Identity Cards Bill

I have no intention of doing that. They provide the service exactly as the noble Lord describes, which is exactly what we are seeking to achieve here. We want to ensure that a system as importantly complex as this one works well; we do not want to have unpredictable workflows that threaten the integrity of security procedures and lead to an inefficient use of staff and resources. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to support such a system, as it would not be in the best interests of public service. Amendments Nos. 107, 154, 155 and 170A state that requirements to attend at a specific time and place should be reasonable and practical. In setting requirements for the centre network, great care has been taken to ensure that the requirements placed on the individual are reasonable. In planning the new UK Passport Service network of enrolment facilities, which will form the basis of ID card facilities, there has been significant research and consultation, particularly with local authorities, to identify potential locations for centres. When the ID card scheme is launched, it is planned that no person should have to travel any further than an hour from their home. Indeed, the majority of people should have a centre much nearer to their place of work or their home. This approach is in line with existing policy for similar requirements; for example, appointments for the Department for Work and Pensions. Additionally, for remote communities and those with mobility problems, mobile enrolment solutions as well as home visits are being considered. They are part of the package. I turn to Amendment No. 160, which attempts to introduce a super affirmative procedure that will require a report on enrolment facilities before an individual would have to attend to be issued with an ID card. We believe that this is an unnecessary amendment. The super affirmative procedure will already have been used before the move to compulsion under Clause 6. The report submitted under Clause 6 will have to outline the proposals for compulsory registration, which will require approval by both Houses. This move will not come without further public consultation and will follow a period when individuals will have already registered and been issued with ID cards when applying for designated documents. The issue of suitable facilities which will affect the Secretary of State’s ability to deliver the scheme effectively will have been covered in the report before compulsion, and Parliament would have had the opportunity to raise any concerns at that stage. We feel that that makes this amendment irrelevant. The final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 168, states that a person should notify the Secretary of State of a change in their record within a ““reasonable”” time rather than within a prescribed period. It would obviously be our preference that a prescribed period is set out. This provides greater clarity about the requirements placed on the individual and acts as a deterrent to those who would not update their record without good reason. It is currently envisaged that individuals will be asked to update their details within three months of any changes. Of course, allowances would be made for those with quite legitimate reasons—illness being one—and difficulties of accessing an enrolment centre. As we mentioned previously, it is intended that the most common changes such as change of address or change of name after marriage can be made quickly, easily and without a need to make an appointment at a centre. We do not consider that an unreasonable approach.