Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 150A:"Page 8, line 16, at end insert ““or" (   )   the registrable facts under subsection (4)(b),”” The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 161A, 207A and 267A. In our debates on Clause 4, the Government said in passing that they were considering the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on specific regulations on statutory instruments. I have tabled these amendments in order to ask the Government if they do intend to accept the recommendations made by that committee that certain of the orders which are currently subject to annulment should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I shall seek to summarise the reasons given by the Select Committee in respect of each statutory instrument and then invite the Minister to give the Government’s overall response. If that response is positive, I hope we would then be able to reduce considerably the time we need to take over these matters on Report. I hope that, apart from the moving of the amendments at that time, there may not need to be any speeches, as I am aware that we already have a huge number of amendments thundering up, ready to be tabled for Report stage. Clause 8 is covered by my first amendment in this group. The Explanatory Notes state:"““The exact specification and design of ID cards has yet to be determined but when it is these will be set out in regulations””." Therefore, it is not possible to find out from the Bill what an ID card itself will provide by way of information. The Select Committee report states:"““Although a surprising level of detail is here proposed to be left to regulations, with one exception we accept the provision in this clause. Clause 8(4) requires an ID card should be issued to certain individuals, except in cases prescribed by regulations, subject to the negative procedure. Those to whom an ID card must be issued are individuals who are entitled to be registered (or subject to compulsory registration) and about whom ‘the prescribed registerable facts’ are recorded in the register. So whether there is a duty to issue a card will depend upon which registerable facts are prescribed. This seems to us to be of a similar level of importance to prescribing the information recorded on the card. We therefore recommend that the power should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure””." We agree with the committee. Clause 10 is covered by my Amendment No. 161A, which refers to the functions of designated documents authorities. Whereas Clause 8 prescribes requirements that can apply to all ID cards, whether issued by the Secretary of State or by an authority issuing designated documents for the purposes of Clause 4—I am in danger of going into the murk and I shall need some lucidity from the Minister as a result, following the pleas from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—Clause 10(2) is only about ID cards issued by a designated documents authority. It provides that an authority which issues a designated document to an individual who does not hold an ID card must issue an ID card satisfying the prescribed requirements. We return to the murk of what is and is not prescribed. As the committee states:"““Unless this is intended to be a reference to requirements prescribed by regulations under Clause 8(3), this appears to be an additional power to prescribe requirements. Regulations under Clause 10 are subject to negative procedure only. We recommend that, so far as the power under Clause 10 extends to prescribing matters which, were they prescribed using the powers in Clause 8(3), would be in regulations subject to affirmative procedure, the regulations under Clause 10(2) should also be subject to affirmative procedure””." It is easier to understand the recommendations when I read them on the page rather than reading them out. Clause 19 is covered by my Amendment No. 207A. The committee recommends at paragraph 43 of its fifth report that,"““the powers in Clause 19(3), (4) and (5) be made subject to the affirmative procedure due to the significance of allowing information on the register to be given and the legitimate concerns of all those affected””." That general statement covers the recommendations satisfactorily without me having to go into the details of those three subsections. All noble Lords are perfectly able to read them in the Bill. Amendment No. 267A, the last in this group, relates to Clause 37 on fees. This enables the Secretary of State by regulations to impose fees in respect of a range of matters set out in subsection (1). The regulations are subject to affirmative procedure for the first regulations, but to the negative procedure thereafter. As the committee states:"““In view of the fact that ID cards will for many be de facto compulsory from the start””," with which I wholly agree,"““(and of course may eventually be compulsory for all), the likely cost of a card and running the system””," has dominated much of the public debate. The report continues:"““For example, it is likely that a change of address will be one of the items which regulations under Clause 12(1) will require to be the subject of notification, and a charge may be made by regulations under Clause 37(1)(b)””." So the committee does not consider it by any means certain that only the first exercise of the power would raise significant issues. I agree with the committee wholeheartedly and therefore with its conclusion,"““that all regulations made under Clause 37 should be subject to the affirmative procedure unless they are made only to take account of changes in the value of money””." My overall question is: do the Government intend to accept the committee’s recommendations on all four of those clauses and, if so, when might we have sight of the Government’s own amendments, which I am sure will be more carefully drafted than mine? I beg to move.