Identity Cards Bill

The noble Lord makes one error. He should not assume that as the hour grows late, we become more compliant. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have explained their amendments accurately and to the point and I understand their import. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have stressed that for certain individuals with particular needs and problems, there should be an entitlement to apply for the reimbursement of travel costs. The amendments would also require the Secretary of State, before laying the order for compulsion, to put proposals before Parliament explaining how such expenses would be met. That is sensible in terms of the flow of the amendments. They would also require the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled individuals before requiring them to attend at the specified place. As the noble Baroness said, we dealt with some of this material in Amendment No. 105 and the subsequent iterative process that came from it. Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174 require that regulations laid under Clauses 5, 9 and 12 shall make provision for financial assistance with the cost of attending at a specified time and place. This financial provision would have to be provided for in regulations whenever an individual was required to attend at a particular time and place for the purposes of being entered onto the register or making a change to his entry, or if he was subject to compulsory registration. When I say this in its baldness it may seem somewhat insensitive—it is not intended that way—but it is our view that to reimburse travel expenses and loss of earnings would be unprecedented and inappropriate for a process of this nature. The Passport Service does not reimburse travel or loss of earning expenses, and nor does the DVLA when individuals travel to take a theory or practical driving test. Individuals cannot claim such expenses when they travel to register a birth or a death, as of course people are obliged to do. Some of those journeys can be quite difficult and arduous, but we accept that when registering births, deaths and so on. There are other instances of a similar nature. I made plain earlier that we will ensure that the enrolment centres are easily accessible and within a reasonable travelling distance. We have plans to introduce home visits for certain categories of people, as well as mobile enrolment centres to serve those people living in rural and remote areas and those who are simply unable to travel—for example, those in nursing homes or long-term residential care. We would not seek to move a whole population to an enrolment centre; we will bring the enrolment centre to them so that their needs can be matched. We will also ensure that the needs of vulnerable and disabled people are taken into account. All of the facilities will need to comply with the relevant legislation, notably with the Disability Discrimination Act which has fairly onerous conditions in regard to access—and rightly so; we are proud of it—and applicants will be able to outline their special requirements when they book their enrolment appointment. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put her finger on the issue when she said it will be a very important part of the Government’s obligations to explain this process and to make these particular and special facilities available from the point of enrolment. That will clearly be a challenge for the service but, given the success in recent years of the Passport Service, it is not beyond us; it can be achieved. We have the benefit of very flexible technology—for example, the Internet, websites and so on—and we can make this work practically, which is what we need to do. Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 would have the effect that the Secretary of State would have to have regard to its impact on vulnerable and disabled people before the compulsion order was laid. In particular, Amendment No. 120 would require the communication of the compulsion order to be sent in a format that is understandable to those who are unable to read a printed letter. We obviously will need to address those issues. This matter cannot be properly addressed on the face of the legislation. We will have to deal with it with advice and guidance. Clearly it is in our interests to ensure that those who cannot easily read a printed letter should have a facility which will enable them to access the information. As to the amendment relating to the provision of financial assistance, clearly we have very much in mind making provision for vulnerable and disabled people. As regards Amendment No. 120, I can reassure noble Lords that our considerations towards people will stretch much wider than written material. We are in the process of consulting with representative bodies; the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the RNIB. We have had help from the RNIB and constructive meetings as recently as 2 December. We will need to continue that dialogue to ensure that we get it right. I hope that with the assurance that there will be further discussions and that we will give very careful consideration to these issues, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.