Before the noble Lord sits down, I rather felt that what he said related more to the noble Baroness’s amendments than mine. My amendments are all couched in a discretionary format; they would not require any compulsory allowances, but would simply enable the Government, in regulation-making, to make provision for financial assistance in appropriate cases and for home visits.
The noble Lord spoke about disabled and vulnerable people, but a whole group of people will be neither of those things—just poor. The 15 per cent of people who do not have passports will tend to be what are called the underclass, being poor and deprived. It will create huge problems if the Government are not able to take note of the fact that to travel an hour on public transport to one of the centres may simply be financially beyond the resources of the family concerned.
I do not see any comparability with people taking their driving tests. We are talking about compulsory registration for the last 15 per cent of the population. For the Government to deny themselves the power to facilitate that on a means-tested basis seems like scoring an own goal. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would think about this further. I do not see why he opposes such an amendment.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1056-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:51:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285884
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285884
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285884