Clause 13 - Invalidity and surrender of ID cards
Identity Cards Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)
There we are. That is a most interesting story. I imagine that the constituent probably had to buy back the trousers.
When I first read the clause, I thought that the words ''damaged'' or ''tampered with'' were slightly different concepts for people to understand. Clause 13(1) obliges us to report to the Secretary of State if our
''card has been—
(a) lost;
(b) stolen;
(c) damaged;
(d) tampered with; or
(e) destroyed.''
I might get slightly fraught with worry if I could not find my identity card on a Friday evening. I might ask myself whether I should notify the Home Secretary the following morning, or wait until Wednesday on the off-chance that it turns up—in the dry cleaning, for instance.
Amendment No. 45 is intended to draw from the Minister an explanation of why I have
''to notify the Secretary of State, and such other persons as may be prescribed''.
I have searched the explanatory notes for guidance on who those other persons are. Perhaps it is stated somewhere in the Bill. I am concerned at the prospect of having to notify not only the Secretary of State of the problem of my card being mislaid or lost, but a lot of other people. I do not know who those people are, and I am hoping that the Minister will tell us. That is the purpose of this probing amendment.
Amendment No. 46 addresses this reference in subsection (6):
''A person who contravenes a requirement''.
I want to insert the word ''unreasonably''. I believe that the Home Affairs Committee thought that a reasonableness defence should be included in the Bill. If that is the case, there may be an argument for including it.
There is a further brief matter that I want to address, but I would prefer it to be discussed in the clause stand part debate.