourth day of our proceedings, when she said:

"However, in a system that has been designed from the outset to be compulsory—it has been said that we will introduce it in stages, but always within the context of a compulsory scheme—it is difficult to see what is stealth-like about that. It has been very open".

She went on:

"In order to phase in the introduction of ID cards and avoid any big-bang move to compulsion, it has always been our intention that certain documents would be designated under Clause 4".—[Hansard, 12/12/05; col. 1008.]

Those words "big-bang move to compulsion" have a certain resonance in this situation.

My noble friend was absolutely right when he talked about creeping compulsion. The noble Baroness said that she could see nothing stealth-like about this. But, clearly, the Government believe—and I do not challenge them—that many people find the idea of having an identity card for some purposes quite attractive and will therefore go along with it, particularly if it is doled out relatively painlessly when, in any case, you have to apply for the renewal of a passport, or whatever else may be created as a designated document later.

However, the issue is not just about identity cards. It is certainly understandable that if you have a passport you may feel that an identity card, for example, is a useful tool for getting rather more simply around Europe. I do not challenge that. But the point of this amendment is that it is attached to a clause that deals with the register. The register is at the heart of the criticisms made about this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted from the Information Commissioner and the extent of the information that is to be held on the register. It seems to me that while it may be useful and convenient to have an identity card, you should not—certainly not until the Government have made it plain that they can manage this whole scheme and deal with the criticisms made in our debates—be forced to go on the register. One thing people are entitled to know is that the register will work in a manageable way and will not have the potential weaknesses identified during our debates.

I did not take part in the debate last Thursday in this House initiated by my noble friend Lord Marlesford about the firearms register and the failure of the Home Office to meet the statutory requirements imposed on it by Parliament in 1997. It is an appalling story of incompetence—and worse—by the Home Office in introducing a scheme that Parliament believed was necessary.

One feature that struck me about that debate, when I read it, was the extraordinary generosity of those noble Lords taking part. They somehow forgave Ministers—indeed, were nice to them—as they defended the government position. The Ministers said it was all absolutely appalling; they said, "Of course, it is shocking that we have been unable to introduce a workable scheme". They kept saying, "We are as disappointed as anyone in this Chamber". Yet those Ministers are responsible for their department. If they are incapable of setting up a firearms register in eight years, why should we imagine that they are capable of setting up the register required under this Bill in an acceptable and workable way? Until they have proved their capacity to do that job, I do not believe that we should accept people being compelled to have their names on the register. I warmly support the amendment.

My Lords, I want to make a quick comment. The Bill will go through Parliament whether we like it or not. However, before the entire thing becomes final and properly compulsory, we should go only into a voluntary phase to test the idea. That is why I approve of this amendment, for it means that the first people to volunteer to try that out—which will be several million people, since many people approve of it—can at least self-select who will be doing that.

Your Lordships must remember that the Bill currently provides that when you are next issued with a passport or driving licence, Clause 12 applies to you. It is worth looking quickly at what that clause insists you do. It applies to you, remember, and not to refugees, who have their own thing, or to people who are already here illegally because they will be in hiding anyway. I was reminded of how people such as escaped prisoners hid from the Germans during the war—not easily, but it was done. If it is really thought that all the illegal immigrants are going to be rounded up just because some people are carrying ID cards, then you have another think coming.

The bit which will apply to you from day one, when you are given your next passport or driving licence, is:

"An individual . . . must notify the Secretary of State about . . . every prescribed change of circumstances . . . within the prescribed period . . . the Secretary of State may require him to . . . otherwise . . . provide such information as may be required", to verify,

"the information that may be entered", and otherwise ensure,

"that there is a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry . . . An individual"— that is, you, if contravening any of these requirements—

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

So, if noble Lords do not vote for the amendment, they are accepting that they will fulfil all those details the next time they renew their passport or driving licence. Personally, until we have decided that Parliament will proceed to compulsion, I believe that the scheme should be entirely voluntary.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to the Labour Party manifesto from the previous election. Looking at the Bill, one sees that of 45 clauses, three relate to identity cards. The offences in Clauses 27 to 32 relate to the register. It is about setting up a national identity register to which the identity card is an adjunct.

If one looks at the manifesto, under the heading "Strong and Secure Borders", the Labour Party set out that,

"Across the world there is a drive to increase the security of identity documents and we cannot be left behind. From next year we are introducing biometric 'ePassports'. It makes sense to provide citizens with an equally secure identity card to protect them at home from identity theft and clamp down on illegal working and fraudulent use of public services. We will introduce ID cards"— that phrase is set out in large type on page 55—

"including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".

The emphasis in the manifesto is entirely on identity cards as some form of home passport. It does not set out a compulsory scheme for the introduction of a national identity register, with all the requirements set out in the various schedules. So the Government cannot rely on the manifesto at the election as authorising the scheme that they now put forward in the Bill.

My Lords, a question occurred to me during the earlier speeches. One document to which this is intended to apply is a passport. A passport used to be a document that, in loud and ringing terms, if the Government were kind enough to give you one, commanded other governments to assist your travel and let you go freely around their country. It is now a document that you must have before you are allowed to travel at all. Instead of being a privilege given by the government, it is now compulsory. Apparently, now, if I want that document, without which I cannot travel—to exercise the freedom to which I am entitled of travelling to anywhere in the world—not only do I have to apply and pay for it, as I have always had to, I must allow my particulars to be entered on a different register and pay extra to get an identity card.

Is it compatible with the freedom of the individual and the Human Rights Act that one shall be debarred from exercising the freedom to move about the world unless one "chooses" to go on some other government register and to pay them an extra fee for that privilege? Surely that provision is bound to be struck down as contrary to human rights.

My Lords, the noble Viscount has made an extremely important point that may not have struck most of us. The Bill is a rather ominous sign of the extent to which government has been taken over by spin. One of the main reasons why people have not been as willing to vote as they should be is that they dislike too much spin. Spin has been mounting. It has been the most enormous spin to say to the public: "We are offering you a Bill under which, if you want it, you will get a voluntary identity card that will protect you in all sorts of ways". Some time later, as the Bill went through Parliament, the Government have admitted that it is intended to be compulsory and that all those facts about you will have to be on the register, whether you like it or not. That is the simple point. It was spin. It was an easy way to get people to accept the idea of identity cards from the beginning.

The noble Lord, Lord Gould, said from the Government Benches that there had been various polls in which people said that they wanted identity cards. That was a response to the spin. We are now faced with the compulsion about which noble Lords have spoken. Later, we may probe the question of how we handle the way in which that compulsion is finally brought about through the Bill, but that was a big spin. It has done a lot of damage to public trust in Parliament; trust in Members of Parliament; and, perhaps, in the Lords—trust in government. That is far more damaging than the Bill itself.

This is a good amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made an extremely good speech. He was quite alone on his Benches when he started, until a couple of people trickled in—luckily, before he had finished.

He looked a lonely figure but it was a splendid speech. I agreed with every word of it. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer—

My Lords, I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I shall also support the amendment to remove Clause 6. Those noble Lords who heard the opening speech by the noble Lord would understand, I think, that all the new measures which have been taken by this Government over a quite long period of time contain the elements of a fascist state.

Hang on—

My Lords, the noble Lord was not present to listen to the noble Lord's opening speech—

I am listening to you.

My Lords, the noble Lord says that he is listening to me. I hope that he will because I have been around a long time. Indeed, I was in the Labour Party for 54 years. It was a Labour Party which would not have dreamt of bringing forward a Bill of this kind. Nor in fact would it have brought forward many of the measures which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, outlined in his opening speech.

I repeat that some of those measures have the elements of a fascist state. This country is preaching to many other countries about democracy. It wants democracy in Iraq; it wants democracy in Iran. It wants democracy everywhere except perhaps in this country where the measures that it is introducing are undermining the democracy which has been built up over many hundreds of years. I do not deny that those are strong statements. But the fact of the matter is that there is a creeping competence for all kinds of authorities in this country to have control over the individual.

Let us consider some of the incidents of late. An author on the BBC makes a certain statement about homosexuals and before long the police are telephoning her or are on her doorstep asking her to justify those statements. That is just one instance. The police are becoming the arbiters of free speech. That is very serious indeed. Members of this House and of the House of Commons should understand exactly how their freedoms are being undermined by a host of measures which are coming forward piecemeal. If they do not do so they will find themselves in a state where the Government have complete and utter control over the individual; and, of course, in this country the freedom of the individual has always been the bedrock of our very democracy which we have exported, and still seek to export, to other countries. If we are not careful, there is a real danger that we shall be in the sort of society which many of us fought against in the last war.

I know that my former noble friends do not like to hear me say these things, but perhaps it is proper that I should say them because I had been in the Labour Party for 54 years before they expelled me and therefore I do know what the Labour Party that I joined stood for. It did not stand for measures such as the identity card now being put forward by new Labour.

We have before us a Bill that, in the first instance, is supposed to be a voluntary scheme. We have been assured that it will not be necessary, and that the Government will never make it necessary, for identity cards to be carried at all times. Yet on the "Any Questions" programme broadcast last Friday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, first, that they should be compulsory and that if they were not, they would not be any good; and, secondly, that they should be carried at all times. In other words, the police will be able to come up to you and say, "Papers", whether they say "please" or not.

My Lords, I should clarify that that is not what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I have the advantage of having a transcript of that interview. In relation to whether the cards should be compulsory, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said the following:

"Government policy is that it'll be a matter for Parliament to decide whether they ultimately become compulsory".

In response to a second question from Mr Dimbleby, he further added:

"I think the government takes the view that to get the full benefits they will ultimately have to become compulsory".

My Lords, that confirms exactly what I have been saying: that although they are bringing forward a voluntary Bill at this point, the Government believe that it will become compulsory. If the card is compulsory, it will then be compulsory for people to carry the cards around with them and they can be challenged by the police at any point, wherever they may be. The noble Lord on the Front Bench shakes his head, but I fear that that is exactly what will happen.

My Lords, I hope that we have made it absolutely clear to the House that the two issues are not to be conflated. The Government have underlined the fact that it will not be necessary to carry the identity card. That is made clear from the form this Bill takes.

My Lords, I am glad to have that assurance on the record and I hope it will be repeated many times. As I have said, I support the amendment and will support the subsequent amendment to get rid of Clause 6.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has the capacity to needle people and is always fascinating to listen to. A number of things he has said sound a ring of truth. He has said some things that are disagreeable to some people, but it is nevertheless very important that he has said them.

In comparison to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have only a simple question to put to the Minister. She need not be too agitated. It follows on what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. Am I right in believing that if the Bill is passed in the form it is in now, if you move house you will have to let the appropriate department know that you have done so? If you do not let the department know, are you then fined £1,000?

My Lords, I wonder if I can possibly help the Government. It seems that they have built a high and strong stone wall behind them and that the Pyramus and Thisbe on the Front Bench opposite are feeling embarrassed and so have encouraged their colleagues not to support them in order to get the legislation out of the way quickly. There is a fairly simple solution to all this, one that goes to an amendment I have tabled for consideration later. The passport is actually a voluntary document. According to the Government, biometric passports were to have been introduced in October of last year. With the biometric passport will go the new identity card, which will also be voluntary. Since 80 or 90 per cent of this country's population already have passports and could be issued with the identity cards at a cost of less than £10, it seems logical to encourage as many people as possible to register with the passports authority in order that they may have a simple identity card.

As your Lordships will be aware, the main people who do not carry passports are those of retirement age, half of whom do not carry them. Thus it would be a simple matter to issue passports to everyone, possibly free of charge, in the same way as we receive bus passes—which are, of course, a proof of identity. That would be voluntary. A passport is a voluntary document; the fact that you cannot travel without it is an encouragement to have one if you want to travel. But the idea of what should have been called the identity cards register is very worrying, and the Government should think of—I have forgotten the chap—Sisyphus, I think, who rolled his stone up the hill, and then it came rolling down. They may shortly be overwhelmed.

The noble Lord, Lord Swindon, struck a chord with me when he spoke about fascism and those awful phrases you would hear in some parts of Europe, often in German, such as "Papier, bitte", followed by "Papiers nicht in ordnung"—I apologise for using a foreign language—and it struck me that I should ask these countries. I have beside me an Act of Parliament from one of those former fascist countries. It has 46 clauses, not 45, that are designed to protect the individual from exactly the sort of thing we are now trying to introduce. I shall read it rather than say it: it is the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, the German law that says that the individual is free, the data are his, they may not be transferred from one government department to another, and he also has Hoheit, or the intellectual property.

It is strange to me, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Swindon, that after all these years we should be swinging so far backwards and recognising that most of the new members of the EU are longing for the days when they are not required to carry papers with them day and night, and where officials do not have the right to misread papers should it suit them in order to intern someone.

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was referring to remarks made by me.

My Lords, I know the noble Lord well. I thought I did say the noble Lord, Lord Swindon.

Noble Lords:

Stoddart.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

My Lords, I am so sorry. Those of us who do not have the "of" after our name get confused. I have always associated the noble Lord with Swindon. I apologise for that.

The point I am making is that it is perfectly easy if we follow the simple route of allowing a voluntary document such as a passport to be used as proof of identity above all else. I do not rest my case entirely on that, because I have an amendment later and I would like to remind the Minister. I am still not sure whether there will be one identity card, and only one, or whether there will be lots of them. That is my fear, and if there are to be lots of cards, every one of them must be voluntary.

My Lords, I strongly support this important amendment. The debate has ranged widely over the whole issue of compulsion. I have amendments later on that address how the move should be made from the initial period to one of compulsion for all. I shall keep my remarks on that rather more focused matter until I move the amendments to leave out Clauses 6 and 7.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, spoke with both passion and, in his own way, compulsion about the problems we face with this Bill, the tension between compulsion and voluntarism, and the whole issue of what we may face if we allow what is a flawed Bill to go ahead with this drafting of Clause 5. We are on Report, so I will not go into the arguments on that. Suffice it to say that I agree entirely with his arguments on that score. Some of my speeches today will be even briefer than usual, as noble Lords can tell by the tone of my voice that the bug that is going round the House has found its way finally to me.

The Government have not persuaded me that their system, which forces us to sign up to a gargantuan register with its intrusive audit trail of recording every part of our lives, is the right way forward. That is not the system which the public think is waiting in the wings. As ever, we on this side have no criticism of the Minister. She is a supreme advocate, but she has not been given the right material with which to work in this case. I dare to suggest that even the noble Baroness cannot make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.

My noble friend Lord Waddington talked about creeping compulsion and asked whether it should be a lottery regarding when any individual should be caught in the web. He referred in particular to applying for driving licences. I note that in Committee the Minister said that at the moment the Government have no plans to designate driving licences, but Clause 4 gives them that opportunity. In Committee I asked the Minister whether she would categorically give the assurance that the Government would therefore not seek to overturn the decision of this House in the Road Safety Bill when we removed Clauses 29 and 30, which gave the Government in that Bill the authority to withdraw current driving licences. That could be used to issue driving licences to all and require registration and the issuing of an ID card. If the noble Baroness can give us that assurance today, it would be helpful. I have tabled a later amendment on which I can explore that matter in more detail.

The objective of this group of amendments is admirably simple: to require the Government to keep to their manifesto commitment that they would introduce ID cards,

"including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports".

As we have heard this afternoon, that is not what this Bill does. What it says is that if you apply for a passport, you must apply to go on the national identity register and therefore have an ID card. As noble Lords have asked, what is voluntary about that?

In Committee, the Minister estimated that by the end of the initial period, about 85 per cent of the population would have been forced to have an ID card as a result of applying for passports and going on the register. That is not what any normal person reading the manifesto would have expected. It was put with great clarity in another place by the Minister's honourable friend Mr Neil Gerrard when he moved this amendment. He said:

"Any normal person—by that I mean people outside this place—would interpret that as, 'When I renew my passport, I can choose whether to go on the register and have an ID card'. That is what 'initially voluntary' would mean to anyone who read it".—[Hansard, Commons, 18/10/05; col. 748.]

I entirely agree with him. The amendment would make it possible to be issued with a designated document without being forced to go on the national identity register. The individual would have a real choice, and can choose to go on the register and have an ID card—there is nothing to stop them.

If the Government intended to make it compulsory to have an ID card from the word go when you apply for a passport, they should have said so clearly in the manifesto. But the obfuscation has continued in our debates. In Committee the Minister said:

"There is no need for any person who does not wish to put his name on the register to so register unless and until it becomes compulsory".—[Hansard, 15/11/05; col. 998.]

I reflected very carefully on what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said because a little later, on 12 December, the Minister said:

"They can either apply for a new passport and get an ID card at the same time; or not get a new passport".—[Hansard, 12/12/05; col. 1069.]

The Government's definition of "voluntary" is very different from anything that I have ever come across. It is a case of, "Have an ID card or don't leave the country". That is not right. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I greatly welcome the comments made so far in this debate. I hope that I will be able to explain to the House more clearly why I fundamentally disagree with this amendment. The noble Baroness says that passports do not constitute voluntary documents. However, she will know that what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said is correct and that passports do constitute voluntary documents.

No person in this country is ever compelled to apply for such a document. There are now provisions with which each of us, if we are desirous of having a passport, must comply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, suggested that none of the information contained in Schedule 1 would be required now. That is simply and plainly wrong. The information listed in Schedule 1 makes clear that it is already required for passport applications and so it is already held on the United Kingdom Passport Service database; for example, name, date of birth, nationality and address.

My Lords, I am going to save the noble Baroness some time. I never suggested that none of the information in Schedule 1 is currently part of the passport. I simply said that a great deal more information was required under Schedule 1 than is required for a passport, including personal data.

My Lords, I am sure that that is what the noble Lord intended to say and I am grateful for the clarification. My note, and I accept that my note may be wrong, showed that the noble Lord said:

"None of the information contained in Schedule 1 would be required".

Of course, the noble Lord accepts that much of this information is already required for passports.

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that nobody was required to apply for a passport. Has it never occurred to her that many people's employers may require them to travel? Granted, they can be sacked if they refuse to apply, but does she really regard it as very voluntary if you stand to lose your job? Does it therefore not matter because it is voluntary?

My Lords, of course I do not say that. What I do say is that we have to look at the position that we currently face. Today, each of us has to comply with the provisions set out in the current regulations when obtaining a passport. If we fail to comply with those regulations, we will not be granted a passport. When the biometric data, which we will have to include in order to have a valid passport, is introduced—and it will come in this year—each of us, if we want a new passport, will have to comply with those regulations.

My Lords, the Minister is about to do something she did in Committee, which is to confuse the biometric data required for the new passport under the e-borders initiative—which will be held on the passport and not in a central registry, and will be extremely useful for validating that the passport is yours locally, in, for example, an airport or other port of entry—with the biometric data proposed to be held on the national identity register. It is not the same biometric data, need not be the same biometric data and probably will not be the same biometric data as that proposed to be held on the national identity register under this Bill. The two things are completely different and it is dangerous to confuse them.

My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says, but he knows as well as I do that, as we move forward, to make our data compatible with others, biometric data will have to be included. I have made clear from this Dispatch Box that the Government intend that to be the case in order that we can have the most secure passports possible, in accordance with current understanding of good practice. That is what I refer to.

Noble Lords should be aware that the Government intend that, in due course, those improvements will come in whether or not we have this particular ID card. One looks at the current position. Noble Lords will know that we already have provisions in this regard, which are lawful, and have been deemed so by those who have looked at this issue. Indeed, it is right to remind your noble Lordships that the Government's intent in this regard has been very clear for a significant period. These amendments would make registration and the issue of an identity card optional extras for anyone applying for a designated document, such as a British passport or a residence permit for foreign nationals. We have always been clear that the identity card scheme is designed and intended eventually to become a compulsory scheme for all UK residents and that, in the second phase of the scheme, it will be a requirement to register with a civil penalty regime for failure to do so.

My Lords, if it has always been the Government's intention for this to be a compulsory system, why did the Labour Party not put it into its manifesto for the last election, for the people's consideration?

My Lords, we did put it into our manifesto.

My Lords, I cannot find the word "compulsory".

My Lords, we made it absolutely clear—we should not by any means misdirect ourselves—that we would reintroduce the Bill that had been before the House before the election. That is exactly what we did. These provisions were in the previous Bill. No one in this House should allow themselves to be misled in this regard. The noble Baroness is suggesting that we are playing at semantics on what "initially" meant. We made it clear that the voluntary nature of the scheme would be that we would roll out this procedure in accordance with passports as people came to apply for them—that that would be the initial stage. Then a second stage, with compulsion so that everyone had to have an ID card, would come about. We also made it clear that it was important to have that debate in principle.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it really is not good enough for the noble Baroness to say that it was made clear. There was no reference in the manifesto to the so-called second phase or compulsion. How can that be clear?

My Lords, it was debated at length in the Commons and debated in this House. To put this to rest, I shall be happy to go through the chronology, because we need to make sure that the issue is finally dealt with comprehensively.

The first phase was to enable a sensible phased introduction of identity cards. Once passports and residence permits are designated it means that, as British nationals resident in the United Kingdom renew or apply for their passports, and as foreign nationals apply for or renew their residence permits, they will be entered on the national identity register and issued with ID cards. That should not come as a surprise to anyone, as I have said. When the Government issued our first consultation document in 2002 on what were then termed "entitlement cards"—the noble Lord referred to that in opening this debate—one of the options canvassed was for a universal scheme linked to passports. When we announced the decision in principle to introduce identity cards—as long ago as November 2003—it was made clear that there would be a two-stage scheme. Again, it was stated that the second stage would be compulsory but, in the first stage, as well as introducing a voluntary plain identity card for those who did not have a passport, it was made clear that the intention was to link the issue of identity cards to that of more secure passports.

Indeed, we stated in Identity Cards: The next steps—Cm 6020, the policy document published at the time—that:

"By linking the card scheme to widely held identity documents most people will get a card conveniently and automatically as they renew an existing document".

When we published the draft Identity Cards Bill in April 2004, not only was "must" included in Clause 5(2), just as it is now, but it was also in Clause 8(6) in the draft Bill, which is equivalent to Clause 8(7) in the present Bill. Again, we were very clear that in the first stage of the scheme there would be no possibility of obtaining a designated document, such as a passport, without an identity card.

Paragraph 2.17 of the consultation paper on the draft Bill—Cm 6178—stated:

"Once a document such as a passport has been designated as an ID card, this will be the only form in which it will be available—i.e. there will be no 'non-ID card' variants. It would undermine confidence in the system if there were to be identity documents available on demand at different levels of security".

My Lords, it may have been stated in Bills and in command papers, but 40 million people are to go on to this register. The Government went to the country to obtain authority to continue in government and they claim authority for this Bill. Why did the Government not say that the scheme was to be compulsory? That word does not appear in the manifesto.

My Lords, the noble Lord is playing with words. Initially, which means "at the first", I explained to the House why and how we propose the two-stage process. We have not varied it. I absolutely understand the position of the noble Lord and those who sit on his Benches. The Liberal Democrats say that they do not feel bound by the Salisbury convention. They do not therefore pay any attention to the fact that the Government were voted in by the people of this country and that we have a majority. Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches take a different view. They say that they do feel bound by the convention, but that, in this regard, they can disregard it because of the way in which it was stated.

My Lords, on Report, I hate intervention. It is the last resort. I made it clear at the beginning of our debates in Committee, when the Minister's noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock intervened, that we on these Benches would work with and by the Salisbury convention. We are doing that, and will continue to do that, throughout every stage of this Bill. The noble Baroness is adducing an argument on semantics. It is her argument, not ours.

My Lords, I of course take note of what the noble Baroness said. Therefore, I shall remind the House what the report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords stated about the convention at Recommendation 7:

"The principles underlying the 'Salisbury Convention' remain valid and should be maintained. A version of the 'mandate' doctrine should continue to be observed: where the electorate has chosen a party to form a Government, the elements of that party's general election manifesto should be respected by the second chamber. More generally, the second chamber should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of the House of Commons on public policy issue. It is not possible to reduce this to a simple formula, particularly one based on manifesto commitments".

In this regard, the Government have been absolutely clear that their policy was for identity cards; that their policy was for compulsory cards; and that this is the way in which we seek to deliver them. It was our clear intention throughout the period 2002 to 2005, before the general election, that this procedure would be adopted; that is, the same procedure that comes before the House today. It would not be right to resile from that position now.

I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made a good point when he said that we either have a compulsory scheme or we do not. The arguments for compulsion are strong. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, sought to compare the firearms register with this register. I remind him that we have chosen the passport agency because it has a proven track record of delivery—on time, on budget—and it has gained the confidence of the public. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said quite rightly that this ID card scheme is going to happen anyway. I agree with him. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I say that this scheme will be able to deal with the human rights of individuals, particularly in relation to the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. This issue was looked at comprehensively. I can reassure the noble Viscount that a compulsory identity card scheme is compatible with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. In its report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights confirmed at paragraph 4.5:

"A requirement to have or to carry some form of identity cards does not of itself raise human rights issues as has been established by the European Court of Human Rights. Many Council of Europe countries operate identity card schemes which are generally considered to comply with the ECHR".

My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my question. I did not ask whether it was compatible with human rights to have identity cards, but whether it was compatible with human rights to say that you cannot travel unless, in addition to getting a passport, you pay for something extra which you do not want. The indirect compulsion denies me the right to travel if I apply only for a passport that I do want, but not for an identity card that I do not want.

My Lords, for the moment, until the scheme becomes compulsory, the noble Viscount will be able to choose whether to have an identity card, when such cards become available. However, the scheme is a two-part scheme and has been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I invite the noble Viscount to look at its report. The committee believes that the scheme we propose, which includes human rights as part of the foundation stone, is compatible with the ECHR, and does not in any way transgress in a manner that should cause concern. We have dealt with that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, mentioned spin. We have been clear about what has been offered to members of the public. The Government have been utterly straightforward and frank in that regard.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says, but can I remind him that if we were in a fascist state, as he purports, his ability vigorously to argue and debate and to put forward his views would be denied him? I am proud that he has the liberty and opportunity to say whatever he likes with the appropriate degree of vigour and vim. Therefore, our democracy is in good health.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned the ability to impose fines. People will have to notify changes of address. On the previous occasion we debated such matters, we said that our proposals would allow such changes to be swift and easy. The noble Earl will know that we already have a requirement to notify any changes of name and address in relation to driving licences, with a criminal penalty and maximum fine of £1,000 for a failure to comply. That has been the case for a number of years and it does not seem to have caused us too much difficulty, so I do not suppose that this will be very different.

The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, suggested that we should give everyone a passport free of charge. That may be a consummation devoutly to be wished, but the fiscal realities of doing that are relatively clear.

We have a clear issue between Members of this House. The Government say that this is part of our manifesto. It means that we will have a cost-effective and cost-efficient system, and the two issues go together. I invite noble Lords not to press the amendment, because to do so would significantly contravene the clear intention of the people of this country who entrusted the organisation of these matters to this Government. We now form this Government and we ask noble Lords to reflect that in the way that they take these amendments forward.

My Lords, I am grateful to all of those who spoke in the debate, which has gone on for an hour and 10 minutes. I note that not one speaker spoke in favour of the Government's position on the matter. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, but she did not address one of the arguments in my opening speech. I like to think that that was because she was unable to answer any of the points that I made. It is breathtaking that the noble Baroness ended her defence of the Government's position by saying that they have a clear manifesto entitlement. If ever a matter was not merely not clear but rather clearer in the opposite direction, that has been made manifestly plain this afternoon. This is a very important matter on which the opinion of the House should be tested.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 186; Not-Contents, 142

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 5, line 24, after "at" insert "an agreed place and time or (in the absence of agreement) at"

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords opposite will see this as something of a win for them. These amendments seek to clarify that appointments to attend an enrolment centre will, where possible, be at a convenient place and time for the individual. That issue was raised by noble Lords from both parties opposite at an earlier stage of the Bill. The amendments relate to Clauses 5, 9 and 12, and take effect when an individual makes an application to be entered into the register, when an individual already entered becomes subject to compulsory registration and when an individual notifies the agency of changes to their circumstances.

The amendments respond to the concern that there should be a provision in the Bill confirming that individuals would be offered a choice of appointment dates and times. It has always been our intention to offer such a choice of appointments and I am happy to confirm this by way of these amendments. However, these amendments do not exclude the possibility that some individuals may, at some point, be required to attend at a specified place and time if it has proved impossible to come to an agreement.

I am sure your Lordships will agree that, although we do intend to offer individuals a choice of when to enrol, a means to ensure that individuals attend is ultimately required. The possibility of unilaterally setting an appointment time because it has been impossible to come to an agreement about a convenient time is one which will not be used until the scheme becomes compulsory. I beg to move.

My Lords, I spoke on this topic in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment. Of course, whether it is of any great value to the individual still depends on the number and type of locations chosen for attendance and the degree of convenience that can be provided.

During that debate it was pointed out that in some parts of the United Kingdom the distances might be great or the time taken to travel anywhere might be large. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us at the end of this debate, or perhaps give some indication, of the scale of provision that the Government envisage. Unless they provide a sufficient number of locations, well suited to the convenience of people, this will still be a pretty intolerable burden imposed, particularly on those who do not find travel easy or for whom there are few facilities for travel.

My Lords, could I ask whether such locations will be provided on every inhabited island, particularly when trying to roll out this scheme to the northern and western islands of Scotland?

My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing forward the amendment, which is a considerable advance on where we were and takes into account most of the nub of what I was endeavouring to achieve in a previous amendment.

My Lords, I hear the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.

Obviously, when we had the earlier debate, I think the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I were at loggerheads about numbers. I cannot really give much more detail. When we had that debate it was clear, at least from the way in which the UK Passport Service was developing, that it would have many more fixed-point locations. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government envisage that a person will have to travel no more than one hour to get to an enrolment centre.

The other important point I made at the earlier stage of debate on this was that we will be able to establish and develop—it is so intended—mobile enrolment centres. The question of whether we could have an enrolment centre on every inhabited island does not really arise. What we will be able to do is to take enrolment to every inhabited island, if that is the appropriate, efficient and effective way of doing it. Of course we will need to be sensitive to those who have acute mobility problems and so on.

This is a service that will be sensitively developed and designed. I have no doubt that we will be able to provide many more points of contact between a service based around the UK Passport Service than is currently the case, with very few UK Passport Service centres and locations.

In some way that travels towards those issues concerning the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I hope that it covers the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I am glad to hear that the amendment is welcomed across your Lordships' House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 5, line 32, at end insert—

"( ) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations containing (with or without other provision) any provision that he is authorised to make by this section is exercisable, on the first occasion on which regulations are made under this section, only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Power of Secretary of State to require registration]:

[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 46:

Leave out Clause 6.

My Lords, we are romping through this afternoon with this wonderful co-operation between my Benches and those of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I am sure that Members of the Benches opposite will have a great debt to pay to these Benches by the end of the day as the, shall we say, feisty parts of the debate are being dealt with so speedily. That is my excuse for that interchange and I will stop at that before I sink myself further.

In moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 52H and 54A. Amendment No. 46 would remove Clause 6 from the Bill and the other amendments are consequential to that. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the transition from a so-called voluntary system of ID cards into an all-out compulsory scheme should be made by primary legislation. It is consistent with the Government's commitment in their manifesto that the scheme would be rolled out initially on a voluntary basis. The transition to full compulsion, we say, is a matter of public importance. This is a skeleton Bill and we need to be able to respond effectively to the impact of the so-called voluntary period of registration on the whole process of people entering upon the register, obtaining an ID card and then entering the changes on that register as they move or their circumstances change.

The Government want that transition to all-out compulsion to be made by order, albeit by the novel process of a super-affirmative statutory instrument. We acknowledge that this is an improvement on the usual affirmative procedure, but we believe that it is not robust enough to allow for proper parliamentary consideration of the operation and costs of the ID card scheme during the initial period.

In Committee, I asked the Government to justify the super-affirmative process itself and to explain how it would operate if the House ultimately decided that it would be right to go down this route instead of insisting on primary legislation. There was a very full debate at cols. 1058 to 1073 on 12 December. Since we are on Report I will summarise only the major parts of that debate.

We submit that the Government have not yet proved the case for all-out compulsion based on the provisions of the Bill. The Bill—an enabling Bill—leaves significant questions unanswered. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, at paragraph 248 of its 4th Report 2003–04, said:

"The move to compulsion is a step of such importance that it should only be taken after the scrutiny afforded by primary legislation: the proposed super-affirmative procedure is not adequate".

We agree with that. The House of Lords Constitution Committee, in paragraph 9 of its Third Report 2005–06, concluded:

"it would be preferable to separate the two phases in order that the compulsory phase would have to be introduced by primary legislation. This would enable Parliament to ensure that the legislation fully reflected experience gained, especially about safeguards, during the voluntary phase".

Again, we agree with that view.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's view, into which I went in some detail in Committee, is that the route to full compulsion—primary or secondary legislation—is to be judged appropriate by one's view on whether or not the initial period is voluntary and whether the House approves of all-out compulsion. At paragraph 20, the committee says that if,

"one considers . . . this Bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion . . . then the power in clause 6 is inappropriate and a compulsory scheme should only be introduced by means of a bill".

As we recognised in our previous debates, the Government have repeatedly said that the initial period is voluntary. By agreeing to our Amendment No. 38, this House has ensured that the initial period is what the Government have always said it was—voluntary. We continue to believe that any change from that initial voluntary period to one of all-out compulsion must be made by primary legislation.

Our problem with the super-affirmative proposal is that, although interesting, it is no solution to the real question. Would that process ensure that the legislation fully reflected the views of both Houses about the experience gained, especially about safeguards? We feel that it would not.

At Second Reading, I referred to my concerns about the super-affirmative process, in that it would not allow your Lordships' House full powers of amendment and rejection. I referred to the debate in another place on 12 July, when the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mr Burnham, was asked:

"What happens if one House modifies and the other does not? What procedure is followed thereafter?"

The Minister responded in this vein:

"I guess that the procedure would be the same as it is now; the elected House, with primacy, would prevail. I would not want there to be any procedure other than that. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the detail of how the process would work on the Floor of the House, but from my point of view it is clear that the elected House will ultimately determine whether and how the order goes forward".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 12/7/05; col. 216.]

The noble Baroness dealt with my queries in Committee with her usual great courtesy and tried to persuade me that I need not be too concerned. She gave significant assurances. She said that,

"my honourable friend was probably referring to the final way in which we would have to implement this if the super-affirmative procedure was not adopted. I think he meant that if both Houses did not agree, ultimately it would be up to the other place to determine the matter by primary legislation".—[Official Report, 12/12/05; col. GC1070.]

The difficulty is that the Minister with policy direction of this matter has not taken the opportunity to confirm either to this House or to another place whether what the noble Baroness thinks is what he probably meant is in fact the case. I am aware that Ministers in another place acknowledged in the press during last summer that they knew that there were problems with the super-affirmative process, but we have heard no more of that.

Whatever the position on that matter—whether we can between us resolve that there is a power of this House both to modify and then reject the super-affirmative process—I would say more. I would say that that is still not the appropriate method by which to move from the so-called voluntary period to one of all-out compulsion. I believe so simply because our discussion of the Bill during six days in Committee and, so far, two days on Report has shown that the information about it is so lacking, the costs so obscure in everything but their massive size, and the details as yet so far from being determined that, even if the scheme were to go ahead on a genuinely voluntary basis, then substantial change would inevitably be needed. That can properly be done only by the mechanism of primary legislation. We believe that Parliament is owed nothing less than that. I beg to move.

My Lords, no one seriously doubts that there is a difference in principle between a scheme which is voluntary—even if it is only partly voluntary, as a result of requirements to register if certain steps are taken—and one which makes registration compulsory. There is a world of difference between them. How can it possibly be right to move from a compulsory scheme by the use of secondary legislation, even with the super-affirmative procedure? That is the question.

If the use of the super-affirmative procedure meant that both Houses had to agree that the time had come when the scheme should become compulsory, I would have thought that the super-affirmative procedure provided a real safeguard. Yet, as my noble friend has pointed out, that is not the case at all. The Government apparently take the view that this House would have no right to reject an order under Section 7 making the scheme compulsory. That is certainly what the Minister said in Committee in the Commons on 12 July at col. 216. He said that the elected House will decide whether the order making cards compulsory will go forward. In other words, the Government are saying that this step of grave principle, making the scheme compulsory, can be taken on the say-so of the Commons without even the safeguard of the Parliament Act to ensure that there was delay while further thought was given to the proposal. It is quite wrong for the state to make a voluntary scheme compulsory without primary legislation.

My Lords, to clear this up, I confirm that what I said previously about how the super-affirmative procedure would work is correct. If both Houses did not agree, the matter would have to come back by separate primary legislation. So this House would be able to amend and/or alter, as would the other place.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that. I hope that what she says is not later repudiated, because it runs entirely counter to what was said in the other place. In view of what she has said, I hope that we will soon have a statement from the appropriate Minister in the other place that what he said was wrong and that he retracts it. Otherwise, we are still left in the extraordinary position of a categoric statement having been made by the responsible Minister in the Commons and the noble Baroness saying precisely the opposite. That puts us in some difficulty.

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Anelay. I start from a simple premise, which is that we have far too much legislation in general and far too much secondary legislation. Much secondary legislation has been ill digested, ill drafted and ill conceived and is highly bureaucratic and burdensome on the people of this country. That something as important as this should be suggested for secondary legislation is, to me, absolutely absurd. Although I personally strongly support the need for a national identity register, I have severe doubts whether the scheme proposed by the Government will work.

My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was kind enough to refer to the shambles and chaos of the firearms register. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that the new register will be administered by the Passport Agency. I agree with her that the Passport Agency has recently performed rather well, but I remind her that my noble friend Lady Anelay and I visited the Passport Agency about two years ago. We detected a huge shambles in many of its procedures and safeguards. I do not for one moment claim that anything that I said—or even, perhaps, anything that my noble friend said—at our meeting with the heads of the administration of the Passport Agency resulted in its improvement, but I welcome the improvement.

The identity card scheme as introduced in the Bill may well need significant amendment before we move to a universal, compulsory system. That must mean that there should be primary legislation. If this House has any role at all—and, of course, it does—it is that of detailed scrutiny of the practicality of schemes, legislation and the administration of this country. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

My Lords, there is a particular reason why compulsion must be introduced under primary legislation. If the order is made rendering registration compulsory, under Clause 6(2), that imposes on every individual an obligation to apply to the registrar. The consequence of making an application to the registrar is that the person must pay a fee—a fee for something that he specifically does not want but that he cannot get out of having. As the noble Baroness, technically correctly, says: "If you feel so strongly about an identity card, you can go without a passport and a driving licence. Then you do not have to have an identity card". But once the scheme is compulsory you have to have one. To my knowledge, for the very first time, a government are saying that every inhabitant of this country is required to have a document which we shall give him and he has to pay for it. To my knowledge, that is unique and wholly objectionable.

The noble Baroness could say, "If you feel so strongly about it, you could emigrate". But the trouble is that if she has her way I shall not have a passport and I shall not even be able to emigrate. So, finding I cannot emigrate, I suppose my only choice is to go to Beachy Head, jump off and do away with myself—and then, I accept, I shall not need to have one. But that is a somewhat strange definition of voluntary.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I think that he may be wrong. If he does not kill himself, he will find that before getting treatment at the hospital he has to produce his ID card.

My Lords, that is all right because then if I do not get treated I shall die and, therefore, I shall not have to have the card.

Can the Minister give us another example of someone who is compelled to do something, and to pay a fee for something, he did not want? I did not choose to come into this world. If the Government's proposition is right, the only people who should be made to pay for the ID card are my parents, not me.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount has put into place the extraordinary argument advanced by the Minister in our previous debate about what constitutes a voluntary scheme. I thought that to describe the scheme as voluntary simply because there was no obligation for you to apply for a passport, and that you could exclude yourself from the pleasure of going abroad, was a pretty thin argument; but it has been made even thinner by the noble Viscount.

I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made the point about the previous record of the Passport Office. Yes, it has done quite well recently but initially it made an absolute shambles of things. So I am not sure that I am filled with quite the degree of confidence that I was supposed to be on being told by the ministerial Bench that it was not going to be like the firearms scheme where the Government had to rely on the Home Office incompetence but that they were handing it over to someone else who might do the job better. It says something about the confidence of Ministers now in the Home Office of their ability to run a scheme that they advance such an argument.

There are two phases of this great project. First, there is what might be called the "You all love it, you all want it, you will all want to have these identity cards and therefore we shall go along with it and we are giving you a great privilege" phase. Then there is the second phase. At some time in the future, the Government will say, "No, it is not a question of what you want but what we want". They will insist that you have it whether or not you like it. We heard from the Minister that the system was being phased in in that way—that they were trying to avoid the big move to compulsion.

One of the most extraordinary features of the project is the timescale, to which the Minister referred earlier—the initial consultation in, I think, 2002; the announcement in the House in November 2003; and here we are at the start of 2006. Yet even that first phase, debated in the previous amendment, will not be implemented until 2008; and the really compulsory phase, when everyone is brought in, will be quite a long time after that. I cannot remember exactly when, but Ministers have made it clear that there will be quite a long pause before we get there.

Yet we are told that the whole object of this compulsory scheme is to deal with serious problems afflicting the nation: fraud, crime, illegal immigration and terrorism; so we have to have this great scheme. But it cannot be as urgent as that or we would be introducing it now. I find it extraordinary that, while we are waiting to see how the scheme works and for the reports of the commissioner on how it operates in practice—I hope we will have those reports before we reach the final compulsion stage—we are told, "Oh well, we can rely on the debates held at the introduction of this legislation. We may then be content with the order-making power", enhanced or fallible though it may be in the way that has been hinted at. By then, our experience may be so different from what the Government have indicated at this stage that our knowledge about the effective ways to address the political problems of issues such as fraud and crime may be quite different. We may have changed our view on terrorism by then. Surely we ought to be able to debate these matters in the normal way, thus making sure that the detailed legislation then introduced is correct and able to deal with the situation at the time. It would build on the experience gained during the long period of the scheme's introduction.

Over the years, surely we have learnt one thing: the devil is in the detail. I remember how the great parliamentarian Tam Dalyell would repeat that saying again and again during our constitutional debates. How right he was to do so. It is as true today as it was then. Just because the timescale is so extended there is an overwhelming case, in addition to that so eloquently described by my noble friend in moving the amendment, for ensuring that we start again and look at the situation as it exists at that point. Parliament should have its normal rights and freedom to carry out the job of seeing legislation through in the appropriate manner.

My Lords, this amendment is essential. During the early stages of seeing whether the ID card scheme works, we will see examples of petty officialdom acting ultra vires and trying to control movements when they should not do so. Perhaps it will be irritating to have your position vis-à-vis parking fines and other minor infringements checked before you leave the country to go on holiday. That is perfectly feasible and probably sensible, but what if an appeal is pending and it has not been registered properly? What if one evening you are mugged or your pocket is picked and your ID card is lost, but you have to travel shortly afterwards; how will you get another ID card to do so? Those noble Lords who have tried to use their House of Lords ID card to get on an aeroplane to Scotland will know that it is not a sufficient proof of identity.

Lots of issues may arise. In the light of our experience, we may want to return to primary legislation to introduce stronger safeguards for the ordinary citizen. To trust an executive department of state to introduce those protections is foolhardy. History has taught us that that is unwise.

We should also remember that all the assurances given to us by the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, while completely honest at the moment, must be taken in the light that no Parliament can bind its successor. After the next general election, Ministers may well change their minds entirely. Indeed, on certain other issues we have seen the same Minister come back to this House with completely different opinions after a general election. None of this is set in stone and therefore it must be set out in primary legislation. Indeed, we may well find by then that local authority entitlement cards and others of that nature are quite sufficient for our purposes, and that we do not need to waste our money. Perhaps we will want to introduce legislation to ensure that they are better used. So many different things could come out of the trial period we are about to enter that merely to move on to the next stage by a super-affirmative order-making procedure is foolish and foolhardy. We must go back to primary legislation in order to move further down this track.

My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. The Government must be given some credit for the super-affirmative procedure. It is obviously a great deal stronger than normal procedure for a statutory instrument. But I am persuaded that the issues behind this important Bill, both of principle and of practicality, such as the technology, the corruptibility and the cost, all classically make the decision to go to compulsion one that should be taken by primary legislation. I am sure some noble Lords think that is a way of preventing this ever happening, but I do not see it that way.

There has been a flood of Home Office legislation through this House. At no time in recent years have there not been at least two Home Office Bills going through this place. If at some future time a government are persuaded that it is working and it is not corruptible, it seems relatively straightforward to have two or three sections in a Bill that are compatible with the proposal for compulsion, and we can deal with it then. The other point is that, even with the super-affirmative procedure, you are apt to come on after dinner, and, to be honest, that aborts the prospect of a full House giving full consideration to the matter.

My Lords, I am still unclear about the Government's position on this. Are they saying that if both Houses were not to agree to an order, it would fall and there would have to be primary legislation, or that the normal convention would apply, and it would be a constitutional outrage if we were actually to vote against an order? I suspect it is the latter, and, if so, there is no real safeguard at all in the super-affirmative procedure.

My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is pointing his gun at me. I am a mere opposition spokesman—not even a spokesman, just a Back-Bencher. As I understood the Minister, she made it quite clear that the latter scenario is not relevant. If both Houses reject on a super-affirmative basis, that's it. Indeed, it would be a nonsense to call it "super" anything if that was not "it", so I am assuming that it is. I am still saying that primary legislation is appropriate for the reasons mentioned, and therefore I support the amendment.

My Lords, it surely must be right, when you are taking the step from voluntarism to compulsion, that there should be primary legislation. Everyone who has spoken so far agrees that should be so. After all, whether or not it is a "super" procedure, in the House of Commons they will probably have three hours at most to discuss the matter. When it comes here we may discuss it for even longer, but the fact is that it will go through on one single occasion. A decision as great as converting the system from voluntary to compulsory will go through both Houses in less than a day. That simply cannot be right. I wonder why the Government will not accept this amendment. It would be in their own interests to do so. It would make them appear less authoritarian and more concerned with individual freedom and the rights of not only this House, but of the House of Commons as well.

The step to compulsion is, let me emphasise, huge. It converts the decision whether to have an identity card from the individual to the Government. That is a huge step. The Government do not seem to understand what they are doing. The amendment would be good from the Government's point of view because they would convince people that they do believe in individual freedom and that they do believe in proper parliamentary process before large steps are taken. That would be good for the Government; it would help them with the electorate.

In addition, if the Government accepted the amendment, they would gain time. We will be into the next election and perhaps electing a new government by the time this scheme goes into operation. The Government and the Labour Party would have the opportunity to gain the authority of the people for a compulsory scheme because they could put it in their manifesto. As we know, the Government were very concerned—except in certain cases—to adhere to the manifesto commitment. They could seek the authority of the people for the measure if they put it in a manifesto. That seems a very good argument for the Government to accept this amendment.

There is another point. The Labour Party—new Labour—may very well want to change its attitude. We should make no mistake about the fact that many people in the Labour Party are very concerned about this legislation and its implications for individual freedom. It is perfectly possible that the Labour Party itself would wish to go back to its roots and defend individual freedom by changing the policy of compulsory identity cards and a compulsory register. So from the point of view of the Labour Party, accepting this amendment would give it the opportunity to further discuss the implications of this legislation. But, above all, such a change deserves proper discussion and proper scrutiny in both Houses before it is made compulsory for the British people. Whether people are in favour of or against the scheme, I believe that virtually everyone, except perhaps the Government and some of their supporters, believes that it should not be made compulsory until there has been a big discussion not only in this House and in the House of Commons but publicly as well.

My Lords, I suggest that the measure requires rather more than discussion; it requires the consent of the people achieved by reason of a manifesto which sets out that it is to be compulsory. For example, under Clauses 4 and 5, an individual is required compulsorily to attend at a specified place and time to give information about himself and to be registered. That to me has a biblical ring about it. It is like the decree of Caesar Augustus which required Joseph and Mary to take their family from Nazareth to Bethlehem. It could have all sorts of consequences. We might get three wealthy illegal immigrants bringing gifts. Who knows where this will end? But the serious point is that the consent of the people to compulsion must be obtained before this register and the identity card are made compulsory.

My Lords, enthusiasm for this amendment must be affected by the importance placed on the liberty of the individual and the reduction of that liberty implied by the scheme's becoming compulsory. The Joint Committee on the Constitution clearly thought not only that the relationship of the citizen to the Government was greatly altered by a compulsory scheme, but that the moment that limitation took place was the point at which the scheme became compulsory. It recommended what this amendment would provide: that there should be primary legislation before the change is made.

That has been very fully discussed. We have not discussed so much the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that Parliament will need, after the many years of the so-called voluntary scheme, to change various arrangements in the present Bill. Some of it will not work very well; some of it will need to be tweaked in various ways and that will be the opportunity. None of that could happen with a super-affirmative resolution. All that could happen would be a debate and acceptance or rejection. There will be a debate, yes, and then a pause, because it is a super-affirmative resolution, before implementation. Primary legislation will give us a proper opportunity to make any necessary changes. I had not given proper thought to that important point. I am sure that this amendment is of enormous importance and I hope we will accept it.

My Lords, can I make it clear why the Government absolutely do not accept it? It is because this is primary legislation that we are now debating. This is the Act in which the whole issue of compulsion or no compulsion should be determined. We have had an extensive opportunity to discuss whether this is a matter on which noble Lords and the other place can concur. I have, in answering the last amendment, set out part of the history demonstrating how the Government sought to deal with the question of compulsion. Since 2002 we have said that this issue will be dealt with in two stages.

The whole point of using the word "initially" was to indicate the two-stage process that we had already put before this House and the other place, first as a draft Bill and then as the Bill that was actively under consideration before the election. We argue strongly that, as far as compulsion is concerned the people of this country have already spoken. They spoke during the election.

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I do not understand why the second stage should prevent one learning from experience. One of the advantages of doing it in two stages is that you have the opportunity to learn from experience. Yet what the noble Baroness is proposing is making that, if not impossible, then very difficult.

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that it is important to learn from experience. The way in which the Government have set out the two-stage process enables us to do just that. The principle of compulsion would be decided, but the mechanics of how it would be brought in would be amenable to change and sensitive to what we will have learnt between the first and second stages.

There has been implicit criticism that, in taking time to evolve these proposals, we have not been as speedy as we could, bearing in mind the urgency of the situation. The Government are placed in an interesting situation, in which we are determined to be balanced, proportionate and practical in the way we roll this out. We are determined to get the process right.

The super-affirmative resolution procedure gives us an opportunity for enhanced flexibility greater than that that we have had hitherto. Noble Lords have complained in the past that one of the disadvantages of the affirmative resolution procedure is that you cannot amend. It is a bit like a curate's egg—one either accepts or rejects. The tradition has been that, if the majority of the content of an order is acceptable, one accepts those things with which one may disagree, because it is better to have the majority of issues as opposed to the few. The super-affirmative procedure, for the first time, would give this House and the other place an interesting opportunity, because it would allow them to have a voice about the detail of the provision proposed.

That is the whole purpose for the procedure in Clause 7, which deals with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The procedure provides explicitly that the report laid before Parliament must contain all the details of the proposal for compulsion. That proposal can be modified by either House—your Lordships' House or the other place. "Modification" is defined in the Bill as including omission, addition or alteration. Only if both Houses agree on the final report, with or without modification, can the order be made by the Secretary of State, subject to the normal affirmative procedure. That gives the House certainty, in terms of the fact that it is a compulsory scheme; an ability to learn from experience, as the noble and learned Lord indicated; and flexibility on implementation.

I made it clear on the previous occasion, and sought to do so by my intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was making his remarks in support of the application, that the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as I have more fully now described. The description given by my honourable friend in another place refers to the final position—that if both Houses do not agree, separate and different primary legislation would have to be brought in to implement anything in the order.

I should correct what I am sure was not an intentional comment on the outcome from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because I think that the noble Baroness has never knowingly misled the House, and I am sure that she did not intend to so do on this occasion. However, it is right for us to look at paragraph 20, to which she referred, in toto, because it clearly describes two different situations. Perhaps I should read it, for completeness. It states:

"Any assessment of the appropriateness of this delegation of power is dependent on whether one considers this bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion, or a bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage. If the former (i.e. if the House is not at this time willing to endorse the principle of a compulsory scheme for all), then the power in clause 6 is inappropriate and a compulsory scheme should only be introduced by means of a bill. If the latter (which accords with the Minister's invitation at second reading and with the provision in the bill and policy in the memorandum), then the power in clause 6 is the most appropriate method to commence a compulsory scheme. We have taken the latter view, that this bill legislates in principle for a compulsory scheme of identity registration for all; and that the super-affirmative procedure proposed for its introduction is thus the most stringent available secondary legislative mechanism for its scrutiny".

We have throughout said that the Government's intention is to introduce a compulsory scheme, but in two stages. I hope that I put that beyond doubt when I said at Second Reading on 31 October that,

"the identity card scheme to be introduced is designed to become compulsory. We therefore need to have the debate on the principle of compulsion now".—[Hansard, 31/10/05; col. 16.]

I did not say that it should be debated on another date; I said "now". This is the primary legislation, on which this House and the other place have an opportunity to express their view and say yea or nay; they should not do so on another occasion. The Government's proposals, which command consistent public support, are for a national identity card scheme which will in time become compulsory. I remind your Lordships that the most recent Home Office research shows that around 73 per cent of people support the introduction of identity cards. Indeed, people often ask why we cannot introduce compulsory identity cards straightaway.

When we move to compulsion, leaving aside any exceptional categories, it will then be compulsory for every British citizen resident in the UK and all foreign nationals resident for more than three months to register, backed up by civil financial penalties for failure to comply. That is the scheme that we are talking about. Through the special super-affirmative procedure set out in Clause 7, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the precise details, but the debate will be about the timing of compulsion and the categories of individuals to be included in the compulsion order, not the principle.

My Lords, the Minister has not really answered the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—that primary legislation for the second part would give the opportunity to learn from experience. She indicates that the affirmative order procedure would enable a number of changes to be made to the original scheme, but the difference is that the changes proposed by bureaucrats may not be as good or effective as those that Parliament might wish to make. So far as I can understand her description of the procedure, there would not be the equivalent of, as it were, a Committee stage, with detailed changes made to the proposal. If it is the same, why on earth not have primary legislation to do it?

My Lords, I hoped that I had addressed fully the noble and learned Lord's points. Having had such an extensive debate on this Bill and debated the issues on principle, we then have an opportunity properly to look at the detail. The super-affirmative resolution procedure allows us to look at that detail and debate the different issues by way of an amendment on each of the matters, so this House and the other place could have the debate on the detail. We argue strongly that that would be the better course.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she mentioned a couple of minutes ago that the Home Office survey had produced a result of 72 per cent in favour. Does she agree that when we discussed the regional government Bill, we were told that 72 per cent of the population supported regional government, but when it came to a vote of the people, they rejected it by a figure of 3.5 or 4 to 1? Did she also hear "Any Questions?" on Friday or Saturday, in which the audience, after hearing the matter debated extensively, voted virtually unanimously against identity cards, compulsory or otherwise?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about that. We can only invite noble Lords to look at the consistent data which we have put before them about the way in which the public have responded. It would be absolutely clear to any of us who remember the previous election that whether we should have ID cards was a plank of a number of the debates between the various parties. We made it clear that we wanted ID cards; noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches made it clear that they did not; and noble Lords opposite had an interesting position.

A noble Lord:

Tell us about it.

My Lords, I do not want to enter the private grief of noble Lords opposite, but it was clear that their position was divided. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head. There was a difference in the positions adopted by her then leader, Michael Howard, and the then spokesman for home affairs about the approach.

We made it absolutely clear that this was a major issue; the Government put their agenda to the public on the basis of the Bill; and the public spoke. The Government are of the view that this Bill is the primary legislation. It is for this House to decide whether a compulsory scheme is the right way forward. We agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that, bearing in mind that the Government have adopted the latter construct in paragraph 20 of its report, this would be the best way forward. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the Minister. On the issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, she is right that I do not ever mislead the House, certainly not intentionally. I referred to the full debate in Committee because I thought that it would be rather tedious for those who were not able to be with us at that time to be taken through every argument. What I was able to show there was that, whether the Government believed that the whole Bill provided for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary phase or whether the initial phase was not at all voluntary, I still won both ways in the argument. Paragraph 20 of the report says:

"Whether one considers this Bill as introducing a voluntary scheme which may gradually be extended towards compulsion"— which the House has now decided it should be—

"or a Bill which provides for a compulsory scheme preceded by a voluntary stage".

The noble Baroness said that if it is the latter, that supports the Government. Our argument has been that the Government's definition of "voluntary" is: "if you do not want a new passport, you'll never leave this country and we will make sure of that". That is not voluntary by any definition by people outside this House or, I think, by most people inside it.

We went through the construct of that paragraph. I have huge respect for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I do not think that I am going to be working against its recommendations in anything that I have argued, either in Committee or today.

I am grateful to the Minister for putting so clearly on the record her assurances about the way in which she would anticipate the super-affirmative procedure going forward. For whatever reason, that clarity was not provided in the other place. She has provided it today. As ever, her clarity and her reassurances are accepted 100 per cent. However, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out that one government cannot bind the next with such assurances. So, on a matter as significant as the transfer between an alleged voluntary scheme to one of compulsion, is a super-affirmative procedure adequate? For all the reasons adduced by noble Lords today, we believe that it is not; that the move to all-out compulsion is of too great significance. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, the issues of principle, practicality and cost are the classic decisions that can be taken only after the detailed consideration and reflection that primary legislation allows us. The Minister said that the Government are trying to take a balanced, proportionate and practical approach. I believe her, because that is the way in which she approaches her work in this House. It is because of that important need to do exactly as she said and to take a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to the transition to compulsion that my amendment is necessary. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 198; Not-Contents, 140.