I agree with all that has been said by noble Lords. I have a modest amendment to which I will speak briefly. Amendment No. 109 would make it clear that, if a person is directed to attend an enrolment centre, he cannot be forced to attend at a specific time. That is merely in tune with the general thrust of the debate. If people are to be directed to enrolment centres—one of 70 that may not be convenient to them to reach—there should be some measure of accommodation to ensure that they are able to attend in a convenient way. We have talked all the way through this Bill about wanting to achieve a scheme that is convenient to the individual and not merely convenient to the Government. There is certainly some difference of opinion about where the Bill falls in respect of that at the moment.
I support Amendment No. 106 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk, which concentrates our minds very strongly on what is convenient. I carefully note what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about Amendment No. 160 and the importance of having a report on the operation of the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who has been doing sterling work, seems to have waved a magic wand. Every time he mentions a phrase or word, a letter materialises from the Home Office. On this occasion, he correctly directed our attention to the fact that failure to comply with enrolment can lead to a civil penalty—a heavy one. As a result of that, we now have what appears to be a very helpful response from the Home Office dated 9 December. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for providing us with that. I note that it says that it is an advance note of the civil penalty regime draft code of practice. It states that it is purely an indicative draft and subject to consultation and alteration. I accept that.
However, I note that Amendment No. 124 relates specifically to the matter of issue within this letter and draft code. I must put on record that, when we get to Amendment No. 124 I will do my best, but I will not be able to give any more than a limited response given that I shall have to do another speed read on the Front Bench. I appreciate that it was the good will of the Government to provide the Committee with this copy, but it comes at a rather awkward time for noble Lords to take advantage of it.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 December 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1027 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:50:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285829
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285829
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285829