Identity Cards Bill

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I thought for one moment that she was suggesting that she might have reached an age where she would be so entitled, and I just simply did not believe it. That was why I was registering such shock. Lawyers are known for their inventive minds, but the noble Lord’s ingenious construction on Clause 15(3)(a) even beggared my belief. I will say why. Clause 15 provides a power to link the identity cards scheme with the provision of public services. The clause reflects one of the objectives of the identity cards scheme; namely, to simplify the checks on eligibility for services and to reduce fraudulent use of services. The clause contains a number of safeguards. The effect of subsection (2) is that payments provided under an enactment—for example, social security benefits—and public services provided free of charge may not be made conditional on the production of an ID card prior to the cardholder being the subject of a Clause 6 compulsion order. I understand that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are content that that should be the position, but they wish to press it further. Subsection (3) expressly provides that Clause 15 does not enable regulations to be made, which would require an individual to carry an ID card with him at all times, or to produce an ID card, other than in the context of applying for a public service. I would like to make clear that our interpretation is consistent with that which the noble Lord assumed; namely, that the person does not have to carry the ID card with him. The subsection (3) safeguards continue to apply whether or not a person is subject to compulsory registration. The effect of Amendment No. 188 would be that regulations making the provision of a public service conditional on the production of an ID card would have to allow for other evidence of identity to be used instead. The result would be that less secure forms of identity could be used, which would impact on the scope for reducing fraudulent use of public services. Securing the efficient and effective provision of public services is one of the aims of the scheme, as I have already said. This would be undermined if individuals were able to access them by the production of a document that was less secure than the ID card. It would be clear that fraudsters and individuals not entitled to access public services would naturally be attracted to using the less secure documents as a means of attempting to ““prove”” their entitlement to use them. When individuals present themselves at, for example, a DWP office and make an application for benefits, it must be right that they prove their identity before they receive the public service. The issue of entitlement to receive benefits will rest with the Department for Work and Pensions. The ID card scheme will enable individuals to prove that they are who they say they are, as well as other registrable facts, such as nationality and residential status, which may have an impact on their entitlement to use the service they have applied for. We will, of course, ensure that individuals who have lost their ID cards or who have had them damaged or stolen will not be disadvantaged. Individuals will be able to give their national identity register number, along with a biometric, for their identity to be verified. Furthermore, in the context of the National Health Service, to which both noble Lords referred, no one requiring emergency medical care will be denied treatment. We have always made clear that emergency treatment will never be denied to any person, regardless of their circumstances. Amendments Nos. 189 and 190 extend the limitation in Clause 15(2). Amendment No. 189 would extend subsection 2(a) so that it covered not only payments received under an enactment but payments made under an enactment. Amendment No. 190 would extend subsection (2) (b) so that it covered not just public services that are free of charge but those that are subsidised. The safeguards in Clause 15(2) are intended to strike a balance between the considerable benefits that will be derived from the links between ID cards and public services and the need, prior to compulsion, to ensure that certain fundamental services, such as healthcare and social security will not be dependent on the production of an ID card. The clause strikes the right balance. Amendments Nos. 189 and 190 would in practice mean that, prior to compulsion, no meaningful link could be made between ID cards and any form of public service. For example, regulations could not require people applying for a firearms certificate to produce an ID card, as a payment is required. In his eloquent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised NHS entitlement. He used the example of a prescription, which is partly funded, as did the noble Baroness. We could also use the example of dental treatment, which is also partly funded. Although Amendment No.  190 would prevent regulations under Clause 15 making the provision of NHS dental or medical treatment conditional on the production of the ID card, I can confirm that, in advance of compulsion, we are not actively pursuing placing such a requirement on individuals. Amendment No. 191 would amend Clause 15(3)(a) to state that no regulations could be made to require an individual to carry an ID card at any time. As I said, that amendment is unnecessary, as the Bill already prevents the making of regulations requiring individuals to carry identity cards with them at all times. However, once compulsion has been introduced, there will be occasions on which individuals may be required to produce their ID cards to access a public service. The amendment would directly contradict the requirement in Clause 15(1). For that reason, we cannot accept it. Unlike the other amendments in the group, that amendment does not tighten Clause 15. Rather, it removes the second of the safeguards in subsection (3): preventing regulations from requiring the production of an ID card other than in connection with an application for a public service. That safeguard goes hand in hand with a safeguard against requirements to carry. A safeguard on carrying would be rendered meaningless if there were countless situations in which the production of an identity card was mandatory. Therefore, Clause 15(3)(b) provides that there may be no such requirements other than those that relate to public services for which the person concerned has applied. That prohibition, like the prohibition on requirements to carry the card, continues to apply even after it is compulsory to register. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that Amendment No. 191 is not necessary. If Clause 15(3)(a) read ““at any time””, it would conflict with the requirement that the card must be produced on application for a public service. I do not think that we need it. Read together, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 15(3) mean that you can be required to carry the card only to the extent that you are required to produce it. That extent is clearly set out. If read together, they make sense and give the noble Lord what he seeks. They get the balance about right.