Identity Cards Bill

This is an important group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, and tabled separately Amendments Nos. 107, 152 to 154 and 160. The current wording in the Bill is pretty extraordinary. Amendments Nos. 105 to 109 refer to the voluntary stage in the proceedings for anyone who wishes to apply for an ID card. Amendments Nos. 152 to 154 address the scheme when it later becomes compulsory. Under both clauses, the Bill states that the Secretary of State may ““require”” the applicant to do a number of things as he ““thinks fit””. Among the things that the Secretary of State may think it fit to require the applicant to do is to,"““attend at a specified place and time””." I am not aware of any other piece of legislation that places a legal requirement on the individual to attend at a ““specified place and time””, whether or not it is convenient or practical for him to do so. In those circumstances, I think we are entitled to lay down certain basic requirements and to get a great deal more information out of the Government. Like those tabled by my noble friend, my amendments refer to ““convenience””. For example, Amendment No. 107 would replace the words,"““at a specified place and time””," with,"““as may be reasonably practical and convenient at an approved place for registration within a specified time””." Amendment No. 160 goes much further. It provides that before we give the Government the go-ahead on the scheme, we should be told very much more about their plans. It would require the Government to produce a report for Parliament detailing the arrangements to be made and for those arrangements to be approved by Parliament before the scheme can go ahead. Surely no one can doubt that getting the whole thing under way on the basis of public acceptability is very important. Earlier today I quoted from a report prepared by several technical experts. They comment that:"““Fast successful, reliable and above all accessible enrolment procedures are vital to gain public acceptance of a National Identity Register—and indeed the whole national ID card scheme. In Hong Kong, generally recognised as having a very advanced and successful biometric identity scheme, enrolment takes approximately 20 minutes””." But Hong Kong has certain advantages. It covers a relatively small area. Those of us who live in the remoter parts of the countryside think that things here may not be so easy. The report goes on:"““In Egypt, with its more diverse and scattered population, three types of enrolment are used: static enrolment stations in buildings, portable stations that could be taken to outside locations such as old people’s homes and mobile stations to cover remote areas. In the UK it is similarly important that the enrolment and authentication process should be designed to cater for all sections of society, particularly those with special needs””." The Government must have gone into this in some detail because their published regulatory impact assessment and the letter circulated by the noble Baroness both state that the costings produced so far include the costs of setting up the places at which registration is to take place. Significantly, however, the costings do not include the costs applicable to the Foreign Office, embassies and consular posts. I have referred to this on previous occasions and I shall refrain from further comment until we reach the debate to be held later when we return to the question of costs. One further aspect ought to be borne in mind when considering this issue: the question of staffing. Again, the report comments:"““The security of a system is only as good as the personnel who run it. Strict vetting procedures need to be put in place to ensure that personnel at all stages of the system are honest, aware of what to do in the event of uncovering criminal activity and always operate according to whatever process and procedures are brought in to mastermind the security of the system””." The report goes on to set out further detailed comments on those matters, and states that,"““without expert management and supervision””," all the technological gimmicks that are produced will be ““of little use””. We are dealing here with the importance of providing convenient places for the public which are properly and efficiently managed to deal with the security aspects at costs that are reasonable not only in this country, as I have pointed out, but also in Foreign Office bases around the world. People lose their passports and they have to be replaced, as happened to me on one occasion. I think that we are entitled to some pretty detailed information about these arrangements before we give the scheme the go-ahead. At the back of my mind I have a memory that, at some point in our proceedings, either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord on the Front Bench beside her referred to the provision of something like 70 enrolment centres. However, I may not have that right. If it is to be 70 enrolment centres, let us look at what we are talking about. Even if only a handful are set up in London, where the public transport system is very good, and just one or two in each of the major cities, the numerical score would still drop down quite quickly. What will people do in Scotland? It is no good saying to those living in the remoter areas that there is a centre in Inverness, let alone to those who live in the outer isles. It would not do any good to tell my former constituents around St David’s that they have to go to Carmarthen, Swansea or even Cardiff. My home is in Powys and I am not sure where I would have to go. In order to provide adequate cover, there will have to be to be a lot of centres, some of which will have to be mobile. Similarly, what are we going to do about those who are handicapped in one way or another and therefore cannot travel on public transport, but need access just the same to an identity card centre?