Identity Cards Bill

May I draw the House’s attention to the fact that humble pie is also evident in this group of amendments? I was delighted to see the Minister eating it, although it is pity that he did not eat it in the summer, when we had our interesting discussions during the Committee stage. We had a lengthy debate about this very issue and at that stage the Government decided that they were prepared to introduce compulsion through secondary legislation. I see my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), who were on the Committee with me, in their places today. We drew the issue to the Committee’s attention but the Government, in their wisdom, decided that they knew best and that if they wanted to bring in compulsion—which was clearly their end intention—they would do it through secondary legislation. The problem facing the Government is that they have, as usual, misused the English language. When they say ““voluntary””, they mean ““compulsory””, and that is why they have got stuck. When they say ““may””, they mean ““must”” and when they say ““possibly””, they mean ““definitely””. That is why they were given a thorough ticking-off in the other place, where Members of the House of Lords—not only from the opposition parties, but from the Government party—turned up in numbers to persuade them that their original thinking was wrong. I am delighted that the Minister and the Home Secretary have changed their mind. They were sensible to do so and here we are, dealing with something of a concession. However, before we get overexcited, we need to be clear about the value of the concession—how limited or extensive it is. We shall come on to designated documents in the next group of amendments, but we have already discovered from my intervention that a compulsory procedure will still be required when they are applied for. That is to say that when people apply for their passport, a residential status document or an immigration document they will still be compelled, whether they like it or not, under this Christmas tree of a Bill—which allows the Secretary of State to take unto himself 61 powers to make further law—to do things that he requires them to do. It is only in the discrete area of clauses 6 and 7 that the requirement for primary legislation bites. We are grateful for that—let me not give the Home Secretary and the Minister of State any other impression—but the problem remains that compulsion is still a big part of the Bill, which is still no more than a Christmas tree, providing various little places for this Secretary of State or his successors to add on secondary legislation giving them powers to tell us what to do.