---

Identity Cards Bill

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that the key to this part of the Bill, which is at its heart, is that if not included within Clause 1(5), which defines ““registrable fact””, there is nothing in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 that can go into the register. In other words, Schedule 1 and Clause 3, are delimited by Clause 1(5). Is that correct? The noble Baroness nodded and I thank her. I want to point out that if that is so, it seems to me that Schedule 1 is already in breach of that principle. That is partly why I, among others no doubt, have been misled by this. For example, Clause 1(5) (b) says:"““where he resides in the United Kingdom””." Schedule 1, sub-paragraphs (f) and (g) say:"““(f) the address of his principal place of residence in the United Kingdom;""(g) the address of every other place in the United Kingdom where he has a place of residence””." That actually gives more information than is permitted by Clause 1(5)(b), because although I concede that,"““where he resides in the United Kingdom””," could include multiple places, it does not require him to specify which among his residences is his principal place of residence. I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, that by having two long lists we have a real danger here. I suggest that there is one inconsistency.