---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 55A:"Page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—" ““(b)   verifying information required for the re-issue of a card after it has been cancelled in accordance with section 13(2)(a) to (d)”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55A, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 56A and 59E. Clause 9 provides for the renewal of cards for those individuals who are required by Clause 6 to be entered into the register. The Bill now has no Clause 6 but the Government may not be persuaded that we are right: they may seek to reinsert the clause. Therefore, in the remote possibility that Clause 6 appears again, this amendment asks questions about the interaction. The Explanatory Notes tell us that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State the power to require an individual applying for an ID card under this clause to do certain things so that the Secretary of State can verify the information provided and ensure that the register is up-to-date and accurate. Will the Minister explain why subsection (3)(b) is necessary? What is lost which will be of value to the holder of the card if the paragraph were removed from the Bill? Surely paragraph (a) verification should be sufficient to ensure that the information entered is correct and up-to-date. If something is out of date, one should say so. Is not that the act of verification? Subsection (3)(b) may be not only otiose but could confer an undesirably wide power on the Secretary of State. My amendment therefore limits the power in paragraph (b) to one of requiring an individual to verify information held in circumstances where the card has been cancelled or recalled in accordance with the provisions set out in Clause 13(2)(a) to (d). Those provisions cover four sets of circumstances: that the card was issued on the basis of incorrect information; the card has been lost, damaged or destroyed; the information held on the register has changed, or there has been a change of circumstance which means that the information has to be modified. Amendment No. 56A probes what information it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to require an individual to provide in order to verify the register. Can the noble Baroness indicate what limitation should be put on the range of information that may be required? Amendment No. 59E refers to Clause 12, which sets out how changes in circumstances should be notified to the Secretary of State in order to maintain the accuracy of the register. The Secretary of State is given the wide power of being able to require an individual to do whatever he ““thinks fit”” for the purposes of verifying information and making sure that the entry is up to date. My amendment would restrict the power of the Secretary of State. He would be able to require the person to give information only if he thinks what he is requiring from that person is essential for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b). What of value would be lost by this sensible restriction which protects the individual from too wide a power of the Secretary of State? I beg to move.