---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I hope that I will be able to provide the clarification sought by the noble Baroness. I understand the frustration felt by my noble friend Lord Gould on these matters, and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that, having made the speeches he has made in relation to this Bill, it is a brave man indeed who would make criticisms on the nature of Second Reading speeches. Perhaps I should say no more on the subject. The words inserted by the amendment are not needed for the effective operation or security of the scheme. I know that the amendments are probing in nature and have been tabled in order to ensure that we amplify why we think Clause 9(3)(b) is important. If a card is cancelled under Clause 13(2)(a) to (d), the holder will no longer have a valid card. If he is subject to compulsory registration, he will be obliged by Clause 9(2) to apply for another. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 9 will already apply to him, as they do to those who are applying for the first time or because their cards have expired, and there is no reason to make separate provision for those whose cards have been cancelled. Under the present Clause 9(3)(b), the Secretary of State would be able to request, if it should be necessary, that a person whose card had been cancelled should attend, provide information and so on in a way that was proper. That would not be necessary if, for example, which we do not anticipate, there happened to be a simple technical fault with a batch of cards that required their reissue. He would be under no obligation to do so, and would not do so. It would be in no-one’s interest to inconvenience people and burden the registration centres unnecessarily. I imagine that is why the noble Baroness has omitted Clause 13(2)(e) from her amendment. I see her nodding. This amendment, however, would have other effects that I am confident the noble Baroness would not wish. The words in Clause 9(3)(b) are the same as those in Clauses 5(4)(b) and 12(3)(b). If the present provision in Clause 9(3)(b) were removed, we could only verify information provided in an initial application or application for renewal. If a person omitted to include certain pieces of information, the Secretary of State would be unable to require that he provide that information as he would otherwise do under paragraph (d) or Clause 9(4). We would also be unable, for example, to take an up-to-date photograph of the applicant, even if the one on the register was many years old, as photographs would be taken by the agency, not provided by the applicant. It is vital that the register is kept up to date and accurate, although there are some who would far prefer their photograph aged 21 than at any subsequent time. Many of the amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite have been designed to ensure that it is, and I know that is a matter of importance to the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 56A seeks to ensure that individuals would only have to provide such information as may be reasonably required by the Secretary of State. The power to require information in Clause 9(4)(d) is already restricted by subsection (3) to requiring information for the purposes of verifying information provided by the person concerned or necessary to confirm his register entry. In any case, however, it is not necessary to provide that the Secretary of State must act reasonably. He is under a public duty to do so, and will be subject to judicial review if he does not. Prescribing that he must act reasonably would imply that all the Secretary of State’s other powers could be exercised unreasonably. I am sure that is not what the noble Baroness would like. The Secretary of State is bound to act reasonably in ensuring that a person has a complete, up-to-date and accurate entry. We believe he must have the power to do so. Amendment No. 59E provides that the Secretary of State may only require an individual to attend an interview or provide information if he considers it essential, rather than thinks fit. The power in Clause 12(3) only arises where the holder of an ID card has notified the Secretary of State that there has been a relevant change of circumstances or that there is an error on the register. On receiving that notification, the Secretary of State can require the person concerned to attend for interview, provide biometrics, be photographed or provide other information, but these powers can only be used for the purposes of verifying information relating to changes or otherwise ensuring there is a complete, up-to-date entry. In many cases, no further information will be required. For example, if someone were to notify of a change of name on marriage and send their marriage certificate, there would obviously be no need to require an interview or biometrics before amending the register. After that full and comprehensive response, I hope the noble Baroness will feel that her diverse amendments are unnecessary, and will be content, not only to withdraw them, but also to ensure that we never have the pleasure of seeing them again.