Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 115:

Page 5, line 24, at end insert—

"(5A) Any individual who is required to attend at a specified place in accordance with this section may apply to the Secretary of State for reimbursement of his travel expenses, other associated expenses and any loss of earnings resulting from the requirement to attend at a specified place and time, and the Secretary of State, before implementing this section, or laying an order under section 6(1), must lay proposals for a scheme to meet such expenses before Parliament.
(5B) In devising a scheme under subsection (5A) the Secretary of State must have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled individuals required to attend the specified place."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 115, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120, which are probing
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1053
 
amendments. I tabled them in response to briefings that I received from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. My intention, when I have heard the Minister's response, is to refer back to the RNIB to determine whether it feels that any further assurances or answers from the Government could be elicited either on Report or at meetings with the RNIB between now and Report stage. It may be that we can obviate any further amendments on the subject.

The Liberal Democrat Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174 are grouped with my amendments and cover the broad argument about the kind of assistance that should be given to those who are required to attend enrolment centres. Amendment No. 115 would impose a duty on the Government to ensure that the travel and associated expenses of attending at an enrolment centre should be borne by the Exchequer. The Government would be required to set out the likely costs to Parliament before they are able to implement Clause 5. We will of course look more closely at costs when we get to my noble friend Lady Noakes' amendment. This looks at a specific aspect of costing.

The second part of Amendment No. 115 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled people who will be required to attend at an enrolment centre. I recognise that the Minister's answer to Amendment No. 105 and its group addressed much of that in giving assurances. I will look at Hansard to see whether they will satisfy the RNIB. I realise that the Minister was not seeking to answer this amendment, but he adduced that the Government were trying to do the right thing and said that assistance would be given to different groups. So we need to look at the specifics.

Amendment No. 119 requires the Secretary of State to consider the impact that the scheme will have on vulnerable or disabled persons when he designs it. Amendment No. 120 would impose a requirement that when the Secreatary of State informs those who have sight limitations that they must attend an enrolment centre, he must ensure that his order to them to attend is in a form that they can understand.

It would be right to put on the record the justification which the RNIB puts forward for these amendments, not only to assist the Government in responding but also to assist other Members of the Committee. The institute points out that there are nearly 10 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. Under Clause 6 the Secretary of State may by order require individuals to attend a registration centre and be entered into the register. This will include disabled people. However, many older and disabled people will not be able to make journeys independently to the registration centres. The RNIB believes that the order needs to set out what assistance would be made available to those unable to make their own way to an enrolment centre either in the form of transport for people with limited mobility or assistance with the costs of arranging transport. The institute makes a strong point.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1054
 

On 20 January of this year, when the previous identity cards Bill was being considered in Committee in another place, the then Minister, Mr Des Browne, said:

"On the question of registering people through home visits, we are conscious that such enrolment must be convenient. We are making provision to register people who live in remote areas or are unfit to travel. However, it would not be appropriate to write a duty to provide such visits into the Bill"—

shades of the Minister's answer this evening—

"as they are one of a range of options that we are considering. Registering through home visits raises security issues that would need to be overcome".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 20/1/05; col. 175.]

I agree with that. It is an issue that the Government will be required to address, and I know that they are aware of that. The RNIB would welcome from the Government a full update on the assistance they intend to offer to disabled and older people with transport and the costs of transport, or whether they will opt instead for a widespread home registration or mobile enrolment programme, making assistance unnecessary.

The justification for Amendment No. 120 is much clearer: it is important that people are readily able to understand the order sent to them to attend at an enrolment centre. Even if the Government offer a variety of dates and times, the format used to make the person aware that they need to attend has to be clear because, as we have said, a civil penalty is hiding in the wings if someone intentionally tries to get round the system. Here we have a whole body of people who may have sight limitations or dyslexia. They would have absolutely no intention of thwarting the will of the Government, but may not readily be able to take on board the directions they are given. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have tabled three amendments in the same group, Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has spoken to the group so comprehensively and effectively that the only slip she made at the end of her remarks was to anticipate my amendments on intentionality. At the moment you do not need to have any intention of failing to appear. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness are rather more detailed and I do not know that they apply to home visits, or rather that they do not specifically require the provision of home visits, whereas mine do. I shall say no more because the points have been made and we hope that there will be some movement on the part of the Government, particularly at this hour.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes one error. He should not assume that as the hour grows late, we become more compliant. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have explained their amendments accurately and to the point and I understand their import. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have stressed that for certain individuals with particular needs and problems, there should be an entitlement to apply for the reimbursement of travel costs. The amendments would also require the Secretary of State, before laying
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1055
 
the order for compulsion, to put proposals before Parliament explaining how such expenses would be met. That is sensible in terms of the flow of the amendments. They would also require the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the needs of vulnerable and disabled individuals before requiring them to attend at the specified place. As the noble Baroness said, we dealt with some of this material in Amendment No. 105 and the subsequent iterative process that came from it.

Amendments Nos. 117, 159 and 174 require that regulations laid under Clauses 5, 9 and 12 shall make provision for financial assistance with the cost of attending at a specified time and place. This financial provision would have to be provided for in regulations whenever an individual was required to attend at a particular time and place for the purposes of being entered onto the register or making a change to his entry, or if he was subject to compulsory registration.

When I say this in its baldness it may seem somewhat insensitive—it is not intended that way—but it is our view that to reimburse travel expenses and loss of earnings would be unprecedented and inappropriate for a process of this nature. The Passport Service does not reimburse travel or loss of earning expenses, and nor does the DVLA when individuals travel to take a theory or practical driving test. Individuals cannot claim such expenses when they travel to register a birth or a death, as of course people are obliged to do. Some of those journeys can be quite difficult and arduous, but we accept that when registering births, deaths and so on. There are other instances of a similar nature.

I made plain earlier that we will ensure that the enrolment centres are easily accessible and within a reasonable travelling distance. We have plans to introduce home visits for certain categories of people, as well as mobile enrolment centres to serve those people living in rural and remote areas and those who are simply unable to travel—for example, those in nursing homes or long-term residential care. We would not seek to move a whole population to an enrolment centre; we will bring the enrolment centre to them so that their needs can be matched.

We will also ensure that the needs of vulnerable and disabled people are taken into account. All of the facilities will need to comply with the relevant legislation, notably with the Disability Discrimination Act which has fairly onerous conditions in regard to access—and rightly so; we are proud of it—and applicants will be able to outline their special requirements when they book their enrolment appointment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, put her finger on the issue when she said it will be a very important part of the Government's obligations to explain this process and to make these particular and special facilities available from the point of enrolment. That will clearly be a challenge for the service but, given the success in recent years of the Passport Service, it is not beyond us; it can be achieved. We have the benefit of
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1056
 
very flexible technology—for example, the Internet, websites and so on—and we can make this work practically, which is what we need to do.

Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 would have the effect that the Secretary of State would have to have regard to its impact on vulnerable and disabled people before the compulsion order was laid. In particular, Amendment No. 120 would require the communication of the compulsion order to be sent in a format that is understandable to those who are unable to read a printed letter. We obviously will need to address those issues. This matter cannot be properly addressed on the face of the legislation. We will have to deal with it with advice and guidance. Clearly it is in our interests to ensure that those who cannot easily read a printed letter should have a facility which will enable them to access the information.

As to the amendment relating to the provision of financial assistance, clearly we have very much in mind making provision for vulnerable and disabled people. As regards Amendment No. 120, I can reassure noble Lords that our considerations towards people will stretch much wider than written material. We are in the process of consulting with representative bodies; the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the RNIB. We have had help from the RNIB and constructive meetings as recently as 2 December. We will need to continue that dialogue to ensure that we get it right.

I hope that with the assurance that there will be further discussions and that we will give very careful consideration to these issues, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

9 pm