Lord Crickhowell: I had an opportunity of reading the letter that was circulated to us, which specifically says that the costs of the centres have been included.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1030
 
Therefore, the Government must know how many centres they intend to have. Will it be 70, or has it been costed on some other basis?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are developing our cost models in this process as we work through it, which is why I made the reference to the Passport Service's experience when it introduces the additional centres next year for the process of interviewing applicants for passports in line with EU commitments, and so on.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that some of the enrolment centres could process as many as 750,000 people. I am not prepared to commit myself to that figure, but the point is that there will be volumes, so we must have a process that is well organised and well managed. Enrolment will be terribly important in getting this right—and when the scheme is in place, I am sure that we shall all want to see it working well and efficiently. A number of references have been made to that on numerous occasions.

With regard to notification of changes, I reassure noble Lords that there is no intention that every single change will require attendance at a centre—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was at pains to try to draw out of us. It is planned that the most common changes, such as change of address can be done via post, telephone or Internet using secure technologies. Amendments Nos. 106, 153 and 170 would allow an individual to attend a centre at a time of "his own convenience" for enrolments or notification of changes. As I have said, it is intended that making an appointment at an enrolment centre will be as convenient as possible. Individuals will be able to provide preferences for appointment times and their preferred enrolment centre. They can be made over the phone, Internet or by post. It is also envisaged that appointments should be available outside of normal office hours, maximising the flexibility—perhaps during lunchtime or on Saturday morning, for example.

We are advised that a "drop-in" centre approach, which these amendments might facilitate, is something best avoided. Experience from public service provision now shows that people actually prefer an appointment system, so they can plan—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but can I put him right? He talked of the amendments requiring something in the nature of a drop-in centre. My amendment would make for a "reasonable" requirement; it does not suggest a drop-in centre system at all; it simply suggests a system that has regard to the very factors that the Minister said will be taken into account. All we are trying to do is to put what he said was going to happen in the Bill, in the form of a very modest amendment. But there is a limited willingness on the part of this Chamber in relation to this Bill to accept the benignity of the bureaucracy without reference in the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate that in the noble Lord's mind there may not be much difference
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1031
 
between us. However, we need to have certainty—and my argument here rests on the point that we must legislate for certainty. That is part of the reason why the Bill is phrased as it is. With the flexibility that these amendments would provide, in the way that the noble Lord and others have described it, we would end up with something like a drop-in centre approach, which really would not work.

Lord Crickhowell: I believe that—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am reluctant to give way. I have made the point before, but it is an important one. If we had an enrolment process that was unmanageable because it was excessively flexible in the sense that the noble Lord seeks, we would end up with a drop-in centre approach. That would be unmanageable and wrong; it would be inefficient and would work unfairly to those who were part of the process.

Lord Crickhowell: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Of course, I agree that there must be places for this thing to happen—I have never challenged that. But there is an enormous gap between myself and the Minister, if that is the limit of his explanation. He said that we had to lay down a time, but the Bill says "a specified time", a time to be specified by the Government. The amendments are asking for something that is reasonable, practical and convenient. If my noble friend presses his amendment, as I hope he will, I shall certainly want to come back on Report with my broader amendment, when we may have got more information out of the Government. But I have no doubt at all that we should press this matter on the basis of what we have heard so far.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Experience in public service provision shows that people prefer an appointment system so that they can plan their time around a specific time as opposed to having to wait for an unspecified period in a waiting room. I do not know about the noble Lord, but when I go to my doctor's surgery I now expect to have a specified appointment time. I actually ring up and ask for one, and our surgery is extremely effective in providing me with one. What I do not like is to turn up and wait for an hour in a long queue. I prefer to be told when I can have my appointment and when I can see a particular doctor.

Lord Crickhowell: That is exactly the point. I ring up my surgery and say, "I am very unwell—can you see me this afternoon between, say, two o'clock, when I am getting back from wherever I have been, and six o'clock?" They say, "We can manage five o'clock", and we agree on a time. They do not ring up and say, "We can see you at six o'clock this afternoon, whether it is convenient for you or not". If they say that at the Minister's surgery, I hope that he changes his surgery pretty quickly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have no intention of doing that. They provide the service exactly as the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1032
 
noble Lord describes, which is exactly what we are seeking to achieve here. We want to ensure that a system as importantly complex as this one works well; we do not want to have unpredictable workflows that threaten the integrity of security procedures and lead to an inefficient use of staff and resources. I am sure that noble Lords would not want to support such a system, as it would not be in the best interests of public service.

Amendments Nos. 107, 154, 155 and 170A state that requirements to attend at a specific time and place should be reasonable and practical. In setting requirements for the centre network, great care has been taken to ensure that the requirements placed on the individual are reasonable. In planning the new UK Passport Service network of enrolment facilities, which will form the basis of ID card facilities, there has been significant research and consultation, particularly with local authorities, to identify potential locations for centres.

When the ID card scheme is launched, it is planned that no person should have to travel any further than an hour from their home. Indeed, the majority of people should have a centre much nearer to their place of work or their home. This approach is in line with existing policy for similar requirements; for example, appointments for the Department for Work and Pensions. Additionally, for remote communities and those with mobility problems, mobile enrolment solutions as well as home visits are being considered. They are part of the package.

7 pm

I turn to Amendment No. 160, which attempts to introduce a super affirmative procedure that will require a report on enrolment facilities before an individual would have to attend to be issued with an ID card. We believe that this is an unnecessary amendment. The super affirmative procedure will already have been used before the move to compulsion under Clause 6. The report submitted under Clause 6 will have to outline the proposals for compulsory registration, which will require approval by both Houses. This move will not come without further public consultation and will follow a period when individuals will have already registered and been issued with ID cards when applying for designated documents.

The issue of suitable facilities which will affect the Secretary of State's ability to deliver the scheme effectively will have been covered in the report before compulsion, and Parliament would have had the opportunity to raise any concerns at that stage. We feel that that makes this amendment irrelevant.

The final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 168, states that a person should notify the Secretary of State of a change in their record within a "reasonable" time rather than within a prescribed period. It would obviously be our preference that a prescribed period is set out. This provides greater clarity about the requirements placed on the individual and acts as a deterrent to those who would not update
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1033
 
their record without good reason. It is currently envisaged that individuals will be asked to update their details within three months of any changes. Of course, allowances would be made for those with quite legitimate reasons—illness being one—and difficulties of accessing an enrolment centre. As we mentioned previously, it is intended that the most common changes such as change of address or change of name after marriage can be made quickly, easily and without a need to make an appointment at a centre. We do not consider that an unreasonable approach.