Identity Cards Bill

In speaking to my amendments, I support those moved by my noble friend Lord Northesk and spoken to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Clause 1(5) gives us too rough an idea of what is meant by the ““registrable facts”” that may be held on the national database about our personal lives. As my noble friends said, these amendments aim to tease out from the Government a more rounded picture of how the measure will be applied. Otherwise, the open-ended ability of the Government to pile demand after demand on individuals to come up with every detail of their lives will plainly be unsustainable and certainly extremely unpopular. I shall explain briefly the purpose of the amendments tabled in my name. Amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 34 would exempt the registration of places where one had lived for less than three months. I also ask the Government to explain how the provisions will affect those of no fixed abode, a point already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Northesk, or indeed how they will affect the Traveller communities. I am reminded every day of the needs of those with no fixed abode when I travel past the Salvation Army hostel close to Vauxhall Bridge Road on my way back from discussing matters in your Lordships’ House. So this is a very real concern. Amendment No. 31 seeks to exempt the registration of those places where one has spent a holiday. This goes beyond the situation referred to by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell when he mentioned second homes and holiday homes. What if someone takes a sabbatical? We all think we know what we mean by a holiday, but I feel some pangs of jealousy when I find out that some of my former colleagues from outside the House are given a year’s sabbatical paid for by their employers. One must be wary of how one defines a holiday, as well as who should be exempted and who should not. Amendment No. 27 would exempt from registration those addresses at which one had lived as a student or as a person under a work contract for less than three months. Are the Government treating students of different ages and backgrounds, whether they are mature students or those still in their teenage years, in different ways when it comes to requiring or exempting the registration of all addresses? If so, how and why? Amendments Nos. 30 and 35 would exempt from registration those addresses at which one has lived or lives currently outside the United Kingdom. These amendments have been tabled simply to ask the Government what kind of verification of overseas addresses would be required within the context of the Bill as it stands. I wonder rather cynically how on earth someone from deepest Darfur is expected to provide a postcode or proper proof of their address. The Government need to give us some sensible answers on this. Amendment No. 28 would confine the registration of addresses to those one had used during the past six years, a point already mentioned in passing by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. My noble friend referred to his own life, and I should like to refer to my mother’s experiences. My mother died earlier this year at the age of 91. She led an industrious but, some would say, a quiet life. She lived at home with her parents until she married at the age of 24. She then shared with my father just two homes over the whole of her life. But during the Second World War she wanted to be with my father while he was being trained, so she was put to work in various places around the United Kingdom and travelled to wherever she was allocated. Although her memory was formidable and she was proud of her war work, she certainly would not have been able to recall all the addresses of where she lived during those years. She might have been able to recall the different towns, but not the exact addresses. My question is this: what do we expect people to be able to remember? What onus will be placed on them in this regard? Although my mother had a superb memory, she would not have been able to come up with the relevant facts. What of those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or those less able to recall detailed information? I am sure that the Government do not intend to place undue pressure on such people, but we need that kind of detail to be fleshed out. If the Government follow the line taken by the Minister in another place and say, ““Well, we intend to use the UK Passport Service rule of requiring evidence of addresses for the past six years””, then of course I must ask: why not just say so in the Bill? In Committee on 6 July at col. 67, the Minister, Mr McNulty, stated that the application form would require us to provide addresses for the past six years, but that the six-year requirement would be in regulations yet to be drafted. My concern, as reflected in my probing amendment, is that if the Government introduce a six-year requirement, at what stage will they decide that they need to go back further than six years for some people and on what will such a decision be based? If it is to be different strokes for different folks, on what basis will they decide how to discriminate against some individuals by requiring more information from them? Will they discriminate on a personal basis, on groups, on suspicion, or on information provided by the security services? How will that kind of decision be made? Amendment No. 33 appears to reflect a comment by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. When debating his own amendment on principal residence he asked what a place of residence means. My amendment is far more prosaic. Amendment No. 33 asks the Government to explain their choice of drafting when using different forms of words in Clause 1(5)(c) and (d). Subsection (5)(c) refers to,"““““where he has previously resided””." Subsection 5(d) uses the term ““was resident””. Is there any significance in that difference or was it simply a different person drafting the subsection? I should be grateful if the Minister could try to give some answers to these myriad questions. We shall listen carefully to her reply and consider what we shall need to do at a later stage.