Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 105:"Page 5, line 19, leave out paragraph (a)." The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 105, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 168, 169 and 170. We return to the vexed issue of ““convenience””, which provoked a fair amount of discussion on our first day in Committee. Amendments Nos. 105 and 169 propose the deletion of the words,"““to attend at a specified place and time””," from Clauses 5 and 12 respectively. In our earlier debates, it was established via the text in Clause 1(3)(a) that the national identity register and its associated ID cards are intended to provide a convenient method whereby individuals can prove their identity. As the Minister commented, the utility of the word ““convenient”” is that:"““It can be used as a template or mirror against which many of the provisions will be viewed””.—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1059.]" If that is tested against the possible requirement for an individual,"““to attend at a specified place and time””," in order to submit his details for entry on the register, inconvenience rather than convenience comes to mind. We all lead increasingly busy lives. Individuals have lifestyle commitments, both work-related and leisure-related, which are not always easy to work around. An obvious example would be night-shift workers. Accordingly, the current drafting implies an overly prescriptive and burdensome obligation, both physically and financially. The wider context of that is important. The manifesto states unequivocally that it is the intention that the scheme should be voluntary—at least initially. Up to a point that has been the Government’s chosen mechanism for achieving public acceptance of it. But if individuals are effectively to be dragooned to turn up at an enrolment centre in a place and at a time that may be inconvenient, resentment towards the scheme could surface very quickly, which is an outcome that I am sure the Government would rather avoid. My other amendments in the group all pursue the same theme. They aim to make it plain that the enrolment and updating processes should be designed for the convenience of the applicant for an ID card rather than for the convenience of the Government. Amendments Nos. 106 and 170 seek to insert the words printed on the Marshalled List, so that the paragraph would read,"““to attend at his convenience at a specified place and time””." Amendment No. 168 proposes that notification of changes to an individual’s registrable facts on the database should be made within ““a reasonable”” rather than ““the prescribed”” period. Perhaps, ideally, the ““prescribed”” period—say, 30 days—should be explicitly stated in the Bill. Nevertheless, there is a thematic point to be made. As already observed, the Government intend the scheme to be convenient for the individual. That being so, arbitrary time limits to circumscribe individual behaviour are inappropriate, the more so because of the stiff penalties for non-compliance. In those circumstances, notifications by individuals within a reasonable period would be proportionate. I would be grateful too if, when she comes to reply, the Minister clarifies the Government’s current thinking on the enrolment process. For example, is it intended that there will be dedicated enrolment centres? If so, how many? What would be their opening times? Would any of them be mobile to serve rural communities? As she commented on our first day, the word ““convenient””,"““emphasises the kind of value that we wish to add to these provisions””.—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1055.]" This implies that the Government are well seized of the necessity of ensuring that the interface between the national identity register and individual citizens should have adequate levels of flexibility to afford those applying for an ID card with appropriate degrees of convenience. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister is in a position to demonstrate that such ““added value”” is at the forefront of the Government’s mind so far as concerns the enrolment process. I beg to move.