---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about the breadth and depth of consultation and the need to be inclusive. I am sure that no one who knows her assiduousness would possibly think that she had forgotten the gay, lesbian or transgender group for very long. The provision is expressed as it is in Clause 16(6) for a straightforward reason—that there is no need to specify in the Bill the different groups of people that will need to be consulted. There is no doubt that we would wish to include representatives from all these groups, as well as others not mentioned, if the regulations tabled under Clause 15 would affect them. There is an obligation in Clause 16(4) to consult members of the public likely to be affected. We have put Clause 16(6) in this way because there may be occasions when regulations relate to a specified group. For example, if we were to say that special provisions were to apply to people aged 25 and under, we would not need to consult those of 65. If we were to say that other provisions related to people over 75 or 95, one could see that we would need to consult that specific group but might be able to exclude others. That is the only reason why the provision is there. We want proper consultation with the members of the public likely to be affected, pursuant to Clause 16(4). I know that the noble Baroness is anxious for us never to waste time and to be absolutely practical, so I am sure that the reasons why the amendment is not necessary will be only too plain to her.