Clause 3 - Information recorded in Register
Identity Cards Bill
3:30 pm
Alistair Carmichael (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
In view of the hon. Gentleman’s sedentary remark, I hereby withdraw my previous apology. I shall bear that remark in mind for the future when he next presents me with such an opportunity.
Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 deal with subjects that have frankly been done to death, and I do not think that we need to go over them any further. However, there is more to be said on amendment No. 129, and I am spurred to speak further about it by the helpful examples that the Minister gave us.
We are dealing with a number of different likely scenarios. The Minister gave the example of someone who is on witness protection and who wishes to have a new identity, whose terms must be agreed by that person and the Secretary of State. It is perfectly reasonable that such a person should want security in their identity. I do not take any exception to that, but I am not convinced that the offer of a presumption, as opposed to a conclusive presumption, would necessarily diminish the protection that such people would have.
I hope that the Minister might take the matter away and discuss it further with his officials. There are other people whom the provision would cover who come closer to the situation that he outlined, such as Travellers, whose date and place of birth might not be easily known or ascertainable. They would be covered, and caught in an unhelpful manner. He says that the important rider is the words
“for the purposes of this Act”,
but we must remind ourselves that one of the purposes of the Act, as set out in clause 1(4)(e), is
“securing the efficient and effective provision of public services.”
Presumably—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—when the register is up and running and cards are issued under it, one will have to produce one’s identity card to obtain one’s state pension. I presume that that is the sort of service that would be included in the provision.
The expression “for the purposes of this Act” is relevant. If a subject’s date of birth is not clear, it might be agreed by that person and the Secretary of State, but subsequently transpire to be wrong. That person might, “for the purposes of this Act”, be entitled to use their card to obtain their state pension, but because we have a conclusive presumption, rather than a rebuttable one, that the date of birth is correct, they would not receive the entitlement that they would otherwise have received.
The provisions stray into an area in which rebuttable rather than conclusive presumptions are normally used. The Government should look at that, and perhaps the Minister can assist us.