Clause 6 - Power of Secretary of State to require registration
Identity Cards Bill
3:45 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)
There come moments during the passage of any Committee when the Opposition feel a surge of optimism. That moment has arrived. I have a feeling that the Government will rather like this amendment, which has been so well proposed by my hon. Friend.
We know—and my hon. Friend said—that the clause provides a power to require an individual to apply to register. The registration could be compulsory whether or not a person applies for a designated document. Under the clause, as he said, if a person contravenes, they will be subject to a penalty.
As the Minister knows, in the criminal law in this country, some offences involve what is called ''strict liability''. Such examples include crossing a red traffic light, and speeding; one has either done or not done such a thing. There are many offences for which there is some form of defence. The clause does not currently lay down any form of defence.
I will pose one or two queries that I have about certain little details of the clause. Clause 6(1) states:
''The Secretary of State may by order impose an obligation on individuals''.
It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the individuals will receive notification of an obligation that has just been imposed upon them. That is closely linked to whether or not a reasonable excuse is involved.
I imagine the Minister will make an announcement in Parliament in relation to a group of individuals imposing some form of obligation requiring registration under the clause. That would possibly be reported in the press, but there are those who neither take newspapers nor listen to the media. Therefore, the question of how he is able to notify a series of individuals of a particular group about the obligation that has been imposed upon them is an important one.
This is a narrow point but, at some stage, the Minister might impose an obligation on individuals of a description that might cover those aged 16 and 17. It would be helpful to know how he will communicate with such persons. Will he communicate to the individual concerned—the person aged 16 or 17—or to the parent or guardian of that person? Where will the penalties bite in relation to 16-year-olds if there is a failure?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made the realistic observation that someone who is terminally ill might, indeed, have a reasonable excuse not to fulfil the order that has been imposed on them. There are classes of people who may well have a reasonable excuse. I remind the Committee that the obligation is to make an application and the applicant is told of the time when the requirement arises and the period after that time when the application must be made. In his response, can the Minister help us on the nature of timings?
For example, I assume that when an announcement is made, it will be that as from a certain date some time ahead—one assumes that it is going to be months rather than days or weeks—there will be an obligation on a class of people. Can the Minister help us on timings, and also on the second question arising from that, which is how long after the requirement comes into effect is it likely that the person will have to comply with the obligation imposed on him or her? Apart from the categories mentioned by my hon. Friend, there are others who may not, through no real fault of their own, comply with the obligation imposed on them. I have mentioned 16-year-olds and the ill, but there are others who can neither read nor write and those who are aged and confused.
The Minister and his Department will clearly take a proper and sympathetic attitude towards such people. It is impossible to consider that he would start to fine a series of people who were, for example, too confused to register, as they have to do. I cannot consider that he would enforce a penalty for a failure to register against somebody who was abroad for a period. We do not have to go through today all the classes of people who might have, in our language, a reasonable excuse for not complying with the obligation—there are other amendments concerning the levels of moneys payable—but the Minister would be wise to accept our amendment. It would make it clear that the clause refers to contravening the obligation without reasonable excuse rather than simply contravening it. That would give the Minister and others some form of discretion and does not make it a strict liability offence. Many would be unfairly punished if it were such an offence.