---

Identity Cards Bill

moved Amendment No. 64E: Page 15, line 32, at end insert— ““(   )   Any consultation required under this section must include consultation with— (a)   representatives of ethnic minorities; (b)   representatives of disabled people; (c)   representatives of pensioners; (d)   representatives of students and young people; and (e)   users of the service concerned.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the end is in sight, at least today. Clause 16 sets out the procedure for making regulations under the gate-keeping system in Clause 15. The Explanatory Notes tell us that:"““Subsection (6) requires there to be consultation with interested parties, for example the providers of a public service, before any regulations are made . . . if there is an equivalent requirement in other legislation governing that service to consult these interested parties””." It therefore seems that the Government are in practice considering only a need to consult the service providers. My question is really about the users of the service and others who have an interest in its provision. Should they not also be consulted? My amendment therefore adds a requirement that consultation should encompass representatives for disabled people, ethnic minorities, pensioners and young persons. As ever, it is not meant to be an either inclusive or exclusive list that I want to see in the Bill; it is simply a stab at defining some of those who might be consulted. As soon as I read it again this evening, I realised that I had made the same mistake as on a previous Bill and had left out the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender group, for which I apologise. I am sure that it would have reminded me after this had appeared in Hansard even if I had not noticed tonight. The amendment simply asks the Government to explain what consultation there will be, how it will happen, and why it should not be extended to the users—the people whom the Government say will benefit from the service. What benefit? My goodness me. I beg to move.