Identity Cards Bill

My Amendments Nos. 260 and 261, 263 to 267 and 268 are in this group. Amendment No. 260 relates to the fees charging clause, Clause 37, and specifies that there should be no fees charged in relation to changes affecting the accuracy of the register as prescribed by Section 12. Secondly, the fee for issuing an ID card should be capped at £30. The first of those proposals—that there should be no fee in connection with notification of changes—is reasonable enough. This card will be compulsory. To require a fee every time a student, for example, moves house—as they frequently do, often more than once a year—would be unfair and resented. Indeed, the whole notification charge procedure that we have been led to expect will bear heavily on those members of our community least able to bear the expenses. They will bear a disproportionate cost because they are disproportionately on the move—I am not only thinking of students. The £30 limit hoists the Government with their own petard. We have been told endlessly that this will not cost more than £30. Fine; let us put that on the face of the Bill. It could be that after the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, have moved to greater heights, their successors may say, ““Well, that was only a cockshy in the House of Lords. Actually, it is £130—no, £230””, when the LSE figures are found to be correct. I seriously propose a cap on this wretched fee. If the Government are going to force it on us, they can jolly well live out their prognostications. Amendment No. 261 is a gift to the Government—I am sure that the noble Baroness will be grateful. It gives them the power—not the duty—to exempt from payment of fees in whole or part any person or category of persons. That would, for example, allow them to exempt students from paying fees when they move house. The other amendments in the group deal with the entitlement under Clause 37(3) for the Secretary of State when prescribing fees to take into account a rather terrifying list of things. In my amendments, I at least seek to ensure that only direct expenses can be taken into account when fees are set so that the whole overhead of government—the vast Whitehall estate—cannot be used as an excuse for piling on indirect costs for the purposes of reaching prescribed fees under Clause 37(3).